University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Care and social-emotional well-being: organizational conditions in policy and practice

(USC Thesis Other)

Care and social-emotional well-being: organizational conditions in policy and practice

PDF

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content

Care and Social-Emotional Well-Being:

Organizational Conditions in Policy and Practice

by

Kate Elizabeth Kennedy

A Dissertation Presented to the
FACULTY OF THE USC GRADUATE SCHOOL
UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
In Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirements for the Degree
DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY
(URBAN EDUCATION POLICY)

December 2022

Copyright 2022 Kate Elizabeth Kennedy

ii

Dedication

For Matt, who makes everything possible and lovingly doubled down on his commitment to our
family.
For my children—Nate, Owen, and Caroline—thank you for reminding me what work-life
balance means by filling our lives with love and light.
For my parents, Jim and Pat Kennedy, for instilling a love of learning and the willingness to take
risks.

iii

Acknowledgements
I want to acknowledge those who helped make this dissertation project a reality. For the
work of the mind, there is no better mentor than Julie Marsh. From our first weeks together at
USC until the last page of this dissertation was polished, Julie has been a brilliant mentor and
supportive advisor. Other faculty members at USC have filled my toolbox with ideas and
inspiration, and I give thanks to Julie Posselt for pushing me to think about robust qualitative
research; to Tricia Burch for unparalleled thoughtfulness and mentorship; and to Christine
Beckman for her guidance on institutional theory. I am grateful to the amazing scholar
Brandesha Tynes, who saw my whole self and urged me to think seriously about love and care as
a research topic. Thanks to Morgan Polikoff and his steady support throughout my doctoral
career, and to Laura Mullfinger, always available with a smile on the 9
th
floor of WPH (and then
on Zoom!). Laura Romero, our program director at Rossier, has been a beacon of light and
support. Alex Hazard has also been a source of encouragement in our PhD office—thank you,
Alex. USC tech guru Ricardo Chavez mailed my computer across the country twice to save my
dissertation data; thank you!
An unanticipated joy of the doctoral journey has been getting to know other scholars at
USC and other institutions. I want to express gratitude to these folks for co-authoring with me,
pushing my thinking, meeting for PhD shop talk, reading drafts of early work, fun hangs, walks,
and even for showing up at my conference presentations once in a while. In no particular order, I
thank Shira Haderlein, Alana Kennedy, Neha Miglani, Mabel Sanchez, Tasminda Dhaliwal,
Taylor Allbright, Paul Bruno, David Woo, Vicki Park, Alix Gallagher, Meghan Comstock, Kemi
Oyewole, Angel Xiao Bohannon, Rachel Perera, Rachel White, Desiree O’Neal, David Menefee-

iv
Libey, Katy Bulkley, Andy Eisenlohr, Emily Germain, and Bradley Marianno. Jeff Walls has
been a wonderful collaborator over the years. To you all: thank you for picking up the phone,
making our projects excellent, returning that email so quickly, writing letters, or just listening
with an open heart. The world of education policy is certainly brighter with you all in it.
I have benefited from the professional networks and support of several institutions. First,
UCEA has been a nurturing home as I developed as a scholar; thanks to the GSS organizers and
to peer reviewers for helpful feedback on proposals. I found mentors and thoughtful guidance
through the Researcher Development Program and Clark Seminar; thanks especially to Sheneka
Williams, Rosa Rivera-McCutchen, and Jennie Weiner for your mentorship. I count myself
lucky for finding such welcoming intellectual homes to guide my journey from teacher to
education scholar. I send more gratitude for the mentorship and support from the following
organizations: AERA SEL SIG, Districts in Research & Reform SIG, EEPS, Politics of
Education Association, AERA-Divisions A and L, Leadership for Social Justice SIG, PDK
Educational Foundation, Organizational Theory SIG, Leadership for School Improvement SIG,
Educational Change SIG, Policy Analysis for California Education, REACH Center, and the
USC Rossier PhD program.
I want to thank my mentor Jim Mahoney for his help during the research process. His
enthusiasm and willingness to engage made such a difference. Darline Robles is a wonderful
leader at USC and her interest in and support of my work in its early stages, as well as assistance
with research recruitment, is appreciated. To my mentors who helped me before and en route to
graduate school, and whose care for kids and teachers stuck with me as I researched this
dissertation, I thank you for your support, encouragement, and leadership: Mary Peters, Mike
Thomas, Trent Bowers, Robert Monson, and Diane Stultz. To my research participants who

v
remain unnamed, both in La Subida and across the country, I thank you for sharing your stories,
lessons, and vulnerability with me.
During my time as a PhD student, I gave birth to a daughter and lost a mother. These two
events—joyous and devastating—will always mark this time. During the darkest days or after
sleepless nights, these fine folks showed up with food, a text, or just the right words: Jacob
Alonso, Taylor Enoch-Stevens, James Bridgeforth, Edward Hui, Laura Zelch, Janine Zielinski,
Angie Huefner, Jennifer Hobbs, Kelly Liddil, Lauren Phillips, Andrea Phillips, Kathy Bayer,
Amy Kargiotis, Jaime Bruce, Annette Wehner, Maureen Perez, Mike Kennedy, Antoinette
Torello, Tim Kennedy, Kaitlyn Kennedy, Erica Srinivasan, Stephanie Peterson, and DeeDee and
Bree Arnall-Hazard. I love you all and remain thankful for your support and care. I am fortunate
to have lifelong friends whose presence and joyfulness kept my spirit alive these six past years,
bringing connection when it was most needed. For their enduring kindness, I want to thank
Mollie Pence, Molly Farrell, Joanne Forster-Coffin, Lisa Bhungalia, Julie Carey, and Karin
Engel. Jess and Andrew Patton provided literal and figurative shelter for writing and reflection—
thanks to you both.
Finally, a note on being a mother, partner, and a dissertating doctoral student (at the same
time). Our country has failed mothers, which became clearer during the COVID-19 pandemic.
People asked me, How do you do it? The answer is: I don’t know. And it’s been hard. But
somehow, I’ve done it, and I’d like to reflect on the generosity of those who helped shore up our
caretaking village. First, my mother, Pat Kennedy, flew in for the birth of my daughter, took care
of my older children, and made me promise her that having a third baby while a doctoral student
would not keep me from graduating. This one is for you, mom. To my lovely mother-in-law,
Debby Cooper: you have showed up for us in so many ways. You came to LA and folded tiny

vi
onesies, dropped off baked goods, and welcomed Caroline for regular grandma days with
flexibility, patience, and love. Thank you for everything.
I have had tremendous institutional support at USC, which was a privilege (but should be
a right for all graduate students). I was able to take a full semester of paid maternity leave during
my doctoral studies to heal and bond with my newborn. Our graduate student insurance coverage
was phenomenal, and I had a beautiful birth at USC’s Verdugo Hills hospital. Additionally, I am
grateful to the USC Graduate School Government for providing a much-needed childcare
subsidy for graduate student parents. This support was invaluable in helping me cobble together
caretaking during the final stretch of this project. Julie Marsh cared for me through big life
changes with understanding, patience, and grace. She reminded me, at every turn, that family
comes first. My partner, Matt, left his job—twice—to help take care of our family and then to
usher our kids through virtual learning while I interviewed research participants on Zoom for this
project; he is the embodiment of care.

vii

Table of Contents

Dedication ....................................................................................................................................... ii
Acknowledgements ....................................................................................................................... iii
List of Tables ............................................................................................................................... viii
List of Figures ................................................................................................................................. ix
Abstract ............................................................................................................................................ x
Chapter 1: Introduction .................................................................................................................... 1
Chapter 2: Review of Literature: Love and Care in Education: A Critical Qualitative Research
Synthesis ........................................................................................................................................ 15
Chapter 3: Ensuring the Social-Emotional Well-Being of Students and Staff: Toward a Theory of
School District Care ...................................................................................................................... 54
Chapter 4: “You Are One of Us, and We Are One of You:” The “Work” of Mobilizing,
Advocating, and Organizing for Care in The School District Central Office ............................... 98
Chapter 5: The Subject Is Care; The Verb Is Institutionalizing: A Field-Level Analysis and
Implications for Equity ................................................................................................................ 140
Chapter 6: Conclusions ................................................................................................................ 175
References ................................................................................................................................... 185
Appendices .................................................................................................................................. 205
Appendix A: Educational Leader Standards ........................................................................... 205
Appendix B: Care and Love Literature Reviewed .................................................................. 206
Appendix C: Interview Guide for Central Office Leader Interviews ...................................... 222
Appendix D: Interview Protocol ............................................................................................. 224
Appendix E: Analytical Summary ........................................................................................... 225
Appendix F: Analytical Memo: Grounded Comparative Method ........................................... 231
Appendix G: Semi-Structured Interview Protocol .................................................................. 233
Appendix H: Coding Schema .................................................................................................. 235
Appendix I: Case Study Participant Demographics ................................................................ 237
Appendix J: Participant Informed Consent Handout ............................................................... 238
Appendix K: Analytical Memo on Caring Practices, Strategies, and Supports ...................... 239
Appendix L: Description of Care Supports ............................................................................. 244
Appendix M: My Intellectual Contribution to This Study ...................................................... 246

viii

List of Tables

Table 1. Comparison of Research Synthesis Method (Cooper, 2010) and Critical Qualitative
Research Synthesis Steps Undertaken for This Study ................................................................... 24
Table 2. Caring Terminology and Definitions Found in the Literature, Organized
Chronologically ............................................................................................................................. 37
Table 3. Roles of Research Participants ........................................................................................ 61
Table 4. List of Research Participants ........................................................................................... 61
Table 5. Gender of Research Participants ..................................................................................... 63
Table 6. Gender of Research Participants by Role Type ............................................................... 63
Table 7. District Locations of Research Participants, by U.S. Geographic Region ...................... 63
Table 8. Participant District by Type ............................................................................................ 64
Table 9. Defining District-Level Care ........................................................................................... 87
Table 10. Case Study Research Participant Demographic Information ...................................... 109
Table 11. Sensitizing Concepts from New Institutional Theory ................................................. 148
Table 12. Empirical Focus, Contributions, and Connections ...................................................... 177
Table 13. Overview of Multi-Method Design ............................................................................. 246

ix

List of Figures
Figure 1. Elementary School Principals’ Professional Development Needs .................................. 3
Figure 2. U.S. K-12 Parents’ Concern About Their Child’s Safety at School ................................ 4
Figure 3. U.S. K-12 Parents Saying Their Child Has Expressed School Safety Concerns ............. 5
Figure 4. Teacher Survey Question on Long-Term Student Mental Health Issues ......................... 5
Figure 5. Teacher Survey Question on Sufficiency of Social-Emotional and Health Resources ... 6
Figure 6. Research Synthesis Flowchart for Systematic Literature Review ................................. 29
Figure 7. Unit of Analysis in Research Synthesis ......................................................................... 36
Figure 8. Five Components of District Care ................................................................................. 86
Figure 9. Field-Level Patterns in Care and Social-Emotional Supports ..................................... 165

x

Abstract

Care and social-emotional supports are critical issues in education. After years of social isolation
and loss related to the COVID-19 pandemic, as well as anxiety due to social unrest, conservative
backlash, and climate change, school districts are increasingly taking up the work of providing
social-emotional well-being, mental health, and caring supports. Yet how school districts
organize around issues of care—and to what extent district leaders think about caring
leadership—are under-examined and under-theorized in education leadership and policy studies.
This dissertation study seeks to fill these gaps through four empirical papers. I open with a
systematic literature review on care and love in K12 education, presented in chapter 2. Then, in
chapter 3, I draw on qualitative data using a grounded theory approach, resulting in a novel
definition of district-level care. In a move toward theorizing organizational care, I advance a
series of theoretical propositions. The next paper presents the findings of an instrumental case
study conducted in a purposively chosen caring school district. I find that district-level care was
multidimensional and distributed, enacted through a collective vision of care that was rooted in a
love of place and focused on healing. The final paper is a case study of school district leaders,
presented in chapter 5. I examine how, and to what extent, care and well-being supports are
institutionalized across the meso, or field, level. Analysis revealed field-level patterns of care and
social-emotional well-being supports. In this paper I put classic ideas from institutional theory
into conversation with my case study findings, discussing the process of institutionalizing care.
Together, these papers offer new evidence about district-level caring.

1

Chapter 1: Introduction

This is a dissertation study on care in the school district office. By way of introduction to
the topic at hand, I offer four perspectives on school district care from central office leaders:
You know your families, you know where they come from, you know what heartaches
they've had. – Cheryl, Director of Social-Emotional Learning

We've worked with our principals and try to make sure that they are supported and make
sure that we are recognizing their efforts. Make sure we celebrate them and just trying to
encourage them so they can do the same thing with our staff. Show them that [the
COVID-19 pandemic] is something that we all are in. And our mental health person has
been available for staff. We also have an employee assistance program through our
insurance that's available. We've also created free resources on our web site the
employees can go to if they don't have our insurance. And the state just released a
program for essential workers and teachers. So that's another resource. – Ken,
Superintendent

In fact, just this year starting in July, based on the work we've done the last two years, we
hired at the district-level a student support specialist. Basically, a director of student
services. That created the glue to lots of little programs that we were already running,
but we really just had no specific oversight of those programs. We knew that we could do
even better. – James, Superintendent

I think that connection, the teacher connection with me, matters. Teachers appreciate
that, to know that somebody at the district level is just listening to them. – Winnie,
Assistant Superintendent

Cheryl, Ken, James, and Winnie are school district central office leaders who illuminate
how they lead for care and social-emotional well-being. According to these leaders, care is many
things. It is knowing families. Care is supporting principals. It’s about securing mental health
supports. Care is creating website resources and hiring student services directors. Care includes

2
connecting with teachers, and much, much more. How school district central office leaders
conceptualize care, arrange social-emotional well-being supports, and do “the work” of care
from their positions in the central office is the focus of this dissertation study. More from Cheryl,
Ken, James, Winnie, and other district leaders is presented in the findings chapters of this
dissertation.
Caring is Educational Leadership
Care has always mattered to educators and has been an enduring purpose for joining the
education profession. Indeed, caring is also an integral part of educational leadership, as
evidenced by “student well-being” included in every one of the ten Professional Standards for
Educational Leaders (National Policy Board for Educational Administration, 2015). These
standards are used for principal and superintendent training programs across the country. For
example, the first Educational Leader standard reads: “Effective educational leaders develop,
advocate, and enact a shared mission, vision, and core values of high-quality education and
academic success and well-being of each student.” That is, “well-being” is elevated to
importance through every leadership standard. Further, standard five centers care: “Community
of Care and Support for Students: Effective educational leaders cultivate an inclusive, caring,
and supportive school community that promotes the academic success and well-being of each
student” (Appendix A shows all of the Educational Leader standards). It would seem that an
integral part of leading schools in today’s world is to provide caring environments. And yet, even
though creating a community of care is essential to the work of educational leaders, principals
report that they need more support in this area (Levin et al., 2020). In Figure 1, we see that the
most highly desired topic for principal professional development was “leading schools in
supporting students’ social-emotional development.”

3
Figure 1. Elementary School Principals’ Professional Development Needs

4
In sum, principals need more help to guide social-emotional well-being in their schools, which
very well could be the role of principal supervisors in the central office.
Caring Concerns: Parents, Teachers, and Students
There is a growing cry for more caring supports from parents, teachers, and students due
to a rise in stress, worry, and fear. Parents nationwide are concerned about their children’s safety,
as reported in a recent Gallup Survey (Brenan, 2022). These concerns have increased over the
last decade and jumped ten percentage points over the last two years, from 2020 through 2022, as
shown by the graph in Figure 2.
Figure 2. U.S. K-12 Parents’ Concern About Their Child’s Safety at School

It is not only parents who have safety concerns, however. Students, according to their
parents, are also worried about feeling unsafe at school (Brenan, 2022). According to Gallup’s
survey data, 1 in 5 parents said their children had expressed school safety concerns, depicted
below in Figure 3.

5
Figure 3. U.S. K-12 Parents Saying Their Child Has Expressed School Safety Concerns

Teachers are similarly worried, and reported in a California survey that they believe
students are at risk for long-term mental health issues (Inverness Institute, 2021). As the bar
graph shows in Figure 4, the majority of teachers agree that “a substantial number of my students
are in danger of suffering long-term mental health issues” (Inverness Institute, 2021). It gets
worse. Teachers, when asked, reported an insufficiency of staff—including counselors, social
workers, and nurses—to meet the pressing social-emotional well-being needs of students, as
illustrated in Figure 5. To sum up these statistics, parents, students, and teachers are concerned
about mental health, social-emotional well-being, and safety. Principals report needing more help
in leading socially-emotionally supportive schools. What is a school district leader to do?
Figure 4. Teacher Survey Question on Long-Term Student Mental Health Issues

6

Figure 5. Teacher Survey Question on Sufficiency of Social-Emotional and Health Resources

Caring in Federal Guidance
Central office leaders who want to do more caring work may turn to government
guidance. In fact, recent federal guidance encourages care leadership. U.S. Secretary of
Education Miguel Cardona, appointed by President Joe Biden, had this to say about the role of
educators in caring for the social-emotional well-being of students:
Our efforts as educators must go beyond literacy, math, history, science, and other core
subjects to include helping students to build the social, emotional, and behavioral skills
they will need to fully access and participate in learning and make the most of their
potential and future opportunities. Amid the pandemic, we know that our students have

7
experienced so much. We can't unlock students' potential unless we also address the
needs they bring with them to the classroom each day. As educators, it's our
responsibility to ensure that we are helping to provide students with a strong social and
emotional foundation so that they also can excel academically (U.S. Department of
Education, 2021, emphasis added).
In the quote above, our nation’s highest education leader recognizes and supports the role of
educators in providing for the “social and emotional” foundation of students. But how, he does
not say. Might our nation’s federal education laws offer some guidance for district leaders?
In a recent report making recommendations on the reauthorization of the Every Student
Succeeds Act, education policy and law scholars Elizabeth DeBray, Kara Finnigan, Janel
George, and Janelle Scott (2022) offered this analysis:
Because ESEA remains the federal government’s most consequential mechanism to
promote equity in public education, the upcoming (overdue) reauthorization of the law’s
latest version, the Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA), presents an opportunity to re-
envision this federal role in promoting access to quality educational opportunities by
fostering racial and socioeconomic equity in alignment with the original intent of ESEA.
Within their “re-envisioning” recommendations, the authors recommended two different ways of
attending to the caring needs of students and staff:
• Target federal funds to support state and district efforts to promote student
well-being and mental health.
o Investment in vital school-based mental health services and supports is
needed, shifting resources away from police or resource officers and toward
culturally appropriate mental health services. Federal policymakers can do this

8
by directly targeting physical and mental health and providing more funding
to states and LEAs to support these services.
• Promote educator well-being and mental health.
o The reauthorization should incentivize state plans to use expenditures
dedicated to teachers applying to receive paid semester leaves for professional
renewal. It should also dedicate funding to pre-service and in-service adoption
of measures to promote stress reduction and mental health supports.
o Given the tremendous educational and mental health needs, it is time for
higher education to revamp the preparation of teachers and leaders to better
prepare them for the current needs of students, and for states to further
develop the leadership roles and supports (DeBray et al., 2022).
In sum, there is support at the federal level for social-emotional well-being, but, as
DeBray and her colleagues suggest, little emphasis in current education law (e.g., ESSA) on
funding for mental health resources or the promotion of educator well-being. With scant
assistance at the federal level, perhaps caring district leaders can rely on state guidance for help
with social-emotional well-being supports.
Caring at the State Level
States are increasingly providing resources and guidance related to caring leadership and
the provision of social-emotional well-being supports (Yoder et al., 2020). In fact, 18 states have
K12 social-emotional learning standards, and nearly half of U.S. states have guidance and
resources for educators on social-emotional well-being (Yoder et al., 2020). A scan of these
resources state-level shows a wealth of guides and charts. For example, California has espoused
Transformative Social-Emotional Standards that connect to cultural competencies, and Colorado

9
also recommends infusing equity into their social-emotional supports. Analysis of state policies
by the National Association of State Boards of Education (n.d.) suggests that most states have
social-emotional related laws in place. There would seem to be a surfeit of available state-level
guidance available to central office leaders. However, as I show in this study, district leaders are
still in the early stages of conceptualizing district-level care.
Defining Care and Social-Emotional Well-Being
This dissertation study is about the school district central office, care, and social-
emotional well-being supports. There are many ways that scholars, practitioners, and researchers
have defined care, which I explore further in chapter 2. For this dissertation study, I define care
in education broadly, as a set of practices and underlying beliefs connected to high academic
expectations, authentic interpersonal relationships, and the intentional creation of structures,
routines, and processes that integrate individual and communal ethics of care (Jackson et al.,
2014; Knight-Diop, 2010; Noddings, 2013; Tichnor-Wagner & Allen, 2016). This definition was
culled from, and inspired by, literature written by care scholars (e.g., Jackson et al., 2014;
Knight-Diop, 2010; Noddings, 2013; Tichnor-Wagner & Allen, 2016).
Concepts, ideas, and practices related to social-emotional well-being are also discussed
throughout this study. For the purposes of this dissertation, I define social-emotional well-being
as “a coordinated set of evidence-based practices for enhancing social-emotional-cognitive
development, relationships, and academic performance” that “includes the presence of positive
emotions and moods, the absence of negative emotions, satisfaction with life, fulfillment and
positive functioning,” which is a definition taken from leaders in social-emotional learning and
public health (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 2018; Durlak et al., 2015; Jones &

10
Bouffard, 2012; National Commission on Social, Emotional, & Academic Development, 2018,
as cited in Mahoney et al., 2020).
These initial definitions of care and social-emotional well-being are provided here as a
roadmap for the reader and will be explored more in depth throughout this study. That is, in
chapters 3, 4, and 5, I offer additional ideas around clarifying and defining care and district
caring leadership based on empirical study findings. In the conclusion I return to these findings
and provide a concise definition of district-level care. Next, I outline the dissertation and give a
brief description of each chapter.
Overview of this Dissertation Study
This study seeks to understand how school districts—as organizations—provide care and
social-emotional supports. Moreover, my dissertation research investigates how central office
actors act as agents of care through processes, structures, and collaborations. This study fills
critical gaps in theory and research, contributing to the knowledge base on leadership supports
for care and social-emotional well-being.
This dissertation study is composed of four standalone empirical papers, a qualitative
take on the “three-paper dissertation” trend that some doctoral candidates (mostly scholars who
conduct quantitative studies) are now authoring in lieu of the traditional five-chapter dissertation.
This dissertation study is an amalgam of the two traditions
1
. Next, I briefly outline each chapter
of this dissertation.
Chapter 2: Literature Review

1
Appendix M includes a brief note on my intellectual contributions to this dissertation, as required for any
dissertation that has co-authored papers included.

11
In chapter 2 I present a systematic literature review. Titled Love and Care in Education:
A Critical Qualitative Research Synthesis, I include this chapter to underline the importance of
care as a topic worthy of inclusion in education policy and leadership studies. For this chapter I
conducted a rigorous research synthesis of empirical studies on care and love in education from
1980 - 2018. Two research questions guided this systematic review:
1. How is love and caring in education conceptualized and defined in empirical research?
2. To what extent does the current landscape of love and caring theory in education extend
to school leadership? To education policy research?
Through a review of 66 articles, I found a number of themes, including an expanded
definition of care, that caring is academic, adults and children have contrasting care perspectives,
caring is cultural and contextual, caring leadership is emerging as a field, and a deficiency in
caring policy analysis. Although caring scholarship is typically relegated to teacher education
programs or philosophy, I suggest a number of ways in which it might be expanded in the fields
of education policy and leadership.
Chapter 3: Ensuring the Social-Emotional Well-Being of Students and Staff: Toward a
Theory of District Care
Chapter 3, Ensuring the Social-Emotional Well-Being of Students and Staff: Toward a
Theory of School District Care, is the first of three empirical studies that make up the findings
section of this dissertation. For this paper, my co-author and I interviewed 47 “typical” district
central office leaders across the United States. We used a grounded theory and qualitative
deductive analysis approach to investigate this research question:
• How do district leaders conceptualize care and social-emotional supports at the district
level?

12
Our findings advance a provisional definition of district-level care. We suggest that
district-level care has five components: (a) ensuring the social-emotional well-being, mental
health, and physical safety of staff and students in the district system, (b) it is relational, (c)
systemic, (d) embodied and environmental, and, (e) equity and needs driven. After offering a
definition of district-level care, I present a series of propositions and ideas toward theorizing
district-level care.
Chapter 4: “You Are One of Us, and We Are One of You:” The “Work” of Mobilizing,
Advocating, and Organizing for Care
Chapter 4 presents an instrumental case study. Titled “You Are One of Us, and We Are
One of You:” The “Work” of Mobilizing, Advocating, and Organizing for Care, in this paper I
draw on a different data from that which was presented in chapter 3. For this study, I conducted a
case study of a purposively chosen caring school district located in a farmworker community
composed largely of Latinx families. I ask the following research question:
• How do central office leaders create or maintain well-being and social-emotional
supports in a crisis?
I draw on interviews with 28 leaders, community members, parents, and teachers, as well
as document analysis. I use this qualitative case study to investigate how central office leaders
created or maintained social-emotional well-being supports under crisis conditions. The
conceptual framework that guides this study is institutional work from new institutional theory. I
find district-level care was multidimensional and distributed, involving mobilization of
community leadership, improvisational structures, and novel leadership routines. Moreover,
district-level care was enacted through a collective vision of care, rooted in a love of place, and

13
focused on healing. This study offers an account of distributed leadership that centers families,
community members, and community partners.
Chapter 5: The Subject is Caring; The Verb is Institutionalizing: A Field-Level Analysis
and Implications for Equity
This chapter, the final empirical paper in this dissertation, is a qualitative case study that
takes up the topic of institutionalization and care. Titled The Subject is Caring; The Verb is
Institutionalizing: A Field-Level Analysis and Implications for Equity, this chapter presents
findings from a case study of district leaders (the same data set drawn upon in chapter 3). In this
case study, I ask:
1. What field-level patterns are found within district-level care and social-emotional
practices and routines?
2. How, and to what extent, is caring institutionalized?
I examine how care and well-being supports are institutionalized across the meso, or
field, level. Inductive and deductive analysis reveal field-level patterns of care and social-
emotional well-being supports: indications of diffusion of social-emotional supports and a
budding “Care Improvement Industry;” commonalities across district structures (e.g.,
departments, teams) that suggest isomorphism; legitimacy-seeking via caring “agents” who play
a major role in crafting care within districts; instances of institutional interstitiality that lead to an
outsourcing of care; and transactions with agencies of the state that suggest high levels of
isomorphism. I argue that care is in the process of becoming institutionalized. Institutionalization
of care may bring efficiency to the provision of social-emotional supports as well as broader
support for care, but may also neglect to attend to the needs of minoritized students. Care as a
gendered act, relegated to female central office support staff, is discussed.

14
Chapter 6: Conclusions
Chapter 6 is the concluding chapter, in which I summarize the main findings from this
dissertation study. I present cross-cutting findings by considering the four papers as a body of
work on caring district leadership. I also reflect upon the significance of this study, and offer
implications for policy, research, and practice.
In closing, I want to return to the voices of Cheryl, Ken, James, and Winnie, whose
thoughts I shared at the beginning of this chapter. These four central office leaders are only a
handful of the educators who were interviewed for this dissertation study. In all, this study
includes data gleaned from 75 interviewees. Of those, 58 were central office leaders. Cheryl,
Ken, James, Winnie, and the other research participants spoke to the complexity of providing
care, the challenge of providing for the social-emotional and well-being of students and staff, and
their dedication and responsibility for caring for so many during tumultuous, politicized times. It
is my hope that I have honored their words within these pages, and that, collectively, their stories
will provide rich, inspiring, and healing scholarship.

15

Chapter 2: Review of Literature: Love and Care in Education: A Critical Qualitative
Research Synthesis
with Jacob Alonso

This chapter is a review of the literature on love and care in education. Historically, care and
love have been excluded from mainstream education research. In this chapter, we present a
systematic review of the literature on caring in education from 1980-2018. Using critical
qualitative research synthesis methodology, we examined 66 studies on love and care published
in peer-reviewed journals. We present six themes gleaned from this critical review: (a) an
expanded definition of care, (b) caring is academic, (c) children and adults have contrasting
care perspectives, (d) caring is cultural and contextual, (e) caring leadership is emerging as a
field, and (f) a deficiency in caring policy analysis. The purpose of this paper is to provide an
empirical grounding for care and love and to center love as a valid topic for robust research
investigation.

Introduction
Caring motivates many new teachers to join the profession, drives dynamic relationships
within classrooms, and enhances the schooling experiences of students. To educators, parents,
and students, love and care may be as important to educational experiences and outcomes as
standards and accountability (Luttrell, 2013). And yet, care and love remain under-examined in
mainstream contemporary education research. Caring theory in education is not new; from John
Dewey (1916) to caring scholarship focused on migrant students in China a century later (Yiu,
2016), caring has been a topic of substance and staying power. Caring in education has been
conceptualized as a duty, a moral obligation, a motivating factor for those joining the profession,

16
and an “extra” in education that is subservient to standards and accountability. Caring is a notion
that is gendered, with suggestions of mothering and moral character (Acker, 1995). Moreover,
caring has been, until quite recently, a concept steeped in whiteness, missing an explicit focus on
race or gender (Matias & Allen, 2016; Thompson, 1998). Caring is a topic most often left to
curriculum and instruction departments, and rarely brought into education policy research. And
while caring and love in education leadership has made some inroads, that runway is still
relatively short. This research synthesis seeks to correct these gaps.
In this systematic literature review, we argue that the lack of care and love research in K-
12 education policy has limited our ability to understand the constraints of, and implementation
problems with, recent education initiatives meant to effect change in noncognitive, disciplinary,
or affective domains. A lowered gaze on love also led one teacher to refer to U.S. education as
“mean-spirited” in its relentless attempt to sort students and hold teachers accountable (Strauss,
2018). This synthesis offers an antidote to mean-spiritedness in education policy, leadership, and
practice through a focus on care and love. We contend that the cumulative body of evidence, as
described in 66 empirical studies, prescribes an approach to caring that is evidence-based,
compelling, and positively associated with stronger academic outcomes. This synthesis may also
point to approaches that can guide leaders and policymakers in light of recent political and global
events that have negatively impacted K-12 students such as COVID-19, Trumpism, anti-Critical
Race Theory legislation, unprecedented attacks on trans and gender queer youth, and the ongoing
struggles for culturally affirming and loving educational spaces. Moreover, we are collectively
grappling with traumas associated with school shootings, a rise in student suicides, and growing
evidence of mental health concerns: these issues, and others, have increased awareness on the
noncognitive side of schooling. Caring theory offers an avenue for performing education

17
leadership and policy in new and different ways
The motivation behind this paper is to provide guidance for leaders and policymakers who
have an opportunity to lead with caring in this new era. Education research writ large, and school
leadership in public K-12 settings in particular, may benefit from centering research and
policymaking on an ethic of caring. But what does this look like? As we will show through this
systematic review, most research to date on caring in education has focused primarily on teacher-
student care. This is an important area of research, but insufficient.
Also insufficient are current policy analysis frameworks, which offer little help in
translating an ethic of care into policy analysis (Riehl, 2018). This systematic research review
seeks to evaluate empirical research on love and caring in education. Ultimately, we build an
empirical case for a greater emphasis on love and caring leadership and policy research, analysis,
and practice. In this research synthesis, we address the following research questions:
• Research Question 1: How is love and caring in education conceptualized and defined in
empirical research?
• Research Question 2: To what extent does the current landscape of love and caring theory
in education extend to school leadership? To education policy research?
We begin with a brief overview of caring in education, provided to situate the reader in
the historical context of care. We next turn to the societal and political context for this synthesis
of love and care in education, touching on social-emotional learning, restorative justice, and the
Every Student Succeeds Act of 2015. After contextualizing care and love in education, we sketch
out the methodology utilized in this study. We then share results, starting with a descriptive
overview of the 66 studies included (see Appendix B for a complete list of all studies included,
as well as analysis of each article), before moving on to analytic findings. We follow this with

18
six new insights gleaned from systematic analysis: (a) an expanded definition of care, (b) caring
is academic, (c) children and adults have different, contrasting care perspectives, (d) caring is
cultural and contextual, (e) caring leadership is emerging as a field, and (f) there is a deficiency
in caring policy analysis. This paper concludes with implications for scholars of education
leadership, education policy, and practitioners.
A History of Caring
Caring 1.0: Ethics and Morals
Caring as a scholarly construct began with John Dewey, the educational philosopher who
envisioned education as holistic (1916). While he didn’t refer to an ethos of caring—this
terminology wasn’t employed until the 1980s—his philosophy of education influenced many
scholars who came after him. Dewey envisioned an education system that attends to the habits of
mind, socialization, and ultimately, as a bedrock to uphold American democracy (1916). Carol
Gilligan’s In a Different Voice (1982) exposes Lawrence Kohlberg’s moral development theory
as confined to the male experience. Gilligan (1982) proposes a new theory of moral development
that includes a female perspective. She found, through her pioneering research, that there are
three moral perspectives: a) goodness, as caring for the self, b) goodness, as caring for others,
and c) caring as the interconnection between other and self (1982).
Noddings, the most cited and recognized care theorist in education, published her first
book in 1984. Known for her work in care theory, Noddings conceived of the principle of caring
as an alternative to character education. Noddings (2002) offers suggestions for shifting
leadership practices toward an ethic of care and away from a relentless focus on academics. She
recommends that educators be clear and unapologetic about their goal, take care of affiliative
needs, relax the impulse to control, get rid of program hierarchies, and dedicate part of each day

19
to themes of care (Noddings, 2002). We refer to the Dewey/Noddings/Gilligan school of caring
as Caring 1.0. Note that 1.0 scholars used the more clinical term “care” instead of “love.” While
these preeminent white scholars—Dewey, Gilligan, and Noddings—have contributed much to
our understanding of the role of love and caring in schools, their singular notion of care oriented
from a white ethic. This orientation fails to take into account many aspects of caring that are
significant to educators, students, and leaders of color. We next turn to the Caring 2.0 literature
on culturally responsive pedagogy and care.
Caring 2.0: Centering Love and Relationships
The history of caring in American education policy and research has been magnified in the
last three decades by scholars of color, and scholars who research students of color. We refer to
this expansion and re-imagining of the caring literature as Caring 2.0.
In Power and Caring, George Nobilt (1993) observed that African American teachers seem
to construct education and caring differently. Two years after Nobilt’s observations, renowned
scholar Gloria Ladson-Billings conceived of culturally relevant pedagogy’s three defining
characteristics as “an ability to develop students academically, a willingness to nurture and
support cultural competence, and the development of a sociopolitical or critical consciousness”
(1995, p. 483). Ladson-Billings explicitly described the ethos of caring and personal
accountability she observed in the female teachers in her impactful study (1995). Likewise,
Pedro Noguera described exceptional teachers who are respected by their students for their
compassion (1995). Shortly thereafter, Audrey Thompson (1998) argued that a color-conscious
approach to caring was necessary.
Heeding Thompson’s call, scholars have added to Noddings’ original race-neutral
approach to caring by calling for a culturally responsive ethos of caring that is multidirectional

20
and contextualized to the experiences of particular students. For example, Rolon-Dow (2005)
described an ethic of critical care in the experiences of Puerto Rican girls. Antrop-Gonzalez and
De Jesus (2006) used ethnographic methods to discern that critical care for Latinos is shown
through “quality interpersonal relationships with adult learners... characterized by high academic
expectations of the students by staff” (p. 429). Similarly, Roberts (2010) proposed a theory of
culturally relevant teacher care for and by African Americans, finding that culturally relevant
critical teacher care is expressed through political clarity and concern for student futures.
Caring was redefined and expanded when Pimental (2011) theorized a concept of
interruptive caring, which seeks to interrupt the inequitable schooling practices that
systematically devalue bilingual education. Finally, recent caring work has explored the caring
relationships of students within a classroom. An analysis of authentic caring, or cariño, in an
urban high school and an evaluation of reciprocal love in Black and Latino male secondary
students offer promising new avenues for caring research (Curry, 2016; Watson et al., 2016).
These Caring 2.0 scholars continue to influence caring scholarship today, as do Caring 1.0
scholars. In sum, caring theory has grown empirically and conceptually since the 1980s and
continues to mature. However, as this concise history of caring research shows, there are many
definitions and types of caring. Next, we provide a social, political, and policy context for caring
in contemporary education.
Social, Political, and Policy Context for Caring
Caring does not occur in a vacuum, and our schools are influenced by societal and
political forces. These stressors can negatively impact learning (Rogers et al., 2017). At the same
time, there is a growing national emphasis on social-emotional learning (SEL) reforms and
alternative disciplinary practices. SEL is an explicit focus on, and teaching of, noncognitive

21
factors that include self-awareness, self-management, responsible decision-making, relationship
skills, and social awareness (Weissberg et al., 2015). Surprisingly, much of the SEL literature
focuses on the technical skills or academic outcomes related to SEL—such as self-regulation and
an increase in test scores—and little on the relational, caring aspects of social-emotional learning
reforms (e.g. Brackett, Elbertson, & Rivers, 2015; Duckworth & Seligman, 2005). This research
synthesis seeks to nudge conversations of student social-emotional learning toward love and
care, which may be better suited to a community-centric, culturally responsive, collective
envisioning of social-emotional initiatives (Camangian & Cariaga, 2021; Eakins et al., 2021;
Jagers et al., 2019; Kennedy, 2019; Simmons, 2019).
Another change that motivates this research synthesis on love and care in K-12 education
is the trend of schools moving toward a Restorative Justice (RJ) framework. RJ is seen as an
alternative to suspensions as advocated by the Obama administration (Fronius et al., 2019).
Restorative Justice practices are deployed, in part, because traditional disciplinary practices of
suspension and expulsion disproportionately punish male students of color (Carter et al., 2017;
Skiba, 2015). RJ seeks to “restore relationships” and thus allow students to remain in their
classroom environments; this may lead to reduced suspension rates. Restorative justice and
social-emotional learning initiatives are lauded as progressive, positive steps toward a more
balanced national vision of education, a refreshing detour after No Child Left Behind’s era of
drill, kill, and reconstitute. Both SEL and RJ reforms may be doomed to fail, however, for they
are built on the same mean-spirited foundation that has produced so many failed reforms before
them. Introducing caring interventions, which are supported by a cumulative body of empirical
evidence, may offer hope for sustainability of these promising reforms.
Currently, there is scant empirical guidance on the ever-evolving role of school leaders,

22
especially in the realm of noncognitive or disciplinary reforms (Darling-Hammond & Cook-
Harvey, 2018; Sutcher et al., 2018). Under the Every Student Succeeds Act, state accountability
systems must include at least one nonacademic factor—such as suspension rates, attendance, or
other measures of “equity”—a significant change from previous federal accountability
requirements. This shift in accountability measures signals a widening of “what counts” in
education policy; it is within this wider space that the need for a synthesis of the empirical
research on love and caring arises.
Methods
Our primary goal in this paper is to outline the body of research on love and caring from
1980-2018 using rigorous, systematic methodology (Alexander, 2020). This has not been done
before on the topics of love or caring, perhaps because meta-analyses are considered the gold
standard of review research (Weed, 2005). Meta-analysis is conducted to quantify experimental
and causal research with effect sizes (Pigott, 2012), and is a popular technique employed by
researchers who want to estimate treatment effectiveness (e.g. Borman et al., 2003; Durlak, et al.,
2011; Eagly et al., 2003; Sirin, 2005). However, 83% of the 66 empirical studies produced since
1980 on love and caring have no effect size, for they are qualitative in nature. Because meta-
analysis is not appropriate for synthesizing qualitative research, we instead employ research
synthesis methods (e.g. Cooper, 2010). Research synthesis of qualitative research is the cousin to
meta-analysis’s systemized review of quantitative research: robust, rigorous, and trustworthy.
We seek to advance a research agenda for education leaders and policymakers, and yet
the majority of research on love and caring is about classroom-level treatments. We drew on
substantive research synthesis literature to answer our first research question— How is love and
caring in education conceptualized and defined in empirical research?—by relying at first on

23
Cooper’s (2010) seven-step process. However, we soon found this process frustrating, as it was
created mostly with meta-analysis in mind, and synthesizing qualitative work is not simply akin
to integrating findings from quantitative studies, minus the effect sizes. We reviewed many
qualitative research syntheses to see how other qualitative researchers approached systematic
research syntheses, and found varying degrees of robustness and clarity in the chosen
methodologies (e.g. Castagno & Brayboy, 2008; del Carmen Salazar, 2013; Hoffman, 2009;
Khalifa et al., 2016; Spillane et al., 2002).
At the same time that we were crafting this synthesis, our research team was also
conducting qualitative cross-case analysis for two different projects using trusted methods.
Drawing on these researcher experiences, we decided that applying cross-case methodology
(Stake, 2005; Yin, 2014) to research synthesis methods would result in useful, trustworthy
findings, and better enable us to find answers to our research questions. For example, we were
interested in leadership and policy findings within the care and love literature, and yet most
studies focused on the classroom level of caring. Using cross-case analysis methods, we grouped
the literature into buckets, much like you would for creating cases in qualitative research. Thus,
we were better able to answer the research questions more thoroughly, expanding on Cooper
(2010) by drawing on qualitative case study research methodology (Stake, 2005; Yin, 2014).
Table 1 contains a comparison of Cooper’s (2010) methods and the methods used in this study,
which we call critical qualitative research synthesis.

24
Table 1. Comparison of Research Synthesis Method (Cooper, 2010) and Critical Qualitative
Research Synthesis Steps Undertaken for This Study

Research Synthesis and Meta-Analysis Steps
(Cooper, 2010)
Critical Qualitative Research Synthesis Steps
Undertaken for This Study

1. Conducting a holistic literature review

1. Formulating the problem 2. Crafting research questions

2. Searching the literature 3. Conducting multiple searches for literature

4. Triangulating findings

3. Evaluating the quality of studies 5. Creating case boundaries

4. Gathering information from studies 6. Coding descriptively and systematic indexing

5. Analyzing and integrating the outcomes of
studies

7. Conducting second cycle coding
6. Interpreting the results 8. Sorting synthesis results

9. Analyzing across cases

10. Reviewing critically through researcher
reflexivity

7. Presenting the findings 11. Presenting critical qualitative research
synthesis study findings

Using this approach helped us move toward a deeper understanding of love and care at
the classroom, leadership, and policy levels. This methodological duality results in a synthesis
that answers these two research questions: How is love and caring in education conceptualized
and defined in empirical research? To what extent does the current landscape of love and caring
theory in education extend to school leadership and education policy research? Next, we outline
the steps we followed for this research synthesis.

25
Step 1: Conducting a Holistic Literature Review
We began the systematic research synthesis process by conducting a holistic literature
review. This is not part of Cooper’s (2010) research synthesis framework, but we found it
critically important in shaping this study. This entailed reading highly cited pieces on love and
caring to gain a broad view of the topic. After completing this review, we observed that some
concepts were not well-defined in extant literature and that many of the highly cited pieces in the
field were conceptual, theoretical, or expository in nature (e.g. Beauboeuf-Lafontant, 2002;
Noddings, 2002, 2015; Thompson, 1998). That is, while influential, these articles are not
grounded in empirical study. Instead, they are more philosophical in nature. If we want to use
care and love as a strategy, an intervention, or a way to look at policy, scholars may argue that
this needs to be empirically supported as well as theoretically grounded. This initial holistic
review led us to the literature on research synthesis and meta-analysis as an approach for
gathering a cumulative body of evidence on a topic.
Step 2: Crafting Research Questions
The first step in conducting a research synthesis is to formulate the problem (Cooper,
2010). At this stage, we considered what problem to focus on; in a meta-analysis, this is the point
at which a quantitative researcher would formulate a hypothesis. We chose to focus on school
leadership and education policy. We chose this focus because outside of teaching, leadership is
the most impactful factor in a school outside (Robinson et al., 2008). Further, recent research
suggests a greater need to attend to leadership in the noncognitive, affective realm (Kennedy,
2019; Sutcher et al., 2018). Noddings (2015) argues that there is a difference between “caring-
about,” and “cared-for.” Those who engage in “caring-about” are indirectly responsible for
student learning: state boards of education, district-level policymakers, and the Secretary of

26
Education. Those who “care-for” are teachers, parents, community members, and school leaders
who work directly with those to be “cared-for,” the students. While these two audiences remain
largely divided in education research, we refuse this artificial boundary between those who make
policy and those who implement policy. To truly engage in caring theory, we must consider both
perspectives. Thus, we formulated the problem by crafting these two research questions: How is
love and caring in education conceptualized and defined in empirical research? To what extent
does the current landscape of love and caring theory in education extend to school leadership and
education policy research?
Step 3: Conducting Multiple Searches for Literature
For this systematic research review, one of the authors conducted multiple searches over
a period of one academic year, searching for articles that focused on caring or love in K-12
schools. Searches were conducted in databases JSTOR and ERIC ProQuest, as well as Google
Scholar and within AERA journals using the SAGE database. We searched from 1980, just
before A Nation at Risk (1983) was published (widely credited for shifting K-12 American
education priorities) to 2018.
The first phase of the systematic search began with a search of select education journals
2

looking for “love” in journal abstracts from 1980 – 2018. This resulted in 14 articles. Next, we
searched for “care” in the abstract of those journals from 1980-2018, finding 162 papers. Out of
these 162, only 25 were relevant to this study.

2
American Education Research Journal, Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, Educational Researcher,
Urban Education, Education and Urban Society, Educational Administration Quarterly, Educational Policy,
Educational Management Administration & Leadership, and Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis

27
We then used Google Scholar to search for caring and love literature, which netted three
additional articles for this synthesis. We also conducted multiple searches in the JSTOR
database. A search for “love” or “care” from 1980-2018 and “schools” or “education” revealed
32 results. A search within JSTOR for “caring,” “care” or “love” AND “policy” or “leadership”
in the abstract resulted in 339 papers.
Step 4: Triangulating Findings
Triangulating findings is not part of Cooper’s (2010) framework, but it is an important
consideration in qualitative research (Creswell & Poth, 2018). As described above, we performed
a search in ERIC ProQuest for peer-reviewed journal articles from 1980-2018 with search terms
“love” OR “caring” in the abstract, which netted 919 results. Broadening our search scope to an
additional database was a way of triangulating our findings (Maxwell, 2013). Another step taken
to validate our findings was through collaboration. We conducted a broader search with the help
of a social science librarian in 2018 using PsycInfo. We found 288,543 papers with “care” in the
abstract, and 231,960 with “care” or “caring theory” in the abstract. This search found mostly
papers written in health care or the health care helping professions such as caregiving. An
Ebscohost search for care and caring theory in the social sciences resulted in 1,883 hits with a
similar focus on caring in the health sciences. This final broad search gave us insight into where
most empirical research on caring lies—in healthcare, not in education—and confirmed that our
earlier, more selective searches had been thorough and fruitful. We also reviewed heavily cited
pieces, and pieces that resonated with us as caring researchers, searching for references that we
may have missed. This is a step commonly taken by those searching for literature but can also
serve as triangulation, or validation, of findings (Creswell & Poth, 2018). This additional step
resulted in two additional papers being included in this synthesis. Discussing findings with

28
colleagues and asking for recommendations from other scholars also increased the
trustworthiness of our findings.
Step 5: Creating Case Boundaries
This step corresponds with Cooper’s (2010) fourth step, evaluating the quality of studies.
We approached this research synthesis as a bounded case, focusing only on empirical studies that
were on the topic of love or caring (Ragin, 1992). After each search, we downloaded the papers
to the reference software Mendeley. One author skimmed the papers’ abstracts and key words,
eliminating those that did not fit with the following inclusion criteria: (a) focused on K-12
education, excluding articles focused on early education, higher education, or teacher
preparation, (b) substantively about caring in education, education policy or school leadership,
(c) original empirical research studies, eliminating duplicates or near-duplicates (one group of
scholars produced several papers with the same findings, for example), and (d) peer reviewed
articles of empirical qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods studies, excluding books,
dissertations, essays, and theoretical/conceptual pieces (see Figure 6). This process was less
straightforward than is presented here.
For example, an article on politicized caring by Maxine McKinney de Royston et al. gave
us pause, for it described a special program that was delivered during the day as an elective class
for high schoolers and after school for middle schoolers (2017). Should we to exclude it based on
the fact that the topic was not exactly centered on the formal day-long school program? We
realized that our original inclusion/exclusion criteria was not exacting enough. However, because
this article presents findings on an important, timely, under-researched area of caring—African
American males—and also moves the field forward with a novel contribution of politicized
caring we made the decision to include the article in this synthesis.

29
Figure 6. Research Synthesis Flowchart for Systematic Literature Review

We chose to focus only on peer-reviewed articles as a way to narrow the synthesis; a
limitation is that valuable contributions on this topic exist in excluded dissertations and book
chapters. An author read and wrote analytic memos on the excluded conceptual pieces, and these
informed the literature review on the history of caring in this paper, as well as our understanding
of the empirical studies contained in this synthesis. Some conceptual pieces have been widely
influential in shaping the field of caring and love theory; a Noddings (1988) piece published in
the American Journal of Education has been cited nearly 1,600 times, for example. Not only did
reviewing these theoretical contributions enhance our understanding of the field, but they also

30
helped us understand the empirical studies contained in this synthesis, for many of them drew on
influential theorists such as Audrey Thompson (1998). Searching from 1980–2018 allowed for
the emergence of a conceptual framework that built on early caring theorists while incorporating
more recent work.
At this stage, we made decisions about our focus for each study. To answer the research
questions and to curate a useful collection for scholars, practitioners, and policymakers, we
decided to focus primarily on research questions, data and methods used, and study findings. We
chose to focus on data and methods to increase the trustworthiness of the synthesis, as well as to
provide an accurate picture of the field of love and caring. We searched for and summarized
findings within each paper. We also decided to collect other relevant information on each study
that might inform data analysis: tier of journal; number of times a piece was cited; unit of
analysis; explicit focus on gender, race, or ethnicity; demographic data of the school; study
participants, and more.
Step 6: Coding Descriptively and Systematic Indexing
Cooper’s fifth step in the research synthesis process calls for “analyzing and integrating
the outcomes of studies” (2010). We split this step to better align with systematic qualitative data
analysis methods: descriptive coding and second cycle coding (Saldaña, 2016). For the first of
the data analysis steps, we applied qualitative case study methodology (Stake, 2005; Yin, 2014)
to descriptively code all 66 studies, treating each paper as data, much like we would code a
transcript in a case study. One author worked iteratively between the literature table (as depicted
in Appendix B) created in Microsoft Excel and Nvivo, the qualitative data analysis (QDA)
software. QDA software is helpful for exploring the intersection of themes (Deterding & Waters,
2018; Saldaña, 2016). By coding the articles using QDA software, we were able to further our

31
own understanding of the field of love and caring in education, while inductively building a
working theory of care and love. We used the three columns of the chart shown in Appendix B—
research question, data and methods, and findings—to index the same information about every
study (Deterding & Waters, 2018).
Step 7: Conducting Second Cycle Coding
The second data analysis step involved second cycle coding. One author utilized iterative
research methods by inductively and deductively coding the data (articles) drawing on constant
comparative methodology to analyze the findings (Glaser & Strauss, 1967). Using axial coding
methods, defined as the process of linking and relating categories, we refined the six tenets of
caring, presented later in the findings section, by sorting, lumping, and reorganizing data until
coherence emerged (Saldaña, 2016). Axial coding thus led to new findings that we had not seen
in previous analyses of this literature. One example of a finding discovered in this stage is the
importance of physical space in creating caring environments.
Step 8: Sorting Synthesis Results
This step of the critical qualitative research synthesis corresponds to step six in Cooper’s
(2010) method, “interpreting the results.” At this stage we sorted the papers into three buckets of
literature, using case study methodology to bound the cases (Ragin, 1992). One author sorted the
papers into three categories according to the organizational focus or unit of analysis of each
paper: classroom, school/leader, and policy/research/macro levels. This was part of the creative
work of crafting this synthesis, to curate novel research useful to scholars of education leadership
and policy (Alexander, 2020). Separating the literature into three cases at this stage was
instrumental to the findings presented in this paper.
Step 9: Analyzing Across Cases

32
This step also builds on collective case study methods (Stake, 2005) and departs from
Cooper’s (2010) method. To begin the cross-case analysis process, we used Microsoft Excel to
create a spreadsheet with a tab for each case of literature: classroom, school/leader, and
policy/research levels. We pulled papers from the main synthesis to analyze each level of caring
research, looking for patterns, similarities, and differences. One author wrote a memo for each
case, exploring the findings and themes that were emerging within each (Luker, 2008).
Step 10: Reviewing Critically Through Researcher Reflexivity
Step ten adds to the research synthesis literature by positing that, as a part of the research
method, researchers need to critically reflect on and review their findings, practicing reflexivity
(Creswell & Poth, 2018). This research synthesis deviates from traditional research synthesis
methods in two ways: it is qualitative in nature, and it is critical. While qualitative research
methods (e.g. Glaser & Strauss, 1967; Maxwell, 2013; Ragin, 1992; Stake, 2005; Yin, 2014)
have enabled us to unearth key findings, we aim to be critical in our analysis because of the large
shadow that whiteness casts on love and care research.
During the holistic literature review stage, we noticed a tendency for some white care
researchers to disregard the impactful research of scholars of Color. One author identifies as a
white woman in a white-educator dominated field, and believes that white female educators have
a tendency to operate from an ideology that prizes niceness, meritocracy, and colorblindness. She
reflected on the possibility that she, too, could possibly downplay contributions of scholars of
color. Color-evasiveness could get in the way of understanding the role that race plays in care
and love policies and processes (Gordon, 2005; Patterson et al., 2008). The other author is
Latino, and drew heavily on his experience both teaching and learning in the community where
he grew up. Caring and being cared for were acts tied to a particular social context. In short, the

33
research process involved interrogating and acknowledging the linguistic, ethnic, and political
dimensions of care, which was often a deeply personal and emotional process. As a result,
reflexivity became a paramount concern in conducting the literature review.
Thus, we intentionally reflected at every step of this process on who we were including
or excluding, and how we were searching for findings that varied by race/ethnicity, gender, and
sexual orientation. One author presented an earlier version of this paper at the annual conference
of the University Council on Educational Administration in Houston, Texas in November 2018;
comments from discussants, blind reviewers, and colleagues throughout this process further
urged us to consider the role of whiteness in caring studies.
We were inspired by Wolgemuth, Hicks, and Agosto’s (2017) conceptualization of
research synthesis as critical. In offering a new method, critical construct synthesis, they argue
that “under previous positivist notions of social science inquiry, constructs, thought of as latent
variables, were operationally defined in order to sanitize them of tacit assumptions” (Wolgemuth
et al., 2017, p. 133). These authors apply a poststructuralist, critical realist approach to “critically
examine constructs in scholarly literature, [which] is important for understanding underlying
assumptions about what counts as good education and for whom” (Wolgemuth et al., 2017, p.
137). While we did not conduct a critical construct synthesis, we were moved to unpack our own
assumptions, and, through their work, the apparent assumptions of earlier research synthesists
(e.g., Cooper, 2010).
Step 11: Presenting Critical Qualitative Research Synthesis Study Findings
To systematically organize the literature, we relied on four data analysis tools: Mendeley
(for highlighting, sorting studies, taking notes, and jotting analytic memos), Evernote (used to
memo findings as we reviewed the papers, and to capture screen shots of helpful article images),

34
Excel (for creating a master spreadsheet of all articles included and excluded), and Nvivo 12 for
Mac (for sorting and coding). Out of all of this data and ways of organizing information, we had
to decide how to present the findings. We relied on Cooper’s (2010) chapter on how to present
findings, and considered what would expand, build on, and refine existing research, especially
for leadership and policy scholars and practitioners.
Limitations
While we went to some lengths to ensure trustworthiness of the findings—using a
published synthesis process (Cooper, 2010), relying on strict inclusion and exclusion criteria,
performing multiple searches over a period of one year, discussing findings with a research
librarian and colleagues, using blind reviews and peer feedback to advance this synthesis—a
limitation remains that we are but two education researchers with particular views of the world.
This view holds that love and care are essential parts of American education. Another limitation
is the restrictiveness of the searches. There are many related constructs in the fields of
psychology and education that may, in fact, tell us a lot about love and caring: relatedness, trust,
well-being, and relationships. These search terms and variables would be a good fit for an
expanded synthesis on love and caring. Additionally, disability rights scholars have challenged
care as a construct (e.g., Finkelstein, 1998; Shakespeare, 2000), instead arguing for a justice-
based orientation toward self-determination. Who is allowed to accept and reject care is an open
question (Barnes & Mercer, 2003; Williams, 2001) not directly addressed in this paper.
Results
We first present a descriptive analysis of the state of love and care research today. The
findings are organized by research methodology, race/ethnicity, and the three levels of care:
classroom, school, and systems levels. After broadly sketching out the descriptive state of care

35
research, we turn to an analysis of love and care research in education.
Descriptive Findings
Our synthesis revealed that qualitative research reigns in the field of love and care. 83%
of studies (n=55) in the sample were qualitative in nature. 12% of studies qualified as
quantitative (n=8), and only 5% as mixed methods (n=3). Case study methods were used most
commonly in the qualitative studies (n=29), followed by ethnography (n=16), narrative research
(n=6), and phenomenology (n=2). One grounded theory study was included in the data set
(Rivera-McCutchen, 2012), as was one qualitative study that neglected to include specific
methods used (Horsch et al., 2002).
School Types and Content Area
High school studies (n=26) are the focus of more care and love research than middle
schools (n=19) or elementary grades (n=17). Some studies focused on all grades (n=9). A subset
of research studies looked at caring within a subject area. We analyzed studies by subject and
found that the majority of research that is subject specific was done in the non-tested subject
areas of physical education or music (n=6), followed by studies on language or literacy programs
(n=4) and math classrooms (n=4). Social studies and science netted one study each. Eleven
percent of papers in the study looked at English language learners as their sample. No studies
explicitly included any of the following in their study: special education students, gifted students,
or art programs.
Race and Ethnicity
Only about one-third of studies explicitly mentions the race or ethnicity of students. Of
those that include race or ethnicity as a part of their analysis, argument, or findings, the majority
are about Latinx students (n=11), followed by Black students (n =8). We found one study on a

36
Filipina student (Matias & Allen, 2016), one on indigenous students (Maori) (Averill, 2012), one
on migrant Chinese students (Yiu, 2016), one on students of color (unspecified), and one article
on recent refugees to the US, mainly students from Burma, Thailand, Yemen, and Nepal (Hos,
2014). Two studies explicitly discuss white students’ reactions as differing from their Black or
Latinx peers (Garza, 2008; Tosolt, 2009). While many white students were included in the
samples across papers, the whiteness of students was only explicitly included in the analysis in
two of the studies (Garza, 2009; Tosolt, 2009).
Three Levels of Care
We analyzed the 66 papers in this synthesis, looking for patterns and insights using the
constant comparative method (Glaser & Strauss, 1967). We then grouped the papers into three
levels of analysis: (a) classroom level, including teacher-student care and student-student care,
(b) school level, including studies on single school leaders, and (c) a macro systems level of care,
defined broadly as being about policy, research, or programs that encompass more than one
school or area. Figure 7 displays each focus area by number of papers; classroom level studies of
care dominate the synthesis (n =42), with the least amount of research attention paid to issues of
care at the more macro level (n =13). Less than half of the papers considered caring schools,
leaders, or school-level programs (n =26). We next discuss our analytic findings.
Figure 7. Unit of Analysis in Research Synthesis

37

Analytic Findings on Love and Care in Education
We identified six themes within the literature on care and love in education: (a) an
expanded definition of care, (b) caring is academic, (c) children and adults have different,
contrasting care perspectives, (d) caring is cultural and contextual, (e) caring leadership is
emerging as a field, and (f) a deficiency in caring policy analysis. We examine each theme in
turn below.
Theme 1: Caring Defined
Caring is a theory, an emotion, and a connection (Fredrickson, 2013; Noddings, 2002). In
the last four decades, scholars have expanded and empirically refined the definition of care and
love in education, often reshaping it to be more relevant to specific communities or cultures.
Caring terms found in the literature, along with definitions, are organized chronologically below
in Table 2.
Table 2. Caring Terminology and Definitions Found in the Literature, Organized
Chronologically
Caring Term Definition & Source

Caring as
empowerment
Caring collaboration inovles being together, being genuine, open,
honest, and trusting, and being fair (Mercado, 1993)

Caring as moral Related to race and power (Nobilt, 1993)
Classroom
School/Program/Leader
Cultural/Policy/Research

38
authority

Mathematical caring
relations
The interaction between a student and a mathematics teacher that
conjoins affective and cognitive practices, beliefs, and actions with
math learning as the goal (Hackenberg, 2010)

Critical care

Also defined as hard caring, which entails a caring curriculum that
is culturally responsive, transformative, and rooted in high
academic expectations, co-constructed through affirming
interpersonal relationship between teachers and students in
communities of color (personalismo, familia y communidad)
(Antrop-Gonzalez, 2006)

Institutional care Institutional care within Black communities includes interpersonal
relationships and institutional structures that are caring and hold
high expectations (Knight-Diop, 2010)

Culturally specific
care
Rooted in a Black Cultural Ethos (Johnson, 2011)

Interruptive caring An approach to caring for students that interrupts the ideological
underpinnings of an inequitable education system that devalues
bilingual education (Pimentel, 2011)

Community of care Includes teacher-student and program-student attention to needs;
care is about both academic and social needs (Ellerbrock & Kiefer,
2010, 2013)

Caring
teaching/cariño
Taking an interest in students, exhibiting empathy, and valuing
student voice in Hispanic English Learners (Lewis et al., 2012)

Transcaring “Caring enacted to build a common collaborative ‘in-between’
space that transcends linguistic and cultural differences between
schools and homes” for Latino youth (García et al., 2012, p. 799).
Transcaring strategies: translanguaging and bilingualism in
education, transculturacion in ulturally transforming pedagogy,
transcollaboration and compadrazgo (godparents and coparents as
trusted guides; a system of support) among all communities of
learning, and transactions through dynamic assessments

Reciprocal love Reciprocal love is “a deeply rooted interest in and concern for
community that extends personal well-being to communal
sustenance” (Jackson et al., 2014, p. 399)

Authentic care Rooted in a rite of passage contributes to an asset-based, or
additive, experience of Latinx students through institutional and

39
interpersonal care, displayed through a collective familial core, a
reflective, intellectual care, and a future-focused, critical care
(Curry, 2016)

Caring leadership Leading with an ethic of care; active caring by engaging school
community in being a caring school; assessing and engaging the
school community in self-assessments related to caring; shaping
school culture; thoughtfully attending to partnerships with parents
and community organizations (Louis et al., 2016)

Caring in critical race
theory, critical race
theory as an act of
love
“Loving testaments of critical race theory (CRT) that provide a
form of moral attachment for those committed to a more ethical
society” (Matias & Allen, 2016, p. 14); CRT scholarship as act of
love (Matias & Allen, 2016)

Caring school
communities
Strong interpersonal relationships and high academic expectations
(Tichnor-Wagner & Allen, 2016)

Care deficiency Exists at institutional and classroom level when state policies shape
care conceptions of teachers and students and when the state, via
restrictive policies, undermines care (Yiu, 2016)

Politicized caring Politicized caring between African American male teachers and
African American male students that is bi-directional (student-
teacher), rooted in political clarity and communal bonds, potential
affirming, and employs developmentally appropriate methods
(McKinney de Royston et al., 2017)

Critical feminist ethic
of care
Social-justice, equity-oriented practices that honor and lift up
struggles of Mexican students (Sosa-Provencio, 2017)

As shown in Table 2, there is no one definition of care. For such a complex type of
connection, this makes sense. In the 66 studies included in this synthesis, we found 18 variants of
a definition of care and love. The shift from generic care to a more contextualized care began in
1993, when Mercado defined caring as empowerment. In this study, caring is posited as being
together, genuine, open, honest and trusting. Nobilt (1993) first observed that care is related to
race and power; researchers who later focused on race or ethnicity as a crucial component of care
include: Antrop-Gonzalez (2006), who theorized about critical care in Latino community

40
schools; Knight-Diop (2010), who describs institutional care for Black communities; Johnson
(2011) who discusses a culturally critical care that is rooted in a Black Cultural Ethos; Pimental
(2011) who describes an interruptive caring that interrupts inequities for bilingual students; and
Lewis and colleagues (2012) who wrote about cariño/caring as taking an interest in, exhibiting
empathy for, and valuing the voices of Hispanic English learners. Garcia and colleagues (2012)
similarly have studied the experiences of Latino bilingual youth and proposed the idea of
transcaring.
Taken as a corpus, this body of research empirically positions care as much more than an
emotion. Care is a political act, and cannot be divorced from power, race, or cultural connection.
It is not a feeling, but a method of intervention in classrooms, schools, and programs.
Theme 2: Caring Is Academic
Many studies have found that caring is academic in nature and cannot be separated from
academics. This echoes findings from the psychology literature that argues that the affective and
cognitive are interconnected (e.g., Forgas & George, 2001). In a study that asked students about
their teachers, students spoke more about their teachers’ affective side (caring, kind) than about
instruction (Webb et al., 1993). In a qualitative study of middle school students and teachers,
four themes related to care for students in the classroom were found: work ethic (e.g., pressure to
do work, control of classroom); parent involvement; reciprocal, respectful talk between teachers
and students; and time spent with students (Alder, 2002). In other words, good teaching is a form
of care (Alder, 2002). Moreover, students do not artificially draw distinctions between care and
love and teaching.
Antrop-Gonzalez and DeJesus (2006), in an ethnography of Latino community-based
schools, found that critical care—an expansion of a traditional notion of care—is defined as a

41
caring curriculum that is culturally responsive, transformative, rooted in high academic
expectations, and co-constructed through affirming interpersonal relationship between teachers
and students. Not only are academics and the affective linked, but care is evidenced through high
academic expectations, among other things. Another study of a Midwestern elementary school
that serves primarily Black students found themes of differentiation, high expectations, creation
of safe and positive classroom climates, and a reflection on teaching practices to be indicators of
care in a classroom setting (Byrd et al., 1996). A mixed-methods study found that students need
individual check-ins that are both personal and academic in nature (Cooper & Miness, 2014).
Finally, there is a body of literature on mathematical caring relationships, which is
outside of typical math teaching approaches (Averill, 2012; Hackenberg, 2010; Jansen & Bartell,
2013; Lewis et al., 2012; Powell & Seed, 2010). Student perception of teacher caring (taking an
interest in students, exhibiting empathy, and valuing students’ voices) is associated with math
confidence, which leads to better math outcomes (Lewis et al., 2012).
Teachers’ caring behaviors also impact other, non-academic subject classes. In physical
education, teacher care is associated with elevated student enjoyment, positive attitudes, and
effort (Zhao & Li, 2016). In sum, caring is academic.
Theme 3: Children and Adults Have Different, Contrasting Care Perspectives
In a qualitative study of middle school students and teachers, students identified both
academic and interpersonal care as necessary for supporting their learning (Jansen & Bartell,
2013). However, middle school teachers did not connect caring practices to supporting learning
as much as their students did (Jansen & Bartell, 2013). In a separate qualitative study looking at
elementary school caring, students and teachers differed in their perceptions of care (Jeffrey et
al., 2013). This may be developmental in nature, the authors conclude, as students identified

42
physical safety as a demonstration of caring, whereas teachers did not (Jeffrey et al., 2013).
Attention to concrete actions—such as locking the doors during a drill—is different from an
emotionally-based, adult notion of caring.
In an analysis of 389 written student responses from elementary, middle, and high school
students in their physical education classes in a large urban city to this critical incident prompt—
Please describe one time when your physical education teacher was caring—
Larson (2006) found that the most frequently named type of caring behavior was, “Showed me
how to do a skill.” As demonstrated through several studies, children perceived caring as more
concrete and tangible than teachers did. Findings point to student perception of caring as
attention, such as individualized instruction or feedback (Larson, 2006). Adults may consider
care and love to be philosophical, moral, or “extra,” but children have shown across multiple
settings that, to them, caring is tangible and concrete, and is inextricably linked to learning.
Children and adults have different, contrasting care perspectives.
Theme 4: Caring Is Cultural and Contextual.
Caring looks different to different student groups (Tosolt, 2009). This theme considers
the varying care needs of students by gender, sexual orientation, and race and ethnicity. Studies
on Latinx, Asian American students, Black students, and whiteness as it pertains to the
contextualized nature of care are discussed.
Gender and Sexual Orientation. In a study that looked at the differences in females and
males, Latina students valued “prepares me for tests” the most (Garza & Huerta, 2014). Latino
male students, however, ranked “shows an attitude that makes me feel comfortable in class” as
top (Garza & Huerta, 2014). Caring teacher support is a significant moderator on the relationship
between victimization and school and social-emotional well-being outcomes for all students,

43
including those who identify as gay, lesbian, bisexual, and heterosexual. Caring teacher support
is associated with liking school for students of all sexual orientations (Konishi & Saewyc, 2014).
Only one paper (Konishi & Saewyc, 2014) examined the needs of queer students in caring, and
none have looked at gender non-binary students. This is a significant gap in the research on
caring, for we know that male students experience gender and sexual orientation victimization
more frequently than their female counterparts (Kosciw et al., 2009).
Students of Color. A study on recent refugees to the U.S. found four themes of caring:
empathy, patience, and flexibility; appropriate pedagogy to serve this population; building
confidence of students; and advocacy for students (Hos, 2014). In a study examining white and
Latino similarities and differences, findings revealed that white students prioritized kind actions,
whereas Latino students prioritized academic scaffolding—the practice of breaking learning into
manageable, accessible chunks to master academic content—in the classroom (Garza, 2009).
Only one study included indigenous youth in an analysis of love and care (Averill, 2012).
Asian American students are also under-researched in the care and love field, for our search
revealed only one paper that has been written about the experiences of an Asian American
woman and care in K-12 schools (Matias & Allen, 2016).
Latinx students have more often been included in studies on care and love. In a
qualitative study, a community of practice approach validated that literacy learning is embedded
in a Latinx community, and this practice approach has helped motivate literacy practices in and
outside of the classroom (Ordoñez-Jasis et al., 2016). Moreover, students who are learning
English are most impacted by teacher caring behaviors in the mathematics classroom (Lewis et
al., 2012). Another study found that students of color report less caring at school than white

44
students, and 80% of non-caring relationships included students of color (Cooper & Miness,
2014).
One qualitative study of two teachers of Black students in an urban elementary school—
one white female teacher and one Black male teacher—showed that teachers can promote
learning by caring, which looks like promoting respect, facilitating dialogue among students,
appreciating diverse cultures, showing caring for individuals and the classroom community,
connecting with families, having high academic expectations, creating safe and positive
classroom climates, connecting learning to real-life situations, using differentiated and higher-
level teaching strategies, and reflecting on their teaching practices (Byrd et al., 1996).
In an ethnography of a “lower” English class with predominantly African American
students, the teacher prioritized relationships with students, exhibited caring and enthusiasm in
the classroom, scaffolded challenging material, and embraced his students’ use of African
American Vernacular English (Dillon, 1989). The only study to examine caring in Black boys
(other studies on Black students did not disaggregate by gender) looked at reciprocal love in a
qualitative, two-year phenomenological study of male Black and Latino participants and their
mentor in a school-based mentoring program within two urban, New York City alternative high
schools for overage, undercredited youth (Jackson et al., 2014). They found evidence of
reciprocal love, defined as “a deeply rooted interest in and concern for community that extends
personal well-being to communal sustenance” (Jackson et al., 2014, p. 399). Reciprocal love is
an integral part of students’ success, nurtured through relationships (brotherhood), a collective
responsibility for all, a sense of trust and respect, and a greater sense of aspiration and capacity
(Jackson et al., 2014). Not all caring is created equal, and students experience care—and a lack

45
of care—differently. Caring is cultural and contextual, and varies by race, ethnicity, English
language learner status, and gender.
Whiteness. Whiteness is a theme that surfaced in five of the 66 papers. This matters
because in contrast to the student population, which is becoming increasingly more diverse, 80%
of teachers are white (U.S. Department of Education, 2017.). The previous theme found that
different students have different needs, and that a culturally relevant care rooted in Latinx
community values or a Black ethos is a part of the caring research. One qualitative study
suggests that a way to bridge the barriers between white teachers and students of color is through
culturally relevant practices (Parsons, 2005). In a four-year study of an arts program, researchers
found that whiteness shaped program participation and implementation (Patterson et al., 2008).
These findings suggest that race and whiteness need to be considered when thinking through
program or policy implementation.
Further, Pennington, Brock, and Ndura (2012) argue that we must consider white
privilege in caring relationships. A narrative piece that uses Critical Race Theory (e.g. Ladson-
Billings & Tate, 1995; Solórzano & Yosso, 2002) shares the consequences of teacher color-
evasiveness: lovelessness, experienced as traumatic by one Filipina student (Matias & Allen,
2016). Furthermore, in a qualitative study of Puerto Rican female students, Rolon-Dow argues
that understanding racism and whiteness is crucial to caring (2005). While the study of whiteness
in care/love research is evolving, it warrants further study, especially in light of students of color
reporting experiencing less caring than white peers (Cooper & Miness, 2014).
Theme 5: Caring Leadership Is Emerging as a Field
Ten studies in the sample focused on caring school leadership. Caring school leadership
is positively associated with student achievement, teachers’ perception of student academic

46
support, and teachers’ sense of collective responsibility (Louis et al., 2016). This same study
found that elementary teachers report much higher levels of caring than their secondary peers,
and that poverty is negatively associated with principal caring (Louis et al., 2016). Caring,
attentive principal leadership bolsters teacher caring behaviors toward students (Oplatka, 2007).
Several studies found that caring leaders attend to staff needs (Gray & Gardiner, 2013; van der et
al., 2014). Caring leaders empower others and create a community of care (Reitzug & Patterson,
1998; Tichnor-Wagner, & Allen, 2016; Warin, 2017).
A key finding is that social justice is endemic to Black female caring leadership (Bass,
2012; Witherspoon & Arnold, 2010). In one study, principals rated their own caregiving higher
than teachers did, especially on psychological (as opposed to management/organizational)
factors (van der Vyver et al., 2014). However, teachers in the same study rated
workplace/organizational aspects of principal care as more important/caring than psychological
determinants, which contributed least to positive care ratings (van der Vyver, van der
Westhuizen, & Meyer, 2014). This disconnect between principal and teacher perception is not
unlike that found among teachers and students; in both sets, tangible, concrete behaviors of care
were considered most important.
Students and families can also be caring leaders. Children can care for one another within
the classroom or in a program (Jackson et al., 2014; Luttrell, 2013; Schussler & Collins, 2006).
Indeed, there is no indication in this body of research that caring is the sole responsibility of any
one leader or teacher. Caring leadership may need to be reconceptualized to include students and
families based on the findings contained in this synthesis (Byrd et al., 1996; Gallagher, 2016;
García et al., 2012; Jackson et al., 2014; Luttrell, 2013; Schussler & Collins, 2006). This
reconceptualization would be in line with other scholars’ consideration of families and

47
community members as leaders in the social justice literature (e.g. Bertrand & Rodela, 2017).
While caring leadership is emerging as a field, it is nascent and leaves much work to be done by
leadership scholars.
Theme 6: Caring Policy Analysis Deficiency
A goal of this research synthesis was to develop a research agenda for education
leadership and policy. As demonstrated earlier, the majority of studies on love and care use the
classroom level as the unit of analysis. Fewer consider school-wide or leadership caring, and
fewer still consider education policy processes, implementation, or formation. Programs or
particular curricula were featured in 18 of the papers. These examined implementation of an arts
program (Patterson et al., 2008), a coming-of-age ritual known as firewalks, (Curry, 2016), a
peer-mentoring program, (Jackson et al., 2014), implementation of a school-wide social-
emotional learning program, Responsive Classroom, (Horsch et al., 2002), and nurture groups in
England (Warin, 2017). Small high schools, alternative schools, or bilingual programs provided
the setting for 11 of the papers, but rarely was the actual policy or program factored into final
analyses. Policy studies were missing entirely from this data set, although three papers did
analyze the unintended consequences of two particular policies: desegregation (Dempsey &
Noblit, 1993; Walker, 1993) and Chinese migrant policy (Yiu, 2016).
Yiu (2016) “examines how care is shaped by governmental policies, a topic that has
received little consideration in prior research” (p. 267). Yiu argues that state policies shape
teacher-student interactions and conceptions of care at the local level, finding a care deficiency at
the institutional and classroom level (2016). Yiu reconceptualizes caring theory in three
significant ways: how the state, through restrictive policies, undermines care by distorting
teacher-student relationships; how policies constrain instructional care, resulting in a deficiency;

48
and how state policy shapes care conceptions of teachers and students. Argues Yiu, “Through
this process I became aware of the state’s policy regime as a silent but significant actor in
shaping teacher actions toward migrants and distorting migrant youths’ perception of teachers”
(Yiu, 2016, p. 271). The idea that the state is a silent actor shaping teachers’ notions of care is
worthy of more research. In other words, there is a dearth of literature on care and love in
education policy.
Discussion
This paper used a critical qualitative synthesis process to analyze the empirical research
on care and love in K12 education from 1980-2018. Through a synthesis of 66 peer-reviewed
articles, we sought to answer two research questions: How is love and caring in education
conceptualized and defined in empirical research? To what extent does the current landscape of
love and caring theory in education extend to school leadership and education policy research?
Our answers were presented through six main themes described above: (a) an expanded
definition of care, (b) caring is academic, (c) children and adults have contrasting care
perspectives, (d) caring is cultural and contextual, (e) caring leadership is emerging as a field,
and (f) a deficiency in caring policy analysis.
Through this synthesis we sought to provide an empirical grounding for care and love as
leadership interventions. Central office leaders are brokers of care, interpreting state and federal
policies and making implementation decisions that impact care within schools and districts. Yet
no study analyzed the role of central office leaders. Similarly, superintendents, charter
management organization leaders, and school board members were also missing from the ten
studies on education leadership. As the role of these leaders continues to evolve, an exploratory
study on central office leaders’ practices, beliefs, actions, and resources as they relate to care

49
would be of benefit to the field. Similarly, studying how school leaders of all types—principals,
assistant principals, parents, teacher coaches, teachers union leaders, and central office leaders—
are interpreting and making sense of noncognitive and disciplinary reforms (e.g. social-
emotional learning and Restorative Justice), and how and to what extent caring factors into their
sensemaking would be a worthwhile study.
Two of the 10 studies to examine caring leadership featured Black female school leaders;
no studies looked at Black male leaders, or white leaders at all. Of course, white leaders were
included in the samples, but whiteness as it pertains to caring leadership has not been examined
and was a taken-for-granted assumption in many of the published studies reviewed here. Caring
is a gendered notion, but male leaders also exhibit caring behaviors. Male enactment of care may
look different from what we know about caring female leadership, yet scant research exists on
male caring leadership. More research in this area is needed. We also note that attention to the
particular care and love needs of LGBTQ+ students is sorely missing from this review. National,
field-based research shows that caring adults make differences in queer of color student
attendance rates’ and sense of belonging (Truong et al., 2020). We urge scholars to build on this
research to consider under what conditions education leadership and policy can affirm queer
students during these dark times of attacks on the queer community.
Only one study in this synthesis asked students to use cameras to document what was
important to them, with caring surfacing as a theme (Luttrell, 2013). A single study asked
students to write about caring behaviors (Larson, 2006). Most qualitative studies relied on case
study methodology or ethnography; most quantitative work drew on surveys. More work is
needed that uses creative methods to elevate the voices of students.
How do policymakers enact care? How do policymakers conceptualize care and love as

50
they craft policy that affects students, teachers, and leaders? These are questions for which we
have no empirical answers, but they are questions worth asking. Yiu (2016) in her piece for the
Harvard Educational Review on migrant China policy, found that a deficiency of care at the
macro policy level has had negative consequences for migrant students at the micro level.
Similarly, two studies that researched now-closed segregated schools found that desegregation
policy disrupted a continuity of care for African American students, removing an encouraging
and supportive environment when students were moved to white schools, segregated schools
were closed, and African American educators lost their jobs (Dempsey & Noblit, 1993; Walker,
1993). Surprisingly, no studies looked at No Child Left Behind’s increase in standards and
accountability, teacher compensation policy, or ethnic studies programs through a caring policy
analysis lens. This is an area ripe for more research as Valenzuela (2002) has discussed in her
work on the subtractive underpinnings of education research and policy.
More broadly, Tronto (1995, 2010) argues that caring in a democratic system requires
active participation in both politics and the responsibility of care. An ethic of care in a political
sphere implicates a considering of what institutions are aligned best to care and what practices
are associated with care.
In social policy research, some scholarship has addressed the need for policies oriented to
care, and the ways in which caring can be recentered as a goal uniting many disparate policy
areas (Eisler, 2008; Ferguson, 1984; MacKinnon, 1989; Sevenhuijsen, 1998, 2003; Smith, 2008).
Tronto (2010) further proposes a system of public policy and resource allocation that places a
morality of caring at its center. Policymaking with care “requires a deep and thoughtful
knowledge of the situation, and all of the actors’ situations, needs, and competencies. Those who
engage in a care process must make judgments: judgments about conflicting needs, strategies for

51
achieving ends, the responsiveness of care-givers, and so forth” (Tronto, 1993, p. 136).
Sevenhuijsen (2003) additionally puts forth a system of values for measuring an ethic of care
from a social policy perspective, where policymaking and governance would be aligned to care
and caring with an oversight capacity.
In our research synthesis, most studies on love and care use the classroom as the primary
unit of analysis, with organizational and system-level studies largely absent. As a result, while
much of the literature discusses caring practices, the findings here reveal a substantial gap in
education research in terms of considering schools as caring organizations.
Caring organizations maintain an ethic of care (Wicks et al., 1994) or “caring approach”
(Burton & Dunn, 2005). This orientation goes beyond caring practices and toward caring
structures. For example, Liedtka (1996) argues that caring organizations are not simply
organizations with caring individuals, but organizations that are built around the support of
caring members through the organizational values, practices, and strategic orientation. Liedtka
notes that an “organization would need to be highly decentralized to give each individual the
‘reach’ necessary to carry out the caring work on a daily basis, in an autonomous way” (1996, p.
193). Further educational research on care should consider the ways that the organizational
structure is oriented toward care, not only in terms of practices by educators, but also through the
values, mindsets, goals, mission, and supports for care within the organization as a whole.
Kahn (2005) argues that caring practices are related to whether an organization is
oriented toward caring as its central mission, inclusive of a concept of care that creates
environments to support caregivers. Particularly when faced with threats to operation and crisis,
resilience in caring organizations implicates a structure of care, rather than the mere presence of
caring practices (Dutton et al., 2006; Frost et al., 2006; Kahn, 2005; Lawrence & Maitlis, 2012).

52
More broadly, organizational structure impacts the way individuals enact care (Ferguson,
1984; Iannello, 1992). Feminist critiques of bureaucracy (Ferguson, 1984; Iannello, 1992;
Liedtka, 1996) have argued that relational systems of organization are better suited to caring
organizations. How a school system’s bureaucracy is structured around care is an area open for
analysis. Support for an ethic of care in organizations is also closely connected to organizational
culture, and the creation of an ethic of care is related to organizational culture, values and beliefs
around caregiving work (Dutton et al., 2006; Friedman et al., 1998). How organizational culture
and care are related should be investigated to build caring organizations that best support
educators and caring practices. This research need not be only descriptive. Literature outside of
education (e.g., McAllister & Bigley, 2002) has examined organizational care, and found that it
was associated with positive employee perceptions.
Ultimately, scholarship in this area suggests that caring organizations can be created and
fostered (Fisher & Tronto, 1990; Tronto, 2010). Tronto (2010) discusses the ways that care can
be propagated through caring about, caring for, caregiving, and care-receiving practices. As a
result, scholarship on caring organizations should move beyond care in organizations and
examine the conditions in which caring can best take place.
Conclusion
The emphasis on standards and accountability in schools affects classroom practice,
leadership, and education policy. This emphasis has resulted in a paradigm shift that prizes
standards and rules (Ball, 2003; Mehta, 2013). This shift has consequences for student stress and
teacher morale. Moreover, schools of education have not challenged this paradigm shift (Tuck &
Gorlewski, 2016). Our research synthesis employed systematic, critical qualitative research
synthesis methods to present 66 articles published in peer-reviewed journals from 1980–2018 on

53
love and caring in education. This synthesized body of literature suggests that caring as an
institution, practice, form of leadership, ethics, and policy paradigm is evidence-based,
empirically supported, and linked to positive academic outcomes for students. For all of our
focus on academic proficiency and enhanced discipline in education, we have neglected to
legitimize a low-cost intervention: caring. While education reform has been slow, researchers
have influenced a number of impactful initiatives, including the decrease in suspension rates for
African American students, interventions for third grade reading, and increased flexibility under
ESSA (Oakes, 2018). Researchers can undertake the responsibility for advancing caring as a
leadership intervention and policy framework, with decades of empirical research to support
such a shift. In these traumatic times that call for innovative healing processes, caring and love
might offer light and hope.

54

Chapter 3: Ensuring the Social-Emotional Well-Being of Students and Staff: Toward a
Theory of School District Care
with Jeff Walls

This chapter examines conceptions of care and social-emotional well-being in the school district
central office. Using a grounded theory approach and drawing on a qualitative data set of
interviews with 47 central office leaders, we present a definition of district-level care, suggesting
that it is about ensuring the social-emotional well-being, mental health, and physical safety of
staff and students in the district system. District-level care is relational, systemic, embodied and
environmental, and equity and needs driven. To fill a gap in theory, we offer a series of
propositions toward theorizing district-level care. We discuss the implications of this theorizing
and suggest that our theoretical propositions be used as a representation of current knowledge
to guide action and to inspire research, policy, and practice.

Introduction
The well-being and mental health of students and school staff are of pressing concern.
Rising rates of adolescent depression, battles over critical race theory, and anti-trans legislation
are all reasons for an increased awareness of care and social-emotional well-being supports
(Morris et al., 2021; Wilson & Dumornay, 2022). Moreover, in the wake of COVID-19, school
district systems are scrambling to help with collective healing and recovery while overseeing
efforts to mitigate learning loss. Among multiple competing priorities, central office leaders are
juggling academics, family engagement, and supports for well-being. How central office leaders

55
conceive of care in the context of such a complex organizational and political environment is the
focus of this study.
A key facilitator of well-being in schools may originate from the district central office
through caring district leadership. We broadly define care in K12 education as a set of practices
and underlying beliefs connected to high academic expectations, authentic interpersonal
relationships, and the intentional creation of structures, routines, and processes that integrate
individual and communal ethics of care (Jackson et al., 2014; Knight-Diop, 2010; Noddings,
2013; Tichnor-Wagner & Allen, 2016). While much has been written about the importance of
care, love, and social-emotional well-being in education, we know little about the school district
central office as a site for care. That is, how superintendents and other central office leaders
conceptualize care and social-emotional supports is under-researched. Moreover, care at the
organizational level is under-theorized, resulting in a theoretical gap that we are beginning to fill.
In this paper, we draw on qualitative data to consider this research question: How do district
leaders conceptualize care and social-emotional supports at the district level?
Our findings suggest that district-level caring leadership (a) is about ensuring the social-
emotional well-being, mental health, and safety of students and staff; (b) is relational; (c) is
systemic; (d) is embodied and environmental; and (e) is equity and needs driven. Taking these
components of care together, we offer a series of propositions to move toward theorizing
organizational care. This fills a gap in extant research and theory while offering practical insight
into what leaders of multi-level education organizations talk about when they talk about care.
In what follows, we first review the literature related to our study, focusing on care in
K12 education and among school district central office leaders. Next, we sketch out the
theoretical grounding that underpins this study. Following that, we outline our methodology

56
including sample, data sources, analysis, positionality, and limitations. Next, we review our
findings and conclude with discussion and implications for policy, practice, and research.
Literature Review
Care and social-emotional supports are an ascendent topic of interest in education
leadership studies. To date, most research on care has emphasized relationships at the school
level (Louis et al., 2016). While no research has examined what caring district leadership entails,
findings from school-level research suggest that attention to organizational characteristics (Walls
et al., 2021), race and culturally affirming practices (Bass & Alston, 2018), and the role of hope
in critical care (Rivera-McCutchen, 2020) may be important for district leaders in the enactment
of care.
Care theory’s best-known theorist in education is Nel Noddings (2002), who suggested
that caring leaders shift their leadership practices toward an ethic of care and away from a
relentless focus on academics. Another highly cited care scholar is Audrey Thompson (1998),
who advanced care theory by arguing for a color-conscious approach to care. Later scholars
further argued for color-conscious approaches in describing reciprocal love, authentic caring, and
culturally relevant critical teacher care (Antrop-Gonzalez & De Jesus, 2006; Curry, 2016;
Roberts, 2010; Rolon-Dow, 2005; Watson et al., 2016). In a study utilizing regression and
structural equation modeling of 134 teachers’ responses on a survey measuring their perceptions
of caring, Louis, Murphy, and Smylie (2016) found that caring school leadership is positively
associated with student achievement, teachers’ perception of academic support, and teachers’
sense of collective responsibility. Finally, in a study of the state’s role in shaping conceptions of
care, Yiu (2016) theorized that a care deficiency exists at the institutional and classroom level
when state policies shape care conceptions via restrictive policies that undermine care.

57
In this study, we focus on district central office leadership including superintendents,
assistant superintendents, and director-level district leaders. The role of the district central office
has evolved in recent decades, shifting from compliance-oriented bureaucracies to reimagined
drivers of instructional reform and change (Burch & Spillane, 2004; Honig, 2009; Peurach et al.,
2019). Moreover, scholars find that superintendents and central office workers play important
roles in district policymaking, and that leadership actions and beliefs may lead to uneven and
inequitable uptake, implementation, and educator buy-in (Coburn, 2016; Donaldson et al., 2021;
Rigby et al., 2016; Wong et al., 2020). The shift in emphasis from a primarily bureaucratic to a
change-driven perspective in district central office work has coincided with a policy emphasis on
academic press; district leaders’ role in managing and organizing the enactment of care is largely
unexamined.
A few hints as to what caring district leadership might entail can be found in recent
scholarship on social-emotional learning. Schwartz and colleagues conclude that districts bear
responsibility for “system-level activities to launch and coordinate SEL work across multiple
sites, developing district and school partnerships, and developing adults’ capacity to promote
SEL,” among other activities (2020, p. xviii). In another study of school district supports for
social-emotional learning, Marsh et al. (2018) found that staffing, formal programs, professional
development, and frameworks and messaging were tantamount to the success of social-emotional
learning outcomes. In essence, prior literature suggests that central office leaders have an
important role to play in promoting care for students in K12 schools.
In order to examine how district leaders conceptualize care and social-emotional
supports, we draw on the later work of Nel Noddings (2013; 2015). Noddings is one of few
scholars who has written about organizational care in education. In a conceptual and

58
philosophical essay, she suggests that care at the organizational level is done through caring
about. This is inherently different from the type of care performed by those who are in direct
caring relationships with students (e.g., teachers). At the organizational level, caring about is
performed through the creation of conditions for care. We use the idea of conditions for care as a
sensitizing concept, arguing that a primary condition for care at the district level is to define and
clarify conceptions of care, with an interest in theorizing organizational care.
Conceptual Framework
Our conceptual framework utilizes qualitative deductive analysis and constructed
grounded theory as conceptual guides (Charmaz, 2014; Gilgun, 2019). We also are attuned to
sensitizing concepts from extant research on care and love in K12 education. First, we employ
deductive qualitative analysis as both conceptual framework and study methodology. Deductive
qualitative analysis is a branch of the Chicago School of Sociology (Gilgun, 2019), an update
on—and slightly different approach from—the highly cited, five-decades old grounded theory
(Glaser & Strauss, 1967). Deductive qualitative analysis differs from grounded theory (Glaser &
Strauss, 1967) in that it recommends and appreciates the use of prior theory to inform research.
In the spirit of this methodology, we draw on particular concepts as sensitizing, which
means that these concepts gave us something to consider as we entered data analysis but did not
demand a particular set of results (Charmaz, 1990). In other words, going into this study, we
were already familiar with the corpus of work on care in K12 education, as described above in
the literature review and in more depth in the previous chapter. Concepts brought into this study
that shaped our thinking, creation of interview guides, analytical processes, and writing include
care as relational (Goldstein, 1999; Noddings, 2006; Tichnor-Wagner & Allen, 2016), notions
of caring leadership (Smylie et al., 2020; Walls et al., 2021; Witherspoon & Arnold, 2010), and

59
the politicized nature of care (McKinney de Royston et al., 2021; Rivera-McCutchen, 2021).
This body of literature suggests that caring is relational and enacted in relationship with others
(e.g., teacher-student, student-student). Further, caring scholars Mark Smylie, Joseph Murphy,
and Karen Seashore Louis have contributed a collection of studies on caring education
leadership. They define caring leadership as an action that addresses needs and is enacted via
quality relationships (Smylie et al., 2020). Smylie and colleagues assert that caring leadership
rests on three foundations: aims, positive virtues, and competences. The authors identify three
components of caring leadership practice for school leaders: being caring in relationships with
students, cultivating caring communities, and fostering caring in families and communities
(Smylie et al., 2020).
Finally, recent work highlights the politicized nature of care. Maxine Mckinney de
Royston, Tia Madkins, Jarvis Givens, and Na’ilah Nasir (2021), in a study of Black teachers,
found that care, embedded in a racialized political clarity, offered interpersonal and institutional
mechanisms to lift up, protect, and care for Black children, shielding them from racialized harm.
In her in-depth, multi-year analyses of caring leadership in New York City, Rosa Rivera-
McCutchen created a framework for radical caring leadership, suggesting that caring leadership
is political in nature, includes antiracist stances and strategic navigation of political realities, and
is imbued with radical hope (Rivera-McCutchen, 2021).
In sum, while extant literature lays out a piecemeal fabric for broadly understanding care
in educational settings, our field has yet to clearly define or theorize about district-level care, a
gap we aim to fill through this study. Conceptually, deductive qualitative analysis is built for
such a task, for “deduction involves movement from the general to the particular and is
inseparable from inductive reasoning” (Gilgun, 2016, as cited in Gilgun, 2019, p. 9).

60
Study Methodology
To examine the role of district leadership in providing care and social-emotional
supports, we used a type of grounded theory approach as described above (Charmaz, 2014;
Gilgun, 2019; Glaser & Strauss, 1967) to investigate this research question: How do district
leaders conceptualize care and social-emotional supports at the district level? In what follows,
we explain how grounded theory and qualitative deductive analysis informed our study. We
begin by outlining our data sources, followed by descriptions of our interview process, data
analysis procedures, researcher positionalities, and study limitations.
Sample
Our aim for this study was to build theory about organizational, district-level care. In
other words, our goal was not to find model caring districts or seek out a representative sample
of district leaders, such as one might for an instrumental case study (e.g., Stake, 2015). We
sought to interview a diverse pool of central office leaders from different types of districts and in
various regions of the country. Participants were recruited through convenience and snowball
sampling methods. Our research recruitment strategy was to approach a potential district
representative, explain the study, and ask for a meeting with the superintendent or the central
office leader in charge of care or social-emotional supports. Thus, our sample varied by role
type. In some places, and particularly in smaller districts, the superintendent considered himself
best positioned to participate. In other districts, the superintendent or district contact directed us
to an assistant superintendent or director of student services, for example. In larger districts, we
interviewed those who were in departments of whole child supports or social-emotional learning
(SEL). In all, we interviewed 47 central office leaders, as shown in Table 3. Our sample includes

61
superintendents (n=17), assistant superintendents and chief officers (n =10), directors and
assistant directors (n =10), SEL or whole child leaders (n =5), and one academic coach.
Table 3. Roles of Research Participants
Role Number
Superintendents 17
Assistant Superintendents & Chief Officers 10
Directors & Assistant Directors 14
SEL & Whole Child Leaders 5
Academic Coach 1

We interviewed leaders over the course of one year, from May 2020 to May 2021.
Participants ranged in age from 40 to 70 (see Table 4). This sample population,
disproportionately white and male, reflects broader gender and race gaps nationally within the
central office (Miles Nash & Grogan, 2021; White, 2021).
Table 4. List of Research Participants
Name Title District
Name
District
Type
Region M
/F
Race or
Ethnicity
Aaron Superintendent
Honey Creek
Suburb West M White
Brandon Director
Honey Creek
Suburb West M White
Cathy Director
Honey Creek
Suburb West F White
Cheryl Director of SEL
Baker
Suburb Midwest F White
Christopher Director Ronan Suburb South M White
David S. Superintendent
Sun River
City West M White
Darren Whole Child Specialist
Troy City
City Midwest M White
Deborah Director
Winifred
Rural South F White
Dennis Director
Plentywood
City South M White
Elise Assistant Director
Sun River
City West F White
Frances Director
Sun River
City West F White
Grace Assistant Director
Sun River
City West F White
Henry Superintendent
Carter
Town West M White
Isaac Superintendent
Pleasant
Prairie
City West M White
James Superintendent
Drummond
Town Midwest M White

62
June Assistant Superintendent
Pleasant
Prairie
City West F White
Ken Superintendent Saco Town South M White
Kevin Academic Coach
Butte County
Suburb South M White
Kyle Superintendent
Lone Crow
Rural West M White
Larry Chief Business Officer
Laurel
Suburb West M White
Linda Director Stevensville City West F Native-
American
Lisa Director Bridger Suburb West F Black
Lori Director of SEL
Poplar City
Suburb Midwest F White
Lucy Director
Lone Crow
Rural West F White
Mary Assistant Superintendent
Alberton City
Suburb West F White
Michael Superintendent
Cambria
Town West M White
Nicole Director of SEL
Eureka City
City South F Black
Nikki Assistant Superintendent
Cambria
Town West F White
Noah Superintendent
Chester
Suburb South M White
Oliver Superintendent
Foothills
City West M White
Paige Assistant Superintendent
Foothills
City West F White
Quinn Director
Foothills
City West F White
Randy Superintendent
Miles City
City South M White
Raymond Assistant Superintendent
White
Sulphur
Springs
Suburb Midwest M White
Robert Assistant Superintendent
Libby
City West M White
Ron Superintendent
LeFevre
Town West M White
Samantha Assistant Superintendent
LeFevre
Town West F White
Sarah Director
Dodson
Suburb Midwest F White
Tabitha Director
LeFevre
Town West F White
Theresa Director
Twin Bridges
Suburb South F Black
Ulysses Superintendent
McGregor
Rural West M White
Vince Superintendent
Valleyford
Rural West M White
Wesley Superintendent
Middleton
City West M White
Winnie Assistant Superintendent
Red Lodge
Suburb Midwest F White
Xavier Superintendent
Belle Jardin
Rural West M White
Yvette Assistant Superintendent
Middleton
City West F White
Zach Superintendent
Centennial
Town West M White

63
Our participant sample is nearly evenly divided between men and women, as shown in
Table 5. However, as displayed in Table 6, all of the superintendents in our study are male. No
female superintendents are included in our sample. Moreover, 73% of central office leaders
working at the assistant or director levels were female.
Table 5. Gender of Research Participants

Gender Number Percentage
Male 25 53%
Female 22 47%

Table 6. Gender of Research Participants by Role Type

Gender and Role Number Percentage
Male Superintendents 17 36%
Female Superintendents 0 0%
Female Other Central Office Leaders 22 47%
Male Other Central Office Leaders

8 17%

Study participants hailed from the West, South, and Midwest regions, with the majority
of participants located in the West (see Table 7). The preponderance of Western leaders is due to
our positions as researchers located in West coast universities.
Table 7. District Locations of Research Participants, by U.S. Geographic Region

Region Number
Midwest 7
South 9
West 31

Overall, our participants worked in 34 different districts. In eight districts, we
interviewed between two and four leaders per district. In the other locations, we interviewed only
one leader. Since we used a grounded theory and convenience sampling approach, we did not

64
limit participant recruitment to a particular district type. As outlined in Table 8, we interviewed
leaders from school districts located in cities (n=17), suburbs (n =15), towns (n =9), and rural
locales (n =6).
Table 8. Participant District by Type

District Type Number
City 17
Suburb 15
Town 9
Rural 6

Source: National Center for Education Statistics, Common Core of Data District Directory
Information

Data Sources
We used semi-structured interview guides (see Appendices C and D) to conduct
interviews with study participants. Our interview techniques evolved and shifted as interviews
progressed, consistent with a grounded theory approach (Glaser & Straus, 1967). Using the
interview guides, we probed for sensitizing concepts (Charmaz, 2005) that we deduced were
related to district-level care, including: conceptions of care; structures; communications;
resources; staffing (i.e., job titles); data use; and community-responsive, equity-oriented care
(Marsh et al., 2018; Park & Datnow, 2017; Rowan, 1982). Interviews were conducted using
Zoom teleconferencing technology, lasted about an hour each, and were professionally
transcribed. Researchers also collected documents and analyzed district web sites as part of the
research process.
Data Analysis
To analyze the data, we first used a constant comparative method (Glaser & Strauss,
1967) to surface initial themes and tensions in the data. In practice, this consisted of the two

65
author-researchers reviewing a series of interview transcripts, reading them separately, creating
inductive codes and themes, and then meeting to share findings and elaborate on emergent
themes through data talk meetings (Miles & Huberman, 1994). This process enabled us to clarify
emergent categories. Then, based on initial categories, we created an analytical summary sheet
that consisted of analytical prompts (Neumann & Pallas, 2015). A full set of summary sheets was
completed for all interviews conducted, ranging from 3-10 pages each (see a sample in Appendix
E), and resulting in a total of 288 pages of initial analyses. This process was akin to first cycle
coding typical of qualitative research (Saldaña, 2016).
Throughout this process, researchers wrote detailed memos and engaged in regular
analysis conversations to synthesize and crystallize findings (Miles et al., 2020). Using the
memos, notes from synthesis conversations, and analytic summary sheets, the researchers sifted
and sorted themes using five rounds of axial coding (Saldaña, 2016), analyzing the data until “no
new properties emerged,” per constructed grounded theory methodology (Charmaz, 2014, p.
192). Appendix F contains example quotes and raw categories that were used for comparison
during the analysis process. In all, the major themes presented here emerged as salient with more
than 12 leaders ascribing to each category of care. Another triangulation technique included
searching for negative or discrepant findings (Creswell & Ploth, 2018). Finally, an early,
practitioner-oriented article based on these study findings was published (Kennedy & Walls,
2022) and shared with research participants, along with an invitation to give feedback. This
served as a form of member checking to enhance trustworthiness of our study findings (Merriam
& Tisdell, 2016).

66
Researcher Positionality
The authors of this paper both have backgrounds in classroom teaching and educational
leadership, and these perspectives shaped this research in three profound ways. First, our
education backgrounds affected how we interacted with practitioners: as learners and colleagues.
We used this background to build rapport and relationships, essential to qualitative inquiry
(Maxwell, 2013). Second, we may have been more sensitized to the working realities of
educators during the inductive analysis process. Third, we think care is an important and
necessary topic, and part of what drew us in, as care scholars, is the sense that we were not
always able to effectively care for our students in the ways they might have needed.
One author believes that her identity as a white woman motherscholar (Matias, 2022)
helped facilitate access to other white female central office leaders. We believe that when we
brought up issues of race and equity the white leaders were comfortable sharing their color-
evasive views. On the other hand, an African American woman whom one author interviewed
was noticeably uncomfortable when she discussed the problematic color-evasive ethos espoused
by the district leadership. In all interview relationships, our white identity likely shaped how
participants felt as we discussed issues fraught with tension. Our positionalities have influenced
the way our research questions were received, and we remain conscious of the multiple
privileges and personas we bring to our fieldwork.
Limitations, Qualifications, & Trustworthiness
This study was exploratory. Central to a deductive qualitative analysis approach (Gilgun,
2019) is an understanding that the results presented herein are provisional. This means that while
we are advancing theorizing about district and organizational care, these propositions are subject
to change as other scholars bring empirical findings to bear on how the school district does—or

67
does not—operate as a site of organizational care. We anticipate that our early theorizing will
shift and change as we head into an era of healing and recovery in the wake of COVID-19, and
we welcome elaborations, disagreements, and further empirical evidence on district and
organizational care.
Second, we used a pooled qualitative data set to conduct this study. That is, each author
collected data in the 2020-2021 school year as part of independently conceived research projects
on central office care. After leading data collection, we then “pooled” the raw data to form the
data set drawn on for this paper. While quite common in the quantitative research tradition, this
type of secondary analysis is relatively new within the field of education. Pooled qualitative data
analysis has been used in the health field to study elusive or sensitive topics (Long-Sutehall et
al., 2011), and can lead to robust theory generation (West & Oldfather, 1995).
However, some scholars raise concerns about the ethics of pooling data (Long-Sutehall et
al., 2011). One concern is about possible marginalization of participant voices (West &
Oldfather, 1995). That is, through the pooling of data, the original richness of voices might get
lost. Another concern revolves around challenges to methodological rigor (Ruggiano & Perry,
2019).
In response to these issues raised by other scholars, we took a number of steps to ensure
trustworthiness of our findings. For example, we maintained participant voice through use of
thick description (Geertz, 1972) and the intentional use of pseudonyms. We constructed this
grounded theory with utmost care, ensuring that the most salient themes were well represented
across both studies, and would have arisen if the data sets were independently analyzed. In cases
where we found discrepant or puzzling data that differed between the two pools of data, we
searched for alternative interpretations or returned to our analytical memos and summaries to

68
engage in a reflexive, iterative questioning of the data (Creswell & Poth, 2018). To ensure
trustworthiness, we eliminated any findings that may have resulted from one researcher’s
probing for concepts that the other did not (e.g., deep equity probes, questions about the feel of
care). Ultimately, we believe that our shared, secondary analysis of a larger pooled data set
allowed for more generative, nuanced thinking in service of a theory of organizational care.
Third, studying anything during the pandemic, especially high-level leadership, was a
logistical challenge. We relied heavily on snowball and convenience sampling to secure research
participation. While we have a range of district leaders included in our study, we have a wider
representation from the West coast of the U.S., along with select participants from the Midwest
and Southeast regions. Our study includes no leaders from the Mountain West or Northeast
regions. No female superintendents were interviewed, and our sample is predominantly white,
two additional limitations of our study.
Findings
This study sought to answer the research question: How do district leaders conceptualize
care and social-emotional supports at the district level? We found that district level care is
complex and multifaceted. Conceptions of school district care included five broad categories,
which we summarize here: (a) district leaders described caring as fundamentally about ensuring
the social-emotional well-being, mental health, and safety of students and staff within the district
system; (b) district leaders described care as relational; (c) district leaders indicated that
organizational care is systemic, and enabled through a continuum of partnerships with
community organizations, outside agencies, and via internal connections; (d) district leaders
described care as both embodied and environmental; and (e) district-level care is equity and

69
needs-driven. Of course, in practice, these parts of district care are overlapping and multifaceted,
and complement and enrich one another. We examine each theme in turn.
1. Care: Social-Emotional Well-Being, Mental Health, and Physical Safety
District-level care is about ensuring the social-emotional well-being, mental health, and
physical safety of students and staff. District-level care is complex and layered, and what it
means to care at the district level is evolving in response to current events and COVID-19.
District-level care is about both attending to individual student and staff needs and thinking
proactively about the well-being of all of those in the school system. Care at the school district
level is connected to academic success, and involves ensuring social-emotional well-being,
mental health, and safety in service of—or as a precursor to—academic learning.
One example of the complexity and depth of district care was shared by Sarah, a director
of student services, who described care in her position in the district central office as composed
of “the supports, resources, and making sure that everybody has what they need… it’s wearing a
lot of hats... to meet the physical and social emotional needs of everyone in the system.” We note
that Sarah does not restrict her conceptions of care to one relationship or practice, but rather
implies that her role as director is to care for all in the system, students and adults alike.
Indeed, the complexity of caring for adults and students in the district came up repeatedly
in relation to Covid-19. Another example of this complexity came from the voice of Deborah,
director of counseling services. Deborah described paying closer attention to adult care needs
and working with her staff to coordinate teacher wellness days. Many participants echoed the
heightened attention paid to teacher and staff care needs in response to rising stress and anxiety
among adult staff in the context of the pandemic. This was a marked change from past care
considerations, they noted.

70
Yet another layer of caring conceptualization was found as a type of proactive care,
enacted by thinking ahead about social-emotional problems. James, a superintendent,
emphasized this:
I mean, obviously we first focus on self-care, if that's a good way for me to describe that.
That is helping our kids, helping our employees recognize methods and ways to take care
of themselves. Then the second focus that we have ties in with the social-emotional piece
that we're focused on as well. That is to help our kiddos, help our faculty as well, be
aware of signs and strategies, symptoms, those kinds of things that can be early warning
signs of challenges, so that then again, we can be preemptive rather than reactive to help
our kids and teachers.
In this quote, James discussed the importance of anticipating student social and emotional needs,
as well as considering the care of adults in the system. Some leaders acknowledged the
importance of their leadership in the arena of social-emotional well-being, mental health, and
safety, but were less certain of how to lead in this area. Aaron, a superintendent, described this
challenge:
I tend to probably sharpen my saw more in the area of academics, even though I know
they're so tightly intertwined. The other area that I'm probably more apt to delve into
would be more actual true mental health supports for the kids that really need mental
health. There's a lot of that, but general caring and welcoming environments, no, I could
absolutely utilize more training, more resources, more learning in this area.
Aaron, like many central office leaders we spoke with, used a variety of terms to describe what
caring district leadership consists of, using language related to social-emotional learning, mental
health, safety, physical health, and psychological care.

71
Grace, assistant director of student services, talked about the importance of knowing each
student so they can feel connected:
For me, it's been a goal for administrators that each and every one of the students within
your building are known, and that they have a positive rapport with a positive adult figure
within the school. That's been a goal for us. Even our high school’s like 1,300 students
and I've said the same thing. Every student needs to have somebody to be able to connect
with so that they've got that positive support at the school. Whether it’s an advisory
period, how do we make those kind of things happen? Many schools, you'll see them go
through the list of students and children, and say, ‘Okay, these are the kiddos that I
know.’ Then they’ve identified which students are left that we don't see have a positive
adult relationship within our school system and then how do we connect? Really bringing
that up with our administrators as part of the expectation, this is the work, ensuring that
every student is known and cared for within our school system. We've been really
intentional about that.
Grace identified a part of care that is related to belonging and connection. Many administrators
in our sample spoke similarly of creating social-emotional well-being supports through
connections and a sense of belonging for the students and staff in their system.
Finally, our data reveal a general emphasis on social-emotional supports in service of
care, but only a few district leaders pointed to specific processes or strategic plans that clearly
laid out their district’s understanding of what it means to care. Raymond, an assistant
superintendent, discussed his district’s relational, systemic process for clarifying their
conceptions of district care:

72
Maybe two years ago, we engaged in our strategic planning process… One piece of well-
being was, we’re going to have two goals. And really, it’s around, obviously, that whole
learning piece, and then the student and staff well-being. We had to include staff, and we
got that out of the empathy steps because we listened to staff. Staff were a part of these
conversations; students were part of the conversation. We were intentional in using the
word ‘well-being’ and not ‘wellness’; well-being is a way of being. It’s not going to be
this program… It’s kind of the difference between temperature and climate. And so, well-
being is our approach, and we came down to balance, work-life balance, or school-life
balance for a kid, and a sense of belonging.
In the above interview snippet, Raymond described how his district had spent several years
carefully constructing a vision of care for their district. This strategic vision was built, in part, by
including the voices of students and staff. Other district leaders in our sample revealed how they
had arrived at a shared definition of social-emotional learning through committee meanings, or
adopted well-known definitions of SEL, such as that from the Collaborative for Academic,
Social, and Emotional Learning (CASEL).
The majority of our participants, however, did not point to a single approach or definition
that conceptually clarified the boundaries of their caring work. Sarah, director of special services,
shared that her district has a range of approaches that fall into the caring arena, including
restorative justice, trauma-informed practice, Second Step (a popular social-emotional learning
curriculum, and more. She joked about this “kitchen sink” approach to care, saying, “Just throw
it all at them. Something will stick somewhere, right?” However, Sarah’s district was certainly
not the only one with a range of approaches in our sample. We found that the majority of

73
participants included a mix of programs, philosophies, and tiers of supports in their
understanding and enactment of district level care.
In summary, we found that district leaders described their caring, socially-emotionally
supportive leadership as it related to social-emotional and well-being supports. How they
precisely (or imprecisely) defined caring, however, varied among the participants. We
summarize this important component of caring as ensuring the social-emotional well-being,
mental health, and safety of students and adults within a school system, which is connected to
academic learning.
2. Care is Relational
Our data reveal that a large part of district care involves relationships and collaborations
across and within the school district system. Building relationships is a tangible act of caring.
However, relational care can also be intangible and less formal, which leaders described as
“modeling,” “being empathetic,” and hoping that interactions “trickle down.” Inside the central
office, leaders enact care in relationship with a large and complex number of teams, colleagues,
and fellow educators. An example of this relational district-level care comes from Winnie, an
assistant superintendent, who said that much of her caring work happens in meetings as she leads
and interacts with various teams. Within schools and across the districts, Winnie puts care and
social-emotional needs at the top of her priority list, both in what they focus on as a district and
in how they do their work together.
Robert, an assistant superintendent, described how his school district executive team had
engaged in rich discussions about how to teach social-emotional competencies. He said,
The question we’re grappling with, actually, right now, as we’re getting slowly,
hopefully, out of crisis reopening mode and into forward thinking, is, ‘Do we consider

74
SEL curriculum or pedagogy?’ Because those are two different approaches. I think, if it’s
curriculum, you can buy something off the shelf. I think we’ve all discovered, or at least
as an executive staff is that we think it can be curricular, but it is definitely a pedagogy.
So, it’s not just what you teach… We want it to be the basis for how adults are building
positive relationships with students on campus.
In this case, Robert describes several types of relational, collaborative work. First, he describes
the dialogue happening inside the school district, as they think about how to teach social-
emotional competencies, what approach to use, and how to deliver such lessons. Then, he says
that, in fact, they want to focus on relationships between teachers and students. David, a
superintendent, similarly stressed the importance of relational care:
In terms of when people say, ‘Hey what do you need?’ I always respond the same way, I
need loving, caring adults. We need people to mentor and come into our schools and
build relationships with kids because the reality of it is our teachers and our staff are
doing a great job with that. The demand for loving caring adults is far outpaced by the
number of staff we have in our buildings. When I think about what resource you need the
most, I would say we need more loving and caring adults who can mentor students and be
a positive influence in their lives.
The importance of caring adults who can build caring relationships with students was a major
theme in our data. Frances, director of student services, described how her type of relational care
at the district level is about modeling and guidance:
Relationships are the key, and we hear that all the time, but truly understanding what that
means. I’ve prided myself on just, you have to get to know people and how they function
and how they work, and then you have to tap into that. I think, as a whole, for our district

75
and how we support folks, district-wide, it’s offering professional development. It’s
offering the understanding of the why we are doing things, tapping into always with the
why this is going to benefit and then bringing people along; it’s that relationship piece
and knowing your staff. For me, I have to know our leaders because then they have to, in
turn, take this and mimic it for lack of a better word, to their staff. Then hopefully, they’ll
pass it on down with their families and students, but it’s trying to find out learners too… I
think it’s always going back to whenever you’re providing any type of professional
development, whether it’s formal or informal. I say informal because I always try to do a
lens of any time I’m talking with administrators and staff, if I want them to take away and
any guidance that I feel like I have given, and then they can pass that on.
In this quote, Frances described several nuances of relational school district care: first, district
central leaders need to know their staff by being in relationship with them. Once they have good
relationships, there is hope that these relationships will proliferate throughout the district. In
other words, part of relational care is modeling care from the district central office.
We heard from many research participants that central office department leaders and their
staff work together to enact care, and that this at times originates from newer positions or
departments. However, not all collaborative caring work was easy or possible, for in some ways,
the barriers that leaders described with respect to relational care further underscore the centrality
of relationships. For example, Darren, a whole child specialist housed in the central office,
lamented the district silos and strong educator autonomy that prevented him from doing caring
work in collaboration with others. Indeed, the absence of relational care throughout the district
organization seemed to frustrate Darren’s own sense of what caring district leadership would
entail.

76
In sum, an important part of district care is relational. It is both being in relationship with
fellow central office leaders but also modeling relational care and emphasizing the importance of
adult caring relationships with students.
3. Care Is Systemic
Caring work is not done in isolation. Rather, district-level caring leadership includes
creating a caring organizational culture through connections, partnerships, and political moves.
District leaders explained how they built upon and expanded existing partnerships with outside
agencies. They also explained systemic care as overseeing and connecting internal district
resources (e.g., departments, people, and programs). District or organizational care, then, is
political in that it relies on social networks, capital, and deft maneuvering within and across
systems, structures, and people in service of ensuring the social-emotional well-being, mental
health, and physical safety of those within the district system.
Noah, superintendent, discussed that in his school district, he and his staff frequently
partnered with outside agencies out of necessity, because the need for social-emotional supports
was too great to be supported inside the district. The need for outside counseling services during
Covid-19, especially, was echoed by many participants in our study. Noah told us that he
referred teachers in his district to outside counseling agencies, saying “I gave them numbers to
all the counseling agencies within our district and told them how it works with our insurance. It
doesn’t cost you anything so that they could get some help if they needed help… There’s one
particular case that I dealt with that was pretty concerning with a staff member that was just
really in a dark spot.”
Partnerships were also described by some district leaders as a way to quickly bring
resources to bear on emergent problems. For example, Paige, assistant superintendent, said,

77
“We’re missing something with at-risk kids as they transition into high school. We’re losing
those kids; we’re missing how to connect with them and keep them cared for.” She then
described seeking partnerships with gang involvement intervention groups and a youth mental
health nonprofit to reach out to and work with students identified as having—or being likely to—
have rocky transitions between eighth and ninth grade.
Christopher, director of student services, relied heavily on partnerships to “do” the work
of care and social-emotional supports. In all, his district worked with the state Multi-Tiered
Systems of Support (MTSS) initiative, wrote grants to secure Medicaid services to provide
therapeutic day treatment mental health services, and secured short-term counseling services
through additional partnerships. He had spent time and energy cultivating these partnerships,
saying:
I have community partners because I've worked on these partnerships for years and built
those partnerships. I have layers of partners and people I can call on my cell phone. And
I've worked on it for years. I have the MOUs with multiple agencies that I can deal with.
Christopher exemplifies the importance of cultivating connections in order to enact systemic
district care. Cathy, a director of student services, further described how partnerships allowed her
to provide a continuum of care:
We’re working on having school-wide mental health systems and we're contracting with
[an outside agency] to do some of those wraparound services for our behavior programs.
There are a lot of resources. They are not connected in a nice mesh setting… I would say
that COVID has allowed us to start offering more online opportunities for kiddos that
might need them due to mental health concerns so they can start attending their other
services.

78
Internal resources were also marshaled in order to provide for the social-emotional well-being
and mental health needs of students. Grace, assistant director of student services, said:
I think we advocate really well, all the way from our superintendent to our nutrition
services staff. The whole continuum of staff, I believe, we advocate really well. We also
have a system that really says, ‘How are we going to serve our kids? How are we going
to serve our families?’ It’s student-centered and it really is that reference of that need and
what is their need and how do we need it? Instead of saying, this is what we have, fit into
our system, it’s what is your need and let’s make it happen. Let’s do something to meet
that need.
Grace, in this quote, describes the system-wide focus on students, and how everyone serves as an
advocate to meet the needs of students.
In sum, district level care entails providing a continuum of care through internal and
external resources, staff, and services. Thinking systemically and creating a culture of care
involves building collaborations with external partners such as mental health providers,
counseling agencies, and national or local curricula organizations. Systemic district leadership in
service of care was a key finding in our data. It was not always systematized, however; data
reveals that care was systemic but more patchwork than well-oiled machine.
4. Care Is Embodied and Environmental
District-level care is embodied, in that district leaders enact care by providing a warm
presence (and hope that their example leads others to do the same). Care is also environmental.
Visibility—in schools, hallways, and events—is a key part of district care. Listening, being
empathetic, and asking questions of those throughout the district is how district care is enacted.
District leaders also consider within their purview the nurturing learning environments of

79
classrooms and principal visibility. Care was described as a feeling, and something you can see:
a presence. George, a superintendent, described it this way:
You hear a lot of affirmations and enthusiasm. I think about you can feel warmth and
safety. It’s interesting because I think that you can find within the first three to four
minutes of walking into a school, you either feel it, or you don’t… We talk about that
with our principal groups. If you were a child or a parent, what would feeling welcomed
look like? Most often, it looks like the adults are present and they’re present for the kids.
They’re not walking by kids on a mission with their coffee kept at the staff lounge, you
are looking at kids and you are talking to kids and you know their names.
George touches on a theme that was quite salient in our case study data: the “feeling” of
welcome as a key part of care. Similarly, Aaron, a superintendent, talked about the visceral,
embodied nature of care from his perspective:
I definitely believe you hear enthusiastic voices. I’ve been in schools before where you
can’t see an adult anywhere. I’ve been in schools where you see adults filling the
hallways and saying hello to kids by their first names and making sure that kids are not
scared and they’re feeling safe and they’re feeling secure. You hear a lot of affirmations
and enthusiasm. I think about you can feel warmth and safety. It’s interesting because I
think that you can find [it] within the first three to four minutes of walking into a school,
you either feel it, or you don’t.
In this quote, Aaron identifies care as something you can hear and feel, as safety and security. He
further shares that the work of creating caring environments is the work of many, including
teachers, principals, families, social workers, and board members.

80
Elise, assistant director of student services, described how modeling serves as an
embodiment of caring leadership:
[Working with a principal to be supportive of care] I think it’s me modeling. I think it’s
me using the verbiage and weaving it into conversations where appropriate. I think it’s
offering up, if I can sense that they’re struggling, me offering, ‘I can come in and do a
training for your staff on what it means to take care of yourself or what it means to be
mindful.’ It comes from all angles. Some principals might not ever really get it. I think
they’re doing the best they can with what they have, but it’s not how they think… I do
think it’s coming from the top down in terms of like, you need to really take care of
yourself… Then we hope that the principals do it with their teachers and that the teachers
model to their kids and we can just have this real big community impact of kindness and
compassion. That trickle-down effect that you do everything with the intention that you
hope that it really does make an impact ultimately down to the students to impact our
community.
Similar to other district leaders who talked about modeling as a form of relational care, Elise
described a practiced, informal method of embodying care by weaving care into conversations
with leaders. Paige, another assistant superintendent in our study, discussed the importance of
clean and safe facilities:
Care includes our maintenance and operations people too because if we care enough
about our kids’ experiences, we keep our buildings clean and safe and positive. Families,
no matter where they come from, whether they’re high-school principals’ kids and his
wife’s coming in to meet with someone at the office or it’s the trickiest disgruntled
parent, they’re treated the same. They’re treated with respect and dignity and the best

81
customer service. I think that high expectations, high support, respect, and dignity are
how we show we care about our community and our kids.
In all, a salient theme in our data was clean, safe, and nurturing learning environments.
Ulysses, a superintendent, connected rigorous learning with social-emotional well-being
as he described his vision of the enactment of care. When asked what he would see if he were to
witness caring in action at the school level, he said this:
You’re going to see what looks like chaos in the classrooms… Piggybacking off of what
I said about chaos. What appears to be chaotic classrooms, what I mean by that is kids are
busy, and there's projects going on, and teachers are letting kids be independent thinkers
and kids are safe. Feel safe in exploring what they want to explore with guidance of the
teacher, of course, but there’s just room for independent thought. Not everything is
textbook. Not everything is driven by some guide or plan book or whatever.
Like Ulysses, many leaders described caring in action as rigorous, engaged learning, as
something you could feel in action. In this way, caring district leadership includes attention to
the embodied and environmental aspects of district-level care.
5. Care Is Equity and Needs-Driven
The final component of district care that emerged from our grounded theory study was
related to equity and responding to needs. That is, many research participants expressed that
district care is about making sure that all of the individuals—students and adults alike—in the
school system have what they need. Many times, district leaders related this differentiated caring
to a Multi-Tiered System of Supports, discussing how those getting Tier 1 (general education for
all) supports might need a different approach from, say, those in the Tier 3 category of students
(most significant needs, usually delivered to individuals rather than groups). In other words,

82
district leaders were concerned with equity, and discussed the responsibility of meeting the
varied, differentiated needs of those in their care. Equity also appeared in the data, to a certain
extent, as caring about the needs and realities of marginalized students including lower-income
students, students of color, LGBTQ+ students, homeless youth, and special education students.
Generally, however, leaders described students in general terms, with only a handful or
participants or case study documents explicitly attending to caring supports targeted at youth of
color or LGBTQ+ students, for example.
When discussing the effects of the COVID-19 pandemic, district leaders expressed a
greater need to attend to the social-emotional needs of their teachers and staff during and after
the pandemic. Robert, assistant superintendent, highlighted how district care differs from the
enactment of care at the school level, but is centrally related to student needs:
As a central office leader I don’t get to interact with kids, so care for me isn’t: ‘I really
like you. Let me smile at you. Let me build a relationship with you,’ because I don’t get
to interact with them. Yeah, I go to football games and stuff, and that’s great. But when I
was a head coach it was a whole different thing. I knew those kids. I knew those families.
Now, it’s, ‘Am I finding ways to go ask kids, to go ask families? Can we do empathy
interviews with kids about their experiences?’ That’s care because then that helps inform
our decisions in a broader way to make sure we’re taking in the needs.
To elaborate, Robert touches on a key aspect of organizational care: It is performed at a remove
from direct relationships with students. He alludes to the idea that it is harder to gather insights
about student needs at a distance, and that if you have a close relationship, you can discover
social-emotional well-being needs more easily. This supports the supposition that caring district
leadership requires more intention and forethought than those in direct caring relationships (e.g.

83
coaches, teachers) might require.
Another example of needs and equity related to district care came up in a district that has
partnered with equity-oriented caring organizations. Nicole, a director of SEL, described her
work as a district leader in relation to current events:
When everything happened with George Floyd and Breanna Taylor, of course I was
ready to respond. But I had told my boss, it’s more powerful when the superintendent
says something, and then I follow up. Because then it says, if you work in this
organization, this is what the top leader is saying is important. But working in this
organization, we’re committed to equity. And I could cry thinking about it because what I
love is our executive leadership team and superintendent have always been responsive to
that. I trained our executive leadership team on cultural intelligence and SEL, I trained
our school board in cultural intelligence and SEL. Our school board made a proclamation
that Black Lives Matter back in the summer of 2020.
Nicole touches on several aspects of district care in this quote, discussing the importance of
systemic leadership and how public and top-level demonstrations of anti-racism are interwoven
with her role as a director of SEL. However, in the same interview, Nicole expressed the
challenges of including LGBTQ+ affirming care stances in her caring work:
[There is] homophobia that exists in the state. Right now, we only have one person in our
district that really is responsive to LGBTQIA things. So I always try to include her with
us… We did a teacher discussion series and one of the topics was about not just being
tolerated but being accepted. And it was for LGBTQIA+ allies. I would say from a
central office perspective, we’re trying to do more to make a strong stance that
belongingness [is] for everybody, not just one aspect of equity, but in all aspects of our

84
identity. I would say, from a campus perspective, it really just depends on the leader of
that campus. There’s just a lot of difficulty. We have a lot of youth that need support…
but a lot of times there’s pushback.
This snippet sheds light on the challenges associated with the political realities of pairing an
equity and affirming orientation with caring district leadership. Nicole was but one of many
district leaders who expressed wariness and trepidation about the extremist backlash happening
in school district communities all over the country.
Finally, Lori, a director of SEL, described how equity and care are interwoven in her
district work:
The idea is that SEL is actually a lever for equity, right? And that if we’re talking about
things like how to have healthy relationships, and we’re not addressing the role that
racism plays in having healthy relationships, then we’re actually harming our students of
color more by teaching about relationships and ignoring their experiences. Not just
students of color, but students from other marginalized groups like LGBTQIA, students
with disabilities. If we’re not talking about the role that those things play in having
relationships in social-emotional health, like so many of our students, like we know
racism contributes to mental health. We know that just being discriminated against
contributes to really big mental health concerns. And if we’re not also taking care of
those things, are we really serving all students?
In this case, Lori suggests that mental health and relationships must connect to anti-racist
practices that explicitly attend to race, sexual orientation, and other identities. She clarifies how
these equity needs are a part of her district caring leadership:

85
That’s kind of where we’re at, is we're writing our own SEL curriculum because we don’t
feel that there’s a curriculum out there that meets that [equity] need, that is coming at
SEL from an anti-racist lens fully. So we’re trying to write our own curriculum and do it
that way, but yeah, we spent a lot of time talking about that. We used to have just equity
teams in every building. And then rather than starting up social-emotional learning teams,
we’re calling them like equity social-emotional learning teams. Like we’re putting them
together, so that we’re never talking about that work separately.
Lori identified the challenge of using an “off the shelf” SEL curriculum that doesn’t employ an
anti-racist lens, and so she had been leading her district in committee work to create such a
curriculum. Earlier in our discussion, she shared that, because of a racialized violence incident,
the need to connect SEL and equity became apparent. This district level SEL equity committee
also has building level committees, as she described. Through these multilevel structures, Lori
enacts district caring leadership that is related to social-emotional well-being and mental health
in a systemic, relational fashion, connecting it to equity based on the needs that have arisen in
her district.
The theme of being responsible for—and basing district care on—the needs of people
within the system was salient and pressing. More than the other components of district care, the
interviewees shared about care needs of students and staff with a sense of concern and urgency.
In sum, district-level care is equity- and needs-driven. It is defined by, and responsive to, the
individual needs of students and staff. A broad concern for equity—which translates as ensuring
that staff and students have what they need, when they need it—is a central component of
district-level care.

86
Summing Up: Clarifying District-Level Care
In the previous sections, we offered five components of district-level care derived from
our grounded, deductive qualitative analyses. That is, we argued that district-level care is (a)
ensuring the social-emotional well-being, mental health, and safety of those in the district
system; (b) relational; (c) systemic; (d) embodied and environmental; and (e) equity- and needs-
driven. Overall, these component parts come together to suggest a definition of district-level
care, depicted in Figure 8.
Figure 8. Five Components of District Care

The connected components of district-level care and the overall definition are
summarized in Table 9.

87
Table 9. Defining District-Level Care

District Care
Components
Elaboration

1. Social-Emotional
Well-Being, Mental
Health, and Safety of
Students & Staff

District-level care is about ensuring the social-emotional well-being,
mental health, and safety of students and staff. Organizational care
is connected to academic teaching and learning, as ensuring social-
emotional well-being, mental health, and safety is in service of—or
a precursor to—academic learning.

2. Relational

District-level care is relational. Building relationships is a key
component of enacting district level care. District care is based on
formal and informal relationships across and within the district
office. Relationships with district staff, students, families, and
educational leaders are important to district care.
3. Systemic
District-level care is systemic. District leaders enact care within and
across school systems, crafting a continuum of care through internal
and external resources, staff, and services. Building collaborations
with external partners—including mental health providers,
counseling agencies, and national or local curricula organizations—
is also part of district care.

4. Embodied and
Environmental
District-level care is embodied and environmental. District leaders
enact care by providing a warm presence and modeling caring
practices for staff. Visibility—in schools, hallways, and at events—
is a key part of district care. District leaders also consider the
provision of nurturing learning environments to be a part of district
care.

5. Equity- and Needs-
Driven
District-level care is equity- and needs-driven. It is defined by, and
responsive to, the individual needs of students and staff. A broad
concern for equity—which translates as ensuring that staff and
students have what they need, when they need it—is a central
component of district-level care.

Defining District-Level Care: District-level care is about ensuring the social-emotional well-
being, mental health, and safety of students and staff. Care at the district level is relational, and
caring district leaders conceptualize care systemically. District care is embodied through
warmth and presence and enacted through the provision of nurturing, clean, and safe learning
environments. District-level care is connected to equity and driven by caring for the individual
needs of students and staff.

88
In conclusion, we advance this definition of district-level care as provisional and
exploratory. Next, we build on this definition of district-level care to make abstractions, offering
theorizing and propositions about organizational care.
Theorizing District-Level Care: Toward Action and Wisdom
In the previous section, we offered a definition of district-level care built using a
grounded theory and deductive qualitative analysis approach. Analysis of our research findings
suggested five components of district-level care, outlined in Table 9. In the interest of filling a
theoretical gap in the field of social-emotional learning and care, as described earlier in the
paper, we now move to a discussion about creating a theory of organizational care. To us, theory
is, as scholar Adrianna Kezar elegantly described it, “… A form that knowledge takes; it is a
representation of knowledge" (2005, p. 288). Kezar also illuminated why theory endures, for it
serves “as a guide for action and as an understanding of received wisdom” (Kezar, 2005, p. 285).
Our analysis of nearly 50 district leaders certainly conveyed a “received wisdom,” and we
believe our definition of district-level care, resulting from their collective voices, will be of use
in practice, policy, and research.
Our ultimate aim, however, is to begin the process of theorizing (Weick, 1995), using
grounded study as a starting point. In their 2007 article on building theory from qualitative cases,
Kathleen Eisenhardt and Melissa Graebner discussed the process of building theory, writing:
The central notion is to use cases as the basis from which to develop theory inductively.
The theory is emergent in the sense that it is situated in and developed by recognizing
patterns of relationships among constructs within and across cases and their underlying
logical arguments (p. 25).

89
In what follows, guided by Eisenhardt and Graebner (2007), as well as the writings of Charmaz
(1990; 2014), we move from the particular to the theoretical, attempting to tease out the
underlying logical arguments of care at the organizational level.
To that end, we offer a set of propositions, inching closer to a theoretical understanding
of organizational care. We consider the process of theorizing and creating theory to be fluid,
open, and in flux; we rely here on the methods and interpretivist traditions of constructivist
grounded theory (Charmaz, 2014). That is, constructivist grounded theory assumes multiple
realities, fluid and mutual constructions of data through interaction, and views generalizations as
partial, conditional, and situated in our particular time and place (Charmaz, 2014, p. 236). This is
different from the prevailing paradigm of theory creation in education leadership and policy,
which stems from a positivist origin, and “seeks causes, looks for explanations, and emphasizes
generality and universality” (Charmaz, 2014, p. 229).
Propositions: Theorizing Organizational Care
Based on our case study findings and the literature reviewed above, we expect that
organizational care is implemented through:
Caring Ethics and Holistic Views
• Proposition 1: Organizational care is grounded in a caring ethic and a holistic
understanding of the role of caring organizational leadership, which is centered on the
holistic needs (academic, physical, and social-emotional) of all stakeholders.
Organizational care is based on caring ethics and holistic views. Leaders perform organizational
care by being grounded in a caring ethic. They hold holistic understandings of their roles in
leading or working in caring organizations. Their leadership is centered on the holistic needs
(academic, physical, and social-emotional) of all stakeholders in the organization. Our case study

90
suggests that caring leaders are uniquely keyed into the many holistic needs of stakeholders and
hold a firm belief on the purpose of their leadership.
Caring Connections and Political Maneuvers
• Proposition 2: Organizational care is enacted through political connections, social capital,
and complex partnership arrangements that create a continuum of care to meet the social-
emotional well-being, mental health, and physical needs of those within the organization.
Organizational care is performed through creating caring connections and political maneuvers.
Organizational care happens through both formal and informal connections across, within, and
outside of the organization, all in service of care. Care in organizations is carried out through
political connections that rely on social capital and partnerships to create a continuum of care in
order to meet the well-being needs (social-emotional, mental health, and physical) of those
within the organization. Case study data supports this proposition; many of our participants
created webs of caring (Smylie et al., 2016) partnerships, arranged through political or social
capital.
Fluid Communications, Feedback Loops, and Responsiveness to Stakeholder Needs
• Proposition 3: Organizational care is rooted in ongoing and dynamic communications
that are grounded in an ethic of care. Feedback loops are used to respond to stakeholder
needs.
Organizational care is allowed through ongoing and dynamic communications, grounded in an
ethic of care. Feedback loops are used to respond to stakeholder needs. Our case study data
suggests that being in caring communications, as a way of understanding stakeholder needs, is
essential to providing organizational care.

91
Creating Structures and Processes
• Proposition 4: Organizational care is choreographed through the creation of structures
and processes that connect disparate silos and component systems parts; caring
organizational leaders design intraorganizational mechanisms for care.
Organizational care involves creating structures and processes that connect disparate parts of the
organizational system, including designing intraorganizational mechanisms for care. Findings
from our case study suggest that a central role of caring organizational leadership is to
orchestrate and design systems, processes, and structures in service of care.
Caring Presence and Caring Environments
• Proposition 5: Organizational care is embodied; listening, being present, and a calm,
warm, and optimistic leadership persona creates trust and an atmosphere of caring.
Overseeing warm, nurturing, safe spaces for all of those within the organization is part of
organizational care.
Organizational care is an embodied act. It is performed through listening and exuding a calm
physical presence. Organizational care includes oversight of safe and warm spaces across the
organization. Case study findings revealed that presence, listening, and embodiment are key
aspects of organizational care.
In conclusion, we begin to theorize about organizational care through these five
propositions. We consider this theorizing to be provisional, fluid, and open; it is in flux and thus
best described as theorizing, rather than theory (Weick, 1995).
Discussion and Implications
This study seeks to clarify how care in the district central office is conceptualized, an area

92
that has thus far been under-researched. Our research question was How do district leaders
conceptualize care and social-emotional supports? We drew on research findings to offer a
definition of district care. In summary, district-level care is about ensuring the social-emotional
well-being, mental health, and safety of students and staff. Care at the district-level is relational,
and district leaders conceptualize care systemically. District care is embodied and environmental,
enacted through warmth, presence, and by arranging for nurturing learning environments.
District-level care is connected to equity and caring for the individual needs of students and staff.
The five components listed above comprise our current definition of district-level care. Further,
we advance a series of propositions about organizational care, suggesting that organizational care
is (a) grounded in a caring ethic and holistic understanding of stakeholder needs; (b) enacted
through caring connections and political maneuvers; (c) rooted in ongoing and dynamic
communications; (d) is choreographed through the creation of structures and processes, including
intraorganizational mechanisms for care; and (e) is embodied and connected to oversight of
caring environments.
Implications for Policy and Practice
An important finding in this study is that central office leaders have widely varying
conceptions of precisely what constitutes care. Some leaders mentioned mental health supports,
whereas other leaders focused on a particular curriculum or program. Still others discussed the
importance of relationships and caring adults. Very few districts, as evidenced by interview and
document data, had concretely defined the boundaries of district care. An implication for
practice, then, might be for executive leadership teams, along with heads of academic
departments, to come together and define caring leadership for their district. They might ask:
What does it look like? How do you know it when you see it? What are the core actions,

93
practices, and resources your district can commit to and dedicate toward furthering care? While
of course these conversations are already happening ad-hoc, we often did not observe the same
level of commitment to or systematization of care and emotional support that district leadership
have committed to, say, academic outcomes and initiatives. We believe that the current
conditions underscoring the pressing need for social-emotional supports focused on student,
staff, and community well-being create the perfect opportunity to transform district commitments
to care from abstract to concrete.
Another implication of our research is relevant to higher education and research
communities, which may not be adequately preparing leaders to take up the charge of care. Our
study revealed that where care “sits” in a school district central office has shifted over time and
greatly varies among school districts. Indeed, we spoke with superintendents, directors of student
services, assistant directors, and assistant superintendents, all of whom are in charge of social-
emotional well-being supports. Unlike academic initiatives, which typically fall squarely under
an assistant superintendent of instruction, or perhaps a director of curriculum and instruction,
how structural care is taken up at the district level is an area that has much potential for future
research. Future inquiries might offer descriptive evidence as to how central offices are
structured to take up the work of care, or how departments are (or are not) represented in the
superintendent’s cabinet, where district agendas are typically set. This line of research would do
much to clarify and strengthen our understanding of how organizational care is distributed across
the organizational form of the district central office. Job titles as a form of legitimacy and
institutionalization (Rowan, 1982) also warrant further research, as our case study suggests there
have been many changes with respect to titles in the area of social-emotional well-being
supports.

94
A key finding in our research was that district leaders conceptualize care as being needs-
and equity-driven. Indeed, there is a broad movement that seeks to embed attention to race, class,
gender, and sexual orientation in social-emotional learning frameworks (see Allbright et al.,
2019; Jagers et al., 2019; Kennedy, 2019), yet our study revealed that, in practice and with few
exceptions, there is a disconnect between reported caring leadership practices and anti-racist,
equity-oriented leadership. An important implication for education leaders, and those in schools
of education who train future central office leaders, then, is to consider how diversity, equity,
and inclusion initiatives can be an important part of caring leadership. While leaders were
interested in equity as regards making sure everyone had what they needed, leaders’ conceptions
of equity in relation to care, with few exceptions, were broad and devoid of attention to race,
sexual orientation, or ethnicity. Further research on how care and equity can be intertwined at the
district level is needed.
One recommendation that follows from this finding is the need for district leaders in
charge of diversity and equity work to collaborate with their colleagues in charge of care in
substantive ways. As our research reveals, these cross-initiative collaborations are not occurring
in organized ways in most of the district offices included in our study sample. Scholars suggest
that racially and culturally affirming practices, as well as positively affirming LGBTQ+ students’
identities and needs, are essential to creating fair and inclusive schools (Foster et al., 2022;
Meyer et al., 2022). Recently, scholars have connected transformational, anti-racist practices to
social-emotional learning (Jagers et al., 2019; Legette et al., 2020; Williams & Jagers, 2020).
Leaders might consider drawing on current research and resources in this arena. In an
update on the popular and powerful Collaborative for Academic, Social, and Emotional Learning
(CASEL) SEL framework, Jagers, Rivas-Drake, and Williams (2019) offer a conceptual model

95
for moving from individualism to a communal orientation; from resilience to cultural humility;
from sharing to collaborative problem-solving; and from interpersonal justice and personal well-
being to notions of pluralism and collective well-being. Newer research centers the experience of
Black children, with findings relevant to teacher-student relationships and teacher training
(Legette et al., 2020; Warren et al., 2020), with important implications for central office staff. In
our study, educators were apt to think generally—in race-evasive, gender-neutral,
heteronormative ways—rather than about particular types of student or staff identities. This may
result in a deficiency of care or limited care (Rivera-McCutchen, 2020; Yiu, 2016). This is of
real concern because there is some research suggesting that students of color experience less
caring in schools that their white peers (Cooper & Miness, 2014). We believe that there is much
room for improvement in this area, and one that we as scholars might take up in pursuit of social
justice and equitable well-being.
Implications for Research
Another persistent theme throughout our leadership interviews was the outsized role that
outside agencies, partnerships, and community leadership play in building the architecture of
care. Much more so than with instructional reforms, how and to what extent political capital is
needed to navigate and nurture this constellation of care is unknown. A fruitful area for future
research might be at the nexus of community and district care.
Our finding that care is embodied, environmental, and enacted, in part, through a warm
presence, brings up questions for current approaches to research on school district central offices.
Scholars have dug into research looking at structure and agency (e.g., Coburn, 2016; O’Laughlin
& Lindle, 2015; Rigby et al., 2016), as well as implementation of policies and programs (e.g.,
Chase, 2016; Tichnor-Wagner et al., 2018), but our field has done little to understand the

96
embodied, corporeal experience of leadership. In the wider field of sociology, Pierre Bourdieu
(1966) is often cited in work about organizational fields and social capital, but as Emirbayer and
Johnson (2008) remind us, his concept of habitus, defined as “a mechanism linking individual
action and the macro-structural settings," (p.4) is an under-utilized theoretical concept in
education leadership and policy studies for theorizing about agency in organizations. Connecting
these concepts from sociology to our theorizing on embodied caring leadership is a ripe area for
future research.
Finally, we offer a series of propositions in the interest of advancing theorizing of
organizational care. More than a list of descriptive categories (Sutton and Staw, 1995), our aim is
to use our case study findings as a way to build theory. We consider these ideas to be provisional
(Charmaz, 2014). Researchers interested in social-emotional well-being and caring leadership
might use these propositions to further investigate organizational care. Multiple cases or
discrepant evidence (Maxwell, 2013) could further add theorizing to a field that has worked in
silos (e.g., psychology, curriculum, or neuroscience), or atheoretically by way of evaluation
studies of social-emotional learning programs (e.g., Marsh et al., 2018; Schwartz et al., 2020).
Conclusion
The findings from our study on district-level care, the first of its kind, offer important
insights into the evolving work of district central office leaders. This study clarifies prior
research on caring leadership that suggests caring is multifaceted, relational and systemic (e.g.,
Smylie et al., 2020; Walls et al., 2021). We also expand on relevant scholarship on the
importance of work teams (Lawrence & Maitlis, 2012) in enacting care by offering evidence
about the systemic, relational aspects of district-level caring. Significantly, our study offers a
definition of district-level care and advances theorizing about organizational care in education. In

97
a time of recovery, healing, and rising social-emotional and mental health needs, this study offers
up the rich voices of caring leaders and new ideas for caring district leadership.

98

Chapter 4: “You Are One of Us, and We Are One of You:” The “Work” of Mobilizing,
Advocating, and Organizing for Care in The School District Central Office

This chapter is a case study of how one district organized for care during a crisis. Qualitative
data for this study includes interviews with 28 educators and community leaders, as well as
document analysis. In this chapter, I examine a purposively chosen school district, located in a
farmworker community composed largely of Latinx families, to consider how central office
leaders create or maintain social-emotional well-being supports under crisis conditions.
Findings suggest that district-level care was multidimensional and distributed, involving
mobilization of community leadership, improvisational structures, and novel leadership routines.
District-level care was enacted through a collective vision of care, rooted in a love of place, and
focused on healing. This study offers an account of distributed leadership that centers families,
community members, and community partners.

Introduction
COVID-19, George Floyd, and “anti-trans” bills have dominated the headlines, minds,
and our collective souls over the past year, pushing us to rethink issues related to well-being and
care. Care is defined here as a holistic leadership approach that attends to the physical,
academic, and emotional needs of students and staff (Kennedy & Walls, 2022). The question of
how to ensure care and well-being in schools, however, is an ongoing question. Scholars of
teacher education suggest that enhanced teacher-student relationships and an emphasis on
culturally relevant practices is the way forward (Castagno & Brayboy, 2008; Cornelius-White,
2007). Some experts from the field of psychology, on the other hand, argue that a whole school

99
approach focused on character traits such as “grit” will provide the care that students and staff
need right now (Mahoney et al., 2020). Researchers working in partnership with practitioners
further call our attention to the need for strategic alliances with community organizations to lift
up student and staff well-being (Schwartz et al., 2020). Finally, activists and critical scholars
encourage well-being approaches that center race, engage with issues of anti-Blackness, respond
to local community contexts, and avoid a deficit lens (Jagers et al., 2019; Simmons, 2019).
Little research, however, has closely examined how school districts take up these ideas to
ensure the care and well-being of their students and staff. That is, most research to date on care,
well-being, and social-emotional supports has considered the classroom, teacher, and school as
the primary unit of analysis. Scant empirical work to date has examined how school districts
organize their staff, resources, and community partnerships toward care or well-being, especially
for minoritized students including English learners and students of color. In the absence of such
research, school district leaders must cobble together programs of unknown effectiveness,
drawing on a wide and disparate net of resources. Responsible for implementing such programs
are school leaders and teachers, who may be overburdened and underprepared to take up the
charge of well-being supports (Darling-Hammond & Cook-Harvey, 2018).
This gap in research on district-level care is worthy of scholarly pursuit, for district-level
decision-making processes are important to policy implementation and interpretation (Donaldson
et al., 2021; Marsh, 2002; Wong et al., 2020). Indeed, the role that school district leaders play in
attending to the care and well-being of students and staff within a system may be essential,
especially now as staff and students enter yet another year of COVID-19-related mental health
issues and racial justice struggles. Extant literature on district-level leadership processes,
however, has largely examined instructional reforms (e.g., reading policy, math standards,

100
teacher evaluation). Research suggests that the leadership needed to manage care and caring
initiatives may differ from the orientations needed for instructional reforms, for care is a
radically political act (McKinney de Royston et al., 2021), relational in nature (Keese, 2018).
In this paper, I draw on qualitative data from an instrumental case study of district care to
ask: How do central office leaders create or maintain well-being and social-emotional supports in
a crisis? I find that district leaders act as caring leaders by providing well-being social-emotional
supports through district-wide, coordinated systems of care. The distribution of leadership in this
case study includes parents, community members, and partners. I offer this study as an
alternative to hegemonic, white-centered notions of social-emotional care that dominate the field
(Camangian & Cariaga, 2021) by examining caring district leadership in a place that serves
students who are majority Latinx and low-income.
Findings point to a stable, historical, and community-oriented bedrock of social-
emotional well-being supports in La Subida. These existing supports have allowed for district
leaders to maintain well-being supports, expand upon pre-COVID social-emotional well-being
practices to meet the increased needs of students and staff, and improvise new, COVID-era well-
being supports. La Subida’s social-emotional well-being supports were enabled by a system of
distributed leadership that mobilized a caring community leadership structure, was motivated by
a collective vision of care, and allowed for innovation and creativity amidst complexity and
crisis. Study results suggest a reconceptualization of community leaders, parents, and partners as
education leaders, central to the distributed caring leadership structures found in La Subida. This
study expands upon prior distributed leadership research (Park & Datnow, 2009; Spillane et al.,
2004, 2008), contributes to our growing knowledge about district leadership during times of
crisis (Bridgeforth, 2021; Hemmer & Elliff, 2020; Ganon-Shilon et. al, 2022), and offers the

101
addition of expansion work to the field of institutional theory broadly, and institutional work
literature in particular (Lawrence et al., 2011; Lawrence et al., 2013; Wright et al., 2020). In
what follows, I first ground the study in research on care and well-being in school districts. Next,
I review the literature on school districts as sites of change. I then introduce my conceptual
framework of new institutional theory, followed by an overview of methods, findings,
discussion, and implications.
Grounding the Study
Social-Emotional Well-Being, Care, and Love in K12 Education
A renewed emphasis on care and social-emotional well-being supports is reflected in
recent scholarship (e.g., Mahoney et al., 2020; Marsh & Kennedy, 2020; Rivera-McCutchen,
2020; Ryu et al., 2022; Schwartz et al., 2020; Walls, 2020). This scholarly focus mirrors the
growth of social-emotional programs supported by federal, state, and local policy changes in the
last five years, and a push for care and social-emotional supports as a result of student and
community needs, as well. Federal CARES Act money has been set aside for social-emotional,
wellbeing, and mental health services to aid school districts in COVID-19 recovery (Griffith,
Cardichon, & DiNapoli, 2020). This context for care is heightened by a current state of crisis
affecting educators and students everywhere.
Over the last 40 years, the fields of education policy, leadership, and psychology have
produced a wide body of research related to social-emotional learning program implementation
(e.g. Jones et al., 2017), social-emotional indicators (e.g., Mahoney et al., 2018; Marsh &
Kennedy, 2020), culture and climate (e.g., Cohen, 2017), and care and love (e.g., Beauboeuf-
Lafontant, 2002; McKinney de Royston et al., 2017; Noddings, 1988; Rivera-McCutchen, 2020;
Walls, 2020). While this varied and rich research has much in common—a focus on the

102
nonacademic, noncognitive, affective, or “softer side” of schooling—it differs in terms of its
conceptual underpinnings and epistemological roots.
For the purposes of this paper, I take a broad view of social-emotional well-being,
focusing on caring leadership practices and school districts as caring organizations. I define
school district care as a holistic leadership approach that attends to the physical, academic, and
emotional needs of students and staff (Kennedy & Walls, 2022). This definition builds on
empirical research rooted primarily in Black feminist theories of care (McKinney de Royston et
al., 2021; Rivera-McCutchen, 2020; Ryu et al., 2020; Thompson, 1998). Further, this definition
of institutional, district-level care differs from how education leadership scholars frame caring at
the school level, which is primarily focused on educator-student relationships or within-school
leadership variables (Louis et al., 2016; Ryu et al., 2020; Smylie et al., 2020; Walls et al., 2021).
Through an exploration of district caring practices, I attend to the conditions for care at the
organizational level (Noddings, 2015).
School Districts as Sites of Change
School districts are complex organizations. The school district organizes the work of
schools, serves as a clearinghouse for state and federal funding, and both enables and constrains
community and school-level efforts. In other words, it is a powerful force, leading approximately
13,000 independent local educational agencies in the United States (U.S. Department of
Education, 2012). School districts are generally led by elected school boards and a
superintendent. The superintendent manages a centralized staff of associate, assistant, or chief-
level directors, as well as other staff. These central office leaders make decisions related to
hiring, facilities management, resource distribution, human resources, teacher and classified
union negotiations, teaching and learning, and more. Whereas previously school districts were

103
considered organizations composed of rational actors who implemented policy handed down
from the state (Tyack & Cuban, 1995), this view has evolved over the last several decades
(Gamson & Hodge, 2017; Marsh, 2002).
Indeed, researchers, policymakers, and practitioners now conceive of central office
workers as key to policymaking processes (e.g., Datnow, 2006; Spillane, 1996, 2008; Spillane et
al., 2002; Woulfin et al., 2016). The latest wave of research on school districts as organizations,
and school district leaders as policy actors, suggests that much of the variation in policy
implementation can be attributed to district leaders acting as mediators of, for example, state
policy (Woulfin et al., 2016). Research rooted in organizational and institutional theory further
points to central office leaders as persuasive, powerful leaders who have a great effect on school
leadership practices in K12 schools (Wong et al., 2020). The bulk of research on school districts
and district actors has examined implementation of academic reforms or issues related to
principal oversight, evaluation, and supervision (e.g., Burch & Spillane, 2004; Coburn et al.,
2009; Honig & Rainey, 2020; Huguet et al., 2021; Rogers, 2022).
A small but growing literature base examines the school district as a site for care and
intervention into social-emotional well-being. Researchers have looked at the evolving role of
equity directors (Irby et al., 2022), family and community engagement (Beard & Thomson,
2021; Epstein et al., 2011; Honig, 2006), and integration and desegregation policies (Mattheis,
2017). Promising though limited empirical research points to the importance of district-level
supports in social-emotional well-being program implementation (Kendziora & Osher, 2016;
Marsh et al., 2018; Schwartz et al., 2020). In the first study to evaluate a district-level social-
emotional intervention, Kendziora and Osher (2016) found that districts used various paths to
implement related programming. A qualitative study of “outlier” districts in California with

104
positive gains on social-emotional outcomes with African American and Latinx students found
five categories of district support for school social-emotional growth: priorities and frameworks,
staffing, programs and curricula, training, and measurement and data use (Marsh et al., 2018). In
a multi-district, multi-year implementation study of social-emotional supports, results suggest the
importance of central office coordination and implementation efforts, intentional development of
district and school partnerships, and resources and time dedicated to adult capacities (Schwartz et
al., 2020).
On the whole, research on school districts as sites of change points to the importance of
district actors in policy processes and district-level change, yet little is known about district
leadership of social-emotional well-being. Unanswered questions about caring district leadership
include: Who cares? How do district offices organize for care? How do central office
departmental staff, school staff, and community organizations collaborate in service of care? To
what extent do superintendents and school boards manage caring supports? What does care “look
like” from within the confines of the central office, and what are the implications for equity?
How do state, federal, and local resources affect caring leadership? To what extent do local
leaders have agency in crafting caring supports? In conclusion, there are many gaps in our
research, practice, and policy knowledge related to district-level care.
Conceptual Framework
New institutionalism, which emerged from the field of sociology, is used in this study as
a conceptual framework. Growing from a body of literature spearheaded by Selznick (1949),
continued by Meyer and Rowan (1977), and then by DiMaggio and Powell (1991), new
institutionalists believe that meaning is socially constructed, and shared systems of rules serve as
both constraints and enablers for organizational practice, routines, and processes (DiMaggio &

105
Powell, 1991). Widely utilized by education policy scholars, this “new” turn in institutional
theory suggests that a shared system of rules and meaning influences choices and structures
within and across organizations (DiMaggio & Powell, 1991).
New institutionalism is a set of theoretical constructs useful for studying the district role
in care and social-emotional well-being supports. This framework is applied because new
institutional theory can illuminate how the structural, organizational aspects of district care might
operate, while also allowing for the possibility of actor agency to shift practices. Within the high-
pressure environments of school districts, many would argue that there is little room for deviance
from “the grammar of schooling” (Tyack & Cuban, 1995), especially when it comes to “newer”
areas such as supports for social-emotional well-being. New institutional theory, then, is used as
a kind of flashlight to examine how organizational structures may enable or hinder caring
supports, the ways in which individual leader agency works to expand or disrupt current
practices, as well as how structure and agency interact within the highly institutionalized
(Zucker, 1977) sector of school districts.
New institutional theorists, and the scholars who study public education, have long
lamented the durability of education institutions and the near impossibility of making change
within them (Burch, 2007; Cuban, 2020; Mehta & Datnow, 2020; Tyack & Cuban, 1995). Yet a
line of scholarly inquiry—institutional work—argues that within these hard-wired, structured
institutions, actors have agency to take up the “work” of change (Lawrence & Suddaby, 2006).
Institutional work can be thought of as “the purposive action of individuals and organizations
aimed at creating, maintaining and disrupting institutions” (Lawrence & Suddaby, 2006, p. 215).
To elaborate, institutional work might involve creation, such as crafting new structures
(e.g., cross-district teams aimed at changing instructional practices). Another part of institutional

106
work involves the maintenance of institutional routines, such as the purposeful actions taken to
keep key aspects of institutional life thriving. An example of maintenance work might be found
through team meetings that examine student-level data on a regular basis, with the intention of
maintaining necessary instructional interventions in service of academic rigor. Disruption work,
on the other hand, is about resistance and forcing change; one might think about the disruption to
long-standing institutional public-school practices such as disbanding grade-level classes to
create multi-age, progressive mixed classes, or removing standardized assessments in favor of
student-created portfolios. Together, these three types of work—creation, maintenance, and
disruption—make up the bulk of theorizing to date on the individual “work” of actors within
institutions (Jarvis et al., 2019; Lawrence et al., 2011).
Institutional work literature has taken shape vis-à-vis empirical study of mostly corporate
organizations, with related concepts less relevant to education’s greater goal of serving the public
good (Labaree, 1997). Nilsson (2015), however, addresses this shortcoming by combining
positive organizational scholarship with institutional work to consider “the creation or
maintenance of institutional patterns that express mutually constitutive experiential and social
goods” (p. 363). A positive institutional work lens, then, highlights the agency that embedded
actors have within the constraints—or higher-level field logics—of the institution of education
while focusing on the purposive, mutual goals of serving the public good. This emphasis is
timely and needed for research conducted during a crisis when state testing was canceled, school
was virtual or hybrid, and leaders scrambled to feed families, provide access to technology, and
extend condolences for lives lost. On the whole, new institutional theory, institutional work, and
positive institutional work are used as sensitizing concepts to analyze qualitative case study data.

107
Methods
In this paper I ask, How do central office leaders create or maintain well-being and
social-emotional supports in a crisis? Case study methodology guided this inquiry. Part of a
larger, cross-case study of school districts’ response to COVID-19, this particular case was
purposively chosen as an instrumental case study (Stake, 2005) of distributed caring district
leadership. Over a period of time, our research team interviewed state-level leaders, observed
online district activities, and spoke with community partners, carefully choosing La Subida based
on its reputation as having strong community relationships and its outward appearance as a
caring school district.
La Subida School District
3
is a midsize city in the Western U.S. serving students from
pre-K through grade six. La Subida sits in the agricultural center of the United States, teaching
mostly low-income students, including many children of immigrant farmworkers. The school
district is majority Latinx and serves approximately 10,000 students across 10 schools. La
Subida is located near a prison, with a fair number of students living within the district to be
close to their incarcerated fathers. Recently, an influx of indigenous Central American families
entered the area and the La Subida School District.
Data Sources
All case study data was collected during the 2020-2021 academic school year. In the
spring of 2020, I forged a relationship with a key central office leader who ushered our research
team through the district research approval process and connected us to research participants.

3
Pseudonyms used throughout for places, people, and committees.

108
This early rapport—during a time of chaos and uncertainty due to COVID pandemic stay-home
orders—was pivotal in helping to secure our sample of interviewees. We spoke with district
leaders, parents, and school leaders, along with representatives from the teachers’ union,
classified union, community organizations, and the La Subida school board. In all, our research
team interviewed 28 participants, seven of whom identified as male, and 21 as female. The
average age of research participants was 50. The majority of our sample identified as Latinx
(n=19), seven as white, one as mixed race, and another as African American (see Table 10).

109
Table 10. Case Study Research Participant Demographic Information

#
Name
(Pseudonym) Title
Age
Range Gender
Race or Ethnicity
(Self-reported)
1 Amanda Central Office Leader 50-60 Female White
2 Amelia Central Office Leader 40-50 Female Latinx
3 Camila Classified Union Leader 50-60 Female Mixed Race
4 Christopher Teacher Leader 40-50 Male Latinx
5 Daniel Central Office Leader 50-60 Male Latinx
6 Dorothy County Office Leader 50-60 Female White
7 Elisa School Leader 40-50 Female Latinx
8 Emma School Leader 30-40 Female Latinx
9 Faith Teachers Union Leader 50-60 Female White
10 Isabella Central Office Leader 30-40 Female Latinx
11 Jennifer Central Office Leader 60-70 Female White
12 Jessica Community Partner 60-70 Female African American
13 Joshua School Board Member 60-70 Male Latinx
14 Kristin Community Partner 40-50 Female White
15 Leila Community Partner 30-40 Female Latinx
16 Marisol Central Office Leader 50-60 Female Latinx
17 Matthew School Leader 30-40 Male Latinx
18 Megan Classified Union Leader 50-60 Female White
19 Pedro Central Office Leader 50-60 Male Latinx
20 Pilar Parent 40-50 Female Latinx
21 Ryan Superintendent 60-70 Male White
22 Samuel Central Office Leader 50-60 Male Latinx
23 Sarah Central Office Leader 50-60 Female Latinx
24 Tracy School Leader 40-50 Female Latinx
25 Valentina Parent 50-60 Female Latina
26 Olivia Parent 30-40 Female Latinx
27 Sofia Parent 40-50 Female Latinx
28 Mia Parent 30-40 Female Latinx

110
Interviews were conducted using Zoom videoconferencing technology, lasted on average
60 minutes each, and were professionally transcribed. Two researchers, including the author,
participated in the interview process. A semi-structured interview protocol was used (see
Appendix G) to guide interviews. Other data sources that I collected and analyzed for this case
study include documents, social media postings (e.g. Twitter and Facebook), district web site
pages, and recordings of online meetings.
Data Analysis
Analysis relied on both deductive and inductive approaches. First, several researchers
collaborated to create a case narrative report (Yin, 2014) to synthesize emergent themes. Next, I
used qualitative data analysis software to engage in multiple, iterative rounds of coding (Saldaña,
2016). First cycle codes included “social-emotional well-being supports,” “work routines,”
“central office structures,” and “response to COVID-19 crisis.” These first cycle codes were
derived deductively, using concepts from the conceptual framework outlined above, as well as
inductively. Second cycle coding was used to explore fine-grained ideas illuminated through the
theoretical insights described above. Second cycle codes included “improvisation,”
“collaboration,” and “hope” (see Appendix H for examples of codes and quotations).
Analytic memoranda were employed as part of the analysis process; during and after each
interview, and while coding, I used memo writing to record and trace emergent themes. After
multiple cycles of coding were completed using Nvivo 12 qualitative data analysis software, an
analytic memo was created to capture, sort, and organize themes and descriptive quotes.
Throughout the data analysis process, I used analytic memos and researcher data talks (i.e.,
researcher meetings where we met to discuss emergent themes, ongoing throughout data
collection) to triangulate and crystallize findings (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). To ensure

111
trustworthiness, all assertions made in the findings or discussion sections below are supported
by, at minimum, three participant voices and/or documents or web site data (Merriam & Tisdell,
2016). I also actively sought out disconfirming evidence and wove it into the findings, below
(Creswell & Poth, 2018; Posselt, 2016; Yin, 2014), as part of researcher reflexivity (Anderson,
1989). Finally, thick description in participants’ own voices is included as another way of
ensuring trustworthiness (Geertz, 1972).
Researcher Reflexivity
This article was authored by a university-based researcher from the Midwest. I am a
white woman who conducted research with/in a community that is primarily Latinx. During data
collection, analysis, and writing, I examined my own relationship to race, ethnicity, and white
privilege, doing my best to ensure I was not subscribing to race-evasive or color-evasive
practices (Gordon, 2005). Throughout this study I drew on my experiences as a teacher of
English learners, as well as previous work in/with Latinx communities. It is likely that my race
and positionality as a university researcher not from the community—an “outsider”—shaped
how participants’ responded to my questions, and in particular those about equity.
Additionally, I am a mother of school-aged children who were at home attempting to
learn virtually during the time this case study data was collected; this globally shared challenge
and “humble vulnerability” (Saldaña, 2018) helped to inform this research project. My
positionality as a motherscholar (Matias, 2022) assisted in creating rapport with research
participants and feeling my way through research-in-a-pandemic. In my research and practice, I
am committed to reflexive, asset-based, feminist, caring, and equity-oriented approaches to
research and research relationships (Rallis & Rossman, 2010). The goals of my research are
activist and critical in nature (Apple, 2019; Wong, 2010; Yiu, 2016), aimed at creating a more

112
just world, to undoing erasures in education policy scholarship (Kaomea, 2003), and to creating
change through ecological thinking (Lenhoff et al., 2022). This case study—including the district
chosen, participants, qualitative methods, theoretical lenses, and findings—springs from these
epistemological and ontological roots.
Limitations
This case study represents data collected during one academic year, a tumultuous time of
COVID-19 pandemic illnesses, deaths, and school closures, as well as political upheaval and
social activism related to the death of George Floyd and Black Lives Matter movements. Thus, a
limitation is that data were collected entirely over videoconferencing technology and via the
internet and email during a time of stress and crisis. That is, I did not walk the halls, roam the
campuses, or witness teacher-student interactions. Institutional theorists might say that such a
major interruption to schooling business-as-usual would be an excellent time to analyze
organizational values and practices. In this case, I entered the research process with deep respect
and empathy, attempting to conduct ethical research with humanity and care. I was witness to
intense grief and sadness that blanketed every interaction with research participants; it cloaked
digital data and documents collected. Accordingly, this particularly terrible time affected how
and to what degree I probed, what I asked, and why. A related limitation is that due to teacher
stress during COVID, I decided to interview only a handful of teacher representatives for this
case study.
Findings
In this case study, I investigated this research question: How do central office leaders
create or maintain social-emotional well-being supports in a crisis? Before presenting study
findings, however, I want to sketch a picture of what made the La Subida School District a

113
caring organization before the pandemic. That is, my research revealed that, prior to the COVID-
19 crisis, there was a robust continuum of caring supports in La Subida. These supports included
a counselor in every school; a multitude of partnerships with mental health and community
support organizations; a department dedicated to student well-being services within the central
office; Community Services Centers (CSC) that provided wraparound supports for families;
district-wide Positive Behavioral Interventions and Supports (PBIS); a multi-tiered system of
supports approach (MTSS); a focus on trauma-informed, culturally responsive care; and after-
school programming that many credited with keeping students safe and engaged. In La Subida,
however, there was no evidence of a formal social-emotional learning (SEL) curriculum, and
only one interviewee mentioned formal SEL data collection.
In the following section, I sketch out three main findings related to how social-emotional
well-being supports were maintained or created in a crisis. First, I reveal the impact of the
COVID-19 crisis on social-emotional well-being needs in La Subida School District. Next, I use
the conceptual framework of institutional work as a heuristic to describe how district leaders
maintained, or expanded upon, existing social-emotional well-being practices during COVID. I
then show how La Subida’s leaders created novel routines and practices to meet increased
social-emotional well-being needs during the COVID-19 crisis. Finally, I present two cross-
cutting themes related to caring work: mobilization as care and the disruptive work of a healing-
centered collective vision.
Impact of COVID-19 on Social-Emotional Well-Being Needs in La Subida
La Subida had experienced challenges over the years—turnover at the top, state
interventions, and gang violence, to name a few—yet in recent times the district had reached a
new level of stability and collaboration among stakeholder groups. This stability was evident in

114
the district’s social-emotional well-being supports and services that existed prior to COVID-19.
In this section, I briefly give an overview of the impact of the crisis on La Subida, including high
levels of grief, stress, sadness, depression, adult struggles, and a disruption to social-emotional
well-being supports.
Grief, Stress, Sadness, Depression, and Loss
Many research participants shed light on how COVID-19 shaped the social-emotional
well-being of those in La Subida. The overarching theme of our case study data spoke to
profound grief, sadness, and stress experienced by those in the community. The social-emotional
concerns were exacerbated by sick family members, for La Subida had a high rate of COVID-19
illness and death. Amanda, a central office leader, described how COVID illness affected
students trying to learn at home:
[For virtual learning we try to give them] things that they can entertain themselves with at
home, that children can do on their own, that parents don't need to be actively engaged
with them. We try to encourage parents to read with them. We try to encourage parents to
talk to them, but right now everyone is overwhelmed. They're sick.
Amanda was one of many participants who discussed the shadow of sickness cast over children
trying to learn at home, as well as the difficulty of trying to provide quality instruction for
students learning at home. Many from La Subida spoke about the strong effect of illness on the
community, sharing that the COVID-19 pandemic was linked to student depression from social
isolation and sadness from family loss and illness. Pedro, a central office leader, summarized the
challenges and stress that accompanied COVID-19 family illness for students learning virtually
from home:

115
To top it off, several of our families here, I'm sure including our special ed kids, have
come down with COVID. You could hear the family in the background either coughing
or being ill or seeing them there. That, in itself, is another level of stress that comes up
for them.
Pedro illuminated the multiple layers of difficulty some students struggled with during the
COVID pandemic such as visibly sick parents interrupting virtual learning, which was already a
great challenge for some students.
In addition to the stress of being home with sick family members, students felt lonely and
isolated, missing the social aspect of school. Tracy, a school leader, contended that students were
anxious to get back to in-person learning, due to missing friends and the routines of school:
It’s been really eye-opening to hear what our students are thinking and how much they
just want to come back. They want things to be normal, they miss their friends, they miss
being able to eat the cafeteria food. And if kids say they miss cafeteria food, that’s like
desperation. They’re desperate to go back to normal things. But it’s just been really
interesting to hear the social-emotional part of the toll that it’s taking on our kids.
Tracy’s perspective was that students missed the social aspect of school, which affected their
social-emotional well-being. Longing for in-person connections, students grappled with
loneliness during COVID. In sum, students, parents, and families experienced tremendous stress,
sadness, and grief during the first year of the COVID-19 pandemic.
Adult Struggles Related to COVID-19
In addition to student mental health and well-being struggles related to COVID-19, La
Subida also saw a rise in adult struggles during the pandemic. Related to the findings about grief,
sadness, and loss described above, family-wide loss, administrator and staff concerns, and parent

116
struggles due to COVID were considerable themes in the case study data. Participants reported
grief related to adult loss, systemic stress that was taxing everyone in the system, and safety
concerns and stressors related to COVID. Christopher, a teacher leader, spoke about the stresses
he had witnessed among colleagues across the school district:
I think now we are going through the paces, but I can definitely feel that people are just,
the stress is getting to them. I can tell you that teachers, I see everybody working so hard,
everybody from the superintendent down to our classified staff who was out there giving
lunches every day, and who’s really at the front line of working with our families because
we teachers, we have the privilege of being able to work from home or not have to be
there, but everybody is just working so hard.
Indeed, Christopher’s description of systemic COVID-related stress highlighted a tension that
supports another finding in the case study data: a rising strain between classified (e.g., bus
drivers, secretaries, parent assistants at the Community Services Centers) and certified staff (e.g.
licensed teachers, school leaders, central office administrators). Isabella, a central office leader
who oversees classified staff in her role, described how COVID contributed to a growing
resentment and divide:
Our classified food service folks and transportation were not given the option to work
from home [during COVID-19 stay-home orders], which meant that they are part-time,
they are uninsured, they are the folks who have the lowest income in the whole district;
most of the folks who live here who have their own kids in our district. So it’s this weird
irony that the people who need us now the most, are the ones that we put on the front
lines to expose themselves. Even in the conversations about vaccinations, teachers are
doing this big hoopla like, ‘We’re not returning,’ and people are like, ‘Hey, we’ve been

117
here since day one feeding our kids and our district chose to deliver food. So we actually
drive it to the doorstep of students and their families and that’s our classified staff.’ I
think that there’s this tone of resentment. Here are people who are literally keeping our
families alive, housed, clothed and fed who are not receiving any insurance support from
the district and they want us to be all one big happy family… We go live on Facebook for
board meetings and they’re so nasty. The data that comes out of there is… There's wars
of teachers and transportation folks just going at it publicly in the chat.
Isabella’s description of resentment and division was echoed by Camila, a classified staff
member, when she said:
But at the same token, everybody's afraid to come back to work. Well, we’ve [the
classified staff] been at work. We’ve never gone anywhere. We’ve been here. I totally get
that one 100 percent. But I don't think it’s so much everybody doesn’t see that. There’s
just, I think, some people, certain people don’t see that or acknowledge it. Maybe they
see it. They just don’t acknowledge it… Teachers, they can’t teach without classified and
classified, there’s no school, no student, no teachers. I think we really need to include that
part, to really take care of each other and be a difference for the students because they’re
suffering a lot.
Camila acknowledged the division between classified and certified staff but grounded her desire
for unity in an acknowledgment of student suffering during COVID. Adding to the growing
stress and tension caused by at-home or in-person working conditions during the COVID
pandemic was an overall fear of getting sick, and of adults within the system becoming ill.
Additionally, several administrators argued that teachers were getting support, but that they, the

118
leaders, needed social-emotional support as well. In essence, La Subida’s caring ecosystem was
affected by adult and student well-being struggles alike.
Interruption of Social-Emotional Well-Being Supports
COVID-19 interrupted social-emotional well-being supports during the 2020-2021 school
year. Before the pandemic La Subida partnered with multiple organizations to provide rich after-
school programming, which served as a gateway to the arts, culturally sustaining activities, and
as a safe alternative to joining street gangs. La Subida leaders discussed partnerships with a golf
program after school that included transportation. Several participants lit up with pride when
sharing photographs and descriptions of the culturally affirming music and dance after-school
programs in which many students had participated. The lack of in-person connection with
students was an interruption to the regular provision of social-emotional supports.
The second way in which COVID-19 interrupted La Subida’s continuum of social-
emotional well-being supports was through reduced student engagement and participation. Elisa,
a school leader, lamented the difficulty with getting students online, which caused a dip in
enrollment at the beginning of the pandemic.
It’s been hard because it’s all new. Students are not used to being on the computer for so
long, or being on their own at home, because their parents might be working, or being in
a home where there are multiple siblings or multiple kids. So finding a place for
themselves to do their work and be engaged and participate and do everything has been
hard.
As Elisa described, getting students online and keeping them engaged was a struggle during
COVID. When students were online, they might have their cameras off or be on their computers
but lounging in bed, other case study participants revealed. Thus, interruptions to school

119
engagement and participation during virtual learning was one way in which COVID-19 impacted
La Subida.
Connected to problems with student participation and engagement was a concern about
child abuse and neglect in the community. Tracy, a school leader, discussed this worry:
And then I think about sometimes on how many kids we might have that are being
abused because they’re at home for so long, whereas before, home was that safe place for
them like it was for me. It was that six-to-eight-hour reprieve, and now they’re home all
day and they’re home with adults that may be very frustrated, may be very upset, maybe
have lost their jobs and lost their incomes and are stressed and taking it out on their kids
possibly.
Tracy was one leader of many who shared their worries related to a lack of in-person connections
and raised the possibility of child abuse.
However, case study data reveals that, while the fear of child abuse and neglect was
present, no actual cases of abuse or neglect were shared. That is, when probed, participants
acknowledged that their fears were anecdotal in nature; they had no evidence to support these
assertions. Consequently this fear served as a stressor to adult staff in La Subida and exemplifies
how the COVID pandemic disconnected adult staff from their typical social-emotional routines
of being physically present to check on the well-being of students. Distance learning during the
COVID-19 pandemic interrupted the business of social-emotional well-being practices in La
Subida.
To conclude, this study revealed that La Subida community members experienced a rise
in stress, depression, and grief, which was paralleled by a disruption of pre-COVID social-
emotional well-being supports. In the following sections, I explore to what extent existing

120
routines and practices were maintained or expanded, followed by an exploration of new practices
that were created in response to COVID-19.
Maintenance and Expansion of Social-Emotional Well-Being Routines and Practices
As previously described, La Subida had many caring practices in place before the
pandemic. Throughout the pandemic, La Subida maintained their counseling program, connected
community members with well-being supports via their Community Services Centers, continued
with strong parent and community engagement that was geared toward community uplift and
care, and maintained healthy collaborative relationships with the teachers’ union. Together, these
existing well-being supports helped to care for La Subida’s students, staff, and community
members. Additionally, through building on a solid foundation of caring supports, La Subida
expanded and strengthened aspects of social-emotional well-being routines and practices. I
explore how supports were both maintained and expanded next.
Counselors for All
A robust counseling program was the top social-emotional well-being support mentioned
by case study participants. Mental health specialists across the district, and counselors in every
school, were key to La Subida’s caring supports before COVID. This was a direct result of many
years of community and parent organizing, as well as a local advocacy campaign to put more
resources into counseling and fewer into school resource officers. During the pandemic, the
importance of available counseling staff was made apparent. Ryan, superintendent, elaborated on
the district’s counseling program:
The parents are reporting that their kids are nervous and unhappy and fretful. We do have
a counselor at each school site. We have behavioral health. We also have a contract with
a company called [Mental Health Now] that provides additional counseling support. Our

121
counselors are meeting with classes. They’re giving presentations to classes throughout
the district and they’re providing group sessions when the kids aren’t doing their
synchronous or asynchronous work. After that, they are providing group sessions to the
kids. However, we’re getting a lot of anecdotal reports that the kids are nervous and
unhappy, and they want to come back to school…
Ryan sketched out the many levels of mental health supports provided to La Subida’s students
due to depression and unhappiness.
Counseling staff continued to support students during virtual learning conditions. In fact,
counselors were also available to work with adult staff and parents in need. Elisa, a La Subida
school leader, discussed the connection of counseling staff to PBIS and the growth of La
Subida’s social-emotional supports to include teachers and staff:
Our counseling program as a district has been established for about three years. So it’s
only gotten better as the years pass, in the sense that our counselor was really supporting
our students by doing individual counseling sessions, group sessions, classroom
presentations…. And in addition to that, our counselor was doing sessions with the staff,
too. So, we had our own office hours with her, so people could join in. I even did that
myself. People were able to have some kind of a person to reach out to, and, yes, some of
them didn’t participate, but others did.
Elisa shared how La Subida’s counseling program had grown to include staff. The maintenance
and expansion of the counseling program was also discussed by Jennifer, a central office leader
who oversees the counseling program. She described how she marshaled district resources to
take care of one family in a COVID-related crisis:
I’m sending my counselor to work with families who are part of their schools, because

122
dad died. Stepdad who they’ve known as their dad has been hospitalized and they’re
taking him off the respirator. I had two of those situations in one day last week.
Jennifer was in touch with the needs of families during COVID, dispatching counselors to
families in crisis. In sum, the counseling program was maintained and expanded during the
COVID crisis in service of care for students, families, and La Subida staff.
Strengthened Relational Care During the Pandemic
Relationships broadly, and strong collaborative working relationships especially, were
integral to La Subida’s caring social-emotional well-being supports, practices, and routines.
Participants shared that there had been a level of trust and stability for several years in the
district. Thus, relational care among staff, students, families, and community partners enabled
the maintenance, and expansion, of social-emotional well-being services during the COVID-19
crisis. While relational care is not an explicit social-emotional support, such as mental health
specialists or an SEL curriculum, I include the theme of relational care as it was mentioned so
widely by participants as an enabling condition for taking care of students, staff, and families
during an especially taxing time. Amelia, a central office leader, told us that one key part of La
Subida’s relational care revolved around parent relationships:
With the parents [on] our school site council meetings, our [English learner parent
committee] meetings have turned into a collaboration. And I think a lot of it is driven
through our [district funding plan], our [required] stakeholder meetings. So a lot of the
relationships started there.
Through regular relational care routines such as parent stakeholder meetings, as described by
Amelia, La Subida’s comfort with collaboration and trusting community expertise blossomed.
Sofia, a parent in La Subida, suggested:

123
I think what La Subida District has done is open its doors to the community, work with
organizations in the community, with parents, being a team that really reflects the needs
of the community and also understands the needs of the students that go beyond the
academics. Something that I appreciate with La Subida is creating different ways to
involve the parents and being open to listen to what they come up with…. [District
leaders] have told us, we aren’t experts in how to collaborate [or have] authentic
community engagement, so they understand that and want to collaborate.
Sofia described a type of humility found among district leaders, who recognize that the expertise
for community collaboration lies within parents and the community. These examples are just a
few of many in the La Subida case study. Indeed, all types of research participants—board
members, central office leaders, union leaders, community partners, parents, school leaders, and
teachers—pointed to relationships and collaborations as central to taking care of the needs of
students and staff during the pandemic. Relational care grew and flourished during pandemic
conditions, as Amanda, a central office leader, noted: “I think it’s strengthened [relationships
with the board, community partners, and unions] in some ways, because I think they’re like, if
you need anything, we’re here to support you, we’re in this together. We want to help you.” In
review, relational caring relationships were strengthened during the pandemic.
Communications as Caring Work
Interviewees reported a heightened sense of community and care exhibited through
regular and expanded communications throughout the community. For example, central to caring
communications are the classified staff of La Subida. Camila, the union leader for classified staff
and an attendance secretary, described how she helped with the needs of the whole child,
attending to the physical and social-emotional needs of students when she learned about student

124
mental health needs from parents. Incidents of depression had increased due to the pandemic, as
she reported:
I always communicate with [the Community Services Centers Staff] if we have a student
that is being affected with COVID, and they do a home visit. They provide food. They
provide any supplies that the family needs. So I think we try our best to really make sure
the student there is safe. Because for me, that is very important… because I receive calls
from parents saying that ‘Oh my daughter, she is so depressed and things like that.’ So
it’s hard. When I receive calls like that, immediately I send an email to the principal, vice
principal, the counselor, Community Service Center... and teacher, and anyone else that I
think will be able to help the student.
Camila, as a classified staff worker, served on the front lines of caring communications in her
role as an attendance secretary, using agency to communicate with those who could help the
students including school leaders, counselors, and those in the Community Services Centers.
Similarly, Megan, a classified staff member who worked in transportation, agreed with
the importance of communications as caring work, saying:
I think the most valuable thing in this whole district is communication, not just with the
school, secretaries or clerks or dispatcher. It comes from the district office, all the way
down. Everybody has to be in communication with one another all the time, to get ... just
service everybody in this community, because it is a very unique community and a lot of
our children, they’re not just one child from a family. There’s an abundance, four or more
in a family here… A lot of them live with families, other families.

125
From her point of view, Megan identified communications as an important part of providing
community-centered care. In short, communications are a critical aspect of caring work in La
Subida, allowing for a range of social-emotional well-being supports.
Community Services Centers: Centers of Care
Finally, the Community Services Centers (CSCs) are an integral part of La Subida’s
continuum of care. The first La Subida Community Services Center was built three decades ago,
and since then, this successful model has grown. With multiple locations throughout La Subida,
the CSCs were a source of community-centered care. The CSCs were spoken of with pride and
reverence by nearly every research participant in this case study, and, overall, the CSCs emerged
as the most prevalent theme revealed by the data. While at first blush, the CSCs are about
providing physical resources (e.g., clothing, diapers, food services) and bilingual family and
parent education services, in fact they are much more than simply a location through which to
secure tangible resources. The Community Services Centers are the heartbeat of La Subida, and
they act as purveyors of social-emotional caring through healing-centered, whole child
wraparound supports and caring connections. For example, Amanda, a central office leader
shared this:
We have the most wonderful thing in La Subida called the Community Services Centers.
They’ve won lots of awards. Isabella is the person you need to talk to, because she does
hold our district together in a lot of ways. When parents are in crisis, when parents need
anything, they reach out to the Community Services Centers… There is a connection in
the community with [the director] and her team, her staff… She gets calls from teachers
and principals. She had one, we were in a meeting… She has this child that doesn’t want
to get out of bed and just doesn’t want to go to school. Doesn’t want to engage… Stuff

126
like that happens all the time and she gets those calls all the time. So that’s the person
that has to deal with the crises in our school.
In speaking about the CSCs, Amanda revealed how the CSC operates as the center of the
community; parents and staff alike view the CSC as an accessible, open arena for all types of
assistance, including handling social-emotional needs such as depression, engagement, and crisis
support.
The CSCs were especially needed during the COVID crisis. One salient example of this
was shared by multiple stakeholders and exemplified by Isabella’s comment about the CSCs’
role in aiding the community: “Our struggle has always been it’s never one issue in isolation.”
To illustrate the interconnection among struggles within La Subida, I offer the following story,
told by Isabella: When a father from La Subida passed away from COVID-19, the mother was
left with a young child but no job or money. The newly widowed parent was fearful of her future
as the head of an undocumented, mixed (e.g., the mother was undocumented, but the children
were not) family, and was in need of money for funeral costs, housing, counseling, help with
immigration status, and food. Isabella, the central office director who oversees services including
the CSCs, strategically partnered with county mental health services, the food bank, a housing
clinic, and an immigration attorney. This was not an easy process for those involved, for mom
was fearful of deportation, and grief hung over them all. But through careful navigation and
mobilization of community partnerships and political connections, the Community Services
Centers were able to provide care for this family. In brief, the CSCs are at the center of caring
well-being supports in La Subida.

127
Creation of Novel Social-Emotional Well-Being Routines and Practices
The pandemic was a time of loss and grief, but also a time for inspiring improvisation
and creativity. In response to COVID-19 and the increased needs of students and staff, La Subida
leaders created three novel routines: student support groups (SSG), a focus on adult care needs,
and the inclusion of students’ voices in data collection.
Student Support Groups as Improvisational Caring Work
La Subida District has an organized central office with departments dedicated to
education services, operations, and counseling. During the pandemic, the number and nature of
meetings increased, in step with the rising needs for technology, food access, mental health
services, and virtual learning. The concerns were great, as described earlier in this paper. During
weekly central office leadership meetings, La Subida leaders realized that some students were
unaccounted for completely, and that others had irregular participation and low attendance. In
response, district leaders created a novel leadership structure called Student Support Groups
(SSG) that included school-level leaders, a counselor, a secretary, and a representative from the
Community Services Centers in each school building.
Through the Student Support Group structure, education leaders and certified staff
worked together, across divisions and previously held separate routines and roles, to enact care
for students. Actions that followed from SSG strategic planning included home visits, provision
of wraparound services (e.g., medical care or food assistance), and connections with counselors.
Jennifer, a central office leader, described the creation of Student Support Groups:
With COVID this year, we’ve shifted, and we now have Student Support Groups on each
of our campuses, and that includes administrators. It includes one of the clerks, typically
an office worker. And it includes other members of the team and the counselors, typically

128
one of them, and also our Community Services Centers staff. The idea behind that is,
whatever it is that’s causing Christina not to get to class, not to log in is something that
we really need to address. Is it a matter of technology?... Or is it a matter of the student is
struggling with something academically?... But very often, what we’re finding is
especially as the same continues to go on and on [is] that it’s an emotional piece, it’s just
that kind of sad feeling that our kids are feeling that too.
In other words, the novel structures of SSGs allowed for discussion and findings about student
needs during the pandemic. These structures had not previously existed in La Subida, but
participants expressed hope that these new SSG teams would continue after the pandemic
concluded.
Advocating for Adult Care Needs as Caring Work
Another creation as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic was advocacy for adult care
needs. A type of caring work, a focus on teachers and staff during the pandemic, resulted in self-
care days for hard-working staff, yoga sessions for teachers to recharge after days of virtual
teaching, and access to counselors. For example, Emma, a school leader, discussed the recent
shift from looking at only student needs to a focus on the whole system, including teachers:
I’m actually doing one [session]… on teacher self-care, and we’re trying to tap into all of
those different needs that we have as a staff because our kids have more than average
needs of the average learner. So, if we don’t pour into our staff, how can we expect them
to pour into our students? It just doesn’t work.
In this quote, Emma connected the need to focus on adult staff to the increased social-emotional
needs of students. Emma was but one voice of many conveying a sense of concern about
teachers’ capacity to “pour” all of their energy into student supports during COVID, with the

129
understanding that more advocacy for adult care was warranted. Advocating for adult care needs
was a form of caring creation work.
Inclusion of Student Voice as Vesting Caring Work
Another improvisation during the pandemic involved student focus groups as a novel way
to learn how students were feeling about being out of school and to help with the return-to-
school process. Tracy, a school leader in La Subida, described gathering student input:
We’re doing a student focus group where we have our school counselor and our parent
liaison come into our meetings and talk with our students. The teachers ask questions
about, how are you feeling about being at home, and what do you miss about school?
A new form of caring work, Tracy’s description of the student focus group outlined the
importance of gathering student input to be in touch with the social-emotional effects of COVID.
In this case, Tracy learned that students are sad and feeling isolated at home.
In sum, one way in which care was expressed was through the improvisational creation of
novel leadership activities: Student Support Groups, advocating for adult care, and student focus
groups.
Cross-Cutting Themes
In the previous section, I presented findings showing that district care was
multidimensional and multifaceted, with district caring work made up of a distributed series of
people, actions, and belief systems centered on creation, maintenance, and expansion work.
However, at the center of this distributed care network was a robust community leadership
structure. Further, cross-cutting themes revealed that additional types of caring work—
mobilization of community leadership and disruption through a collective vision of care—

130
supported the increased social-emotional well-being needs in La Subida throughout the COVID-
19 pandemic.
Mobilization as Care: Community Leadership in Distributed Caring Work
District-level care was enacted through a robust structure of community-centered
leadership that was mobilized through the Community Services Centers and via parent
organizing. Community members and parent activists had been active in the community for a
decade, and the solid foundation of community voice and valuing community leadership was
evident as the district responded to the COVID-19 crisis. The CSCs were mobilized during the
COVID pandemic to care for families’ needs, including social-emotional well-being.
Another way in which distributed care was mobilized was through parent organizing.
Parent organizers were supported by non-profit activist groups and community funding
organizations. The parents I met with described their roles as parent organizers as multi-
generational. Mia, a parent organizer in the district, said:
I am advocating—my children are now in high school and others go to one somewhere
else—I am advocating for the education of my grandchildren and my generations. Today,
I can advocate for these children that I know in the future will advocate for my
grandchildren and my generations and make a very different change to the world, not just
locally, we can make a change.
These parents had worked together over time to push for more counseling staff, better support for
English learners, and translators for a newcomer indigenous population.
During the pandemic, parent organizers offered up concerns about student isolation
during virtual schooling, the supports available to students in crowded, small homes, and social-
emotional needs. Central office and school building leaders mobilized the Community Services

131
Centers staff and responded to active parent organizers. Thus, mobilization of community
resources as a form of caring work is a central aspect of La Subida’s caring leadership system.
Disruptive Work: A Healing-Centered Collective Vision of Care and Love of Place
While great loss shone through all of the data collected in La Subida, so did a healing-
centered collective vision of care. This caring vision was espoused by many and was deeply
connected to community organizing centered on healing. This vision of care was rooted in the
place of La Subida and embodied by many who had grown up in the area. Marisol, a central
office leader, described the importance of a local and homegrown teaching and leadership force:
We have a very large group of teachers and employees who actually attended the district
as children. There’s actually a section in our web site called ‘From the Community of La
Subida’, with many people included. So the district is a very strong pillar in the
community.
This collective vision of care for the community is rooted in a pride of place and driven
by central office leaders and teachers who hail from La Subida and the surrounding
communities; many of them were themselves the children of immigrant farmworkers. Marisol, a
central office leader, explained that, despite leadership turnover at the upper echelons of the
school district, and school board members who could be challenging, many administrators
harnessed their love for community to provide care for students, no matter what. She described it
in this way:
These men and women were migrant workers themselves. They see themselves reflected
in the kids that they teach. And they will talk to you about this openly. So no matter what
happens at the top, they remain very committed to the children… They just keep doing
what they were doing.

132
Building on what was described above, Isabella, central office leader, shared how the
CSC intentionally infuses a collective vision of care for La Subida’s families:
So this space really is a hub of so much more than just getting people what they need and
I’m grateful for that. I would just hope that everyone who comes through the door, feels
like the most important person in the world in that moment because when you come in,
you are one of us and we are one of you.
This was a sentiment echoed by many in La Subida. For instance, parents also described this
collective vision of care, including Valentina, a mother of four children in the district:
I think the Parent Organizing Committee, part of organizing, part of our methods for
organizing are opening up cultural spaces where our community has the opportunity to
heal and feel empowered. This is what the committee also provides, spaces for the
parents. We do circles, we do a lot of activities that allow us to raise awareness that our
culture is very important.
In this quote, Valentina espoused a culturally relevant form of collective care, focused on
healing. Finally, Leila, a community partner, further described how parent advocacy is culturally
informed and invokes a healing lens:
One of the biggest ambitions [of ours] is to end the school-to-prison pipeline. This is
where the parents connect. And their main focus is social-emotional. One of the issues
they mostly advocate around is social-emotional… The biggest area that the parents fight
is not only about trauma-informed, but healing-informed from a cultural lens… We train
some of the parents, [working with a national organization] that focuses around cultural
healing, specifically Latinos.

133
Leila touched on important aspects of healing-centered caring work: the connection to larger
injustices such as the school-to-prison pipeline, connections to parents, a shift from trauma-
informed to healing-informed, and Latino-specific cultural healing. In sum, many in La Subida
subscribed to a healing-centered collective vision of care, rooted in a love of place.
Discussion
This case study investigated the research question, How do central office leaders create or
maintain social-emotional well-being supports in a crisis? I presented case study findings that
showed the serious impact of COVID-19 on the social-emotional well-being of La Subida
community members, including students, parents, leadership, teachers, and staff. In the face of
such stressors, La Subida expanded upon existing social-emotional well-being practices by
ensuring access for students and staff to counselors. Relational care—already a strength in the
district—expanded and flourished during the pandemic. Moreover, the Community Services
Centers became invaluable as centers of caring work, further evidence of expansion as caring
work. In response to COVID interruptions, La Subida leaders created new social-emotional well-
being practices and routines of student success teams, advocacy for adult care needs, and through
intentional inclusion of student voices. Finally, two cross-cutting themes further evidenced
caring work: the mobilization of community leadership as distributed, and the disruptive work of
a healing-centered collective vision of care.
While these descriptive findings approach an answer for my research question, they fail
to fully explain how the maintenance, expansion, and creation work was done during a
pandemic. Returning to the conceptual framework offered by way of new institutional theory,
institutional work, and positive institutional work, I next discuss how caring work operates in La
Subida.

134
Parents and Community as Caring Leadership: Rethinking the Distribution of Leadership
These case study findings are in line with recent leadership research that reconceptualizes
parents and community members as educational leaders (Bertrand & Rodela, 2017; Ishimaru,
2019). Additionally, this view of caring leadership as distributed and inclusive of parents and
community partners adds to prior theorizing about “webs of caring” that value the importance of
out-of-school experiences and community (Smylie et al., 2016). In all, the La Subida case
suggests that caring leadership is neither a top-down nor a bottom-up endeavor, but instead a
case of distributive leadership that is inclusive of the community and parents. School system
leaders and education scholars may resist this expanded notion of distributed leadership (Burch
et al., 2020; Ishimaru, 2022).
Reconceptualizing “distributed leadership” as inclusive of the community also points to
the complex nature of institutional caring work, an area of institutional theory that is currently
under-researched (Lawrence et al., 2013). Moreover, legitimizing the community and parents as
part of a distributed leadership continuum is aligned with current calls to reconsider school
communities as historically and ecologically-based places, centering community well-being
(Germain, 2022; Lenhoff et al., 2022). Finally, recent work on distributed leadership theory
(Burch et al., 2020) illuminates the mutidimensional, institutionally-constructed nature of caring
district work, born out by these case study findings.
I contend that this case study legitimizes caring work as a distributed leadership activity,
and further legitimizes community partners and parents as educational leaders. Offering an
ontology of possibility and hope, parents can operate as key caring workers by giving voice and
power to their narratives of care, hoping for a better future for generations to come (Lawrence &
Maitlis, 2012; Nilsson, 2015). Indeed, this is in line with a growing body of literature that

135
connects care in educational communities to personal and political identities, specifically in
Black and Latinx communities (McKinney de Royston et al., 2017; McKinney de Royston et al.,
2021; Pimentel, 2011; Roberts, 2010; Watson et al., 2016).
Positive Disruptions: Healing and a Collective Vision of Care
In the case of La Subida, a healing-centered collective vision of care served as a
disruption. Disruption as a form of institutional work is an under-researched and lesser-theorized
avenue of institutional theory (Lawrence et al., 2013; Lawrence & Suddaby, 2006). While it may
seem incongruous to pair love with disruption, case study data show that this organizational
identity, rooted in a collective vision of care, can serve as an act of resistance (Martí &
Fernández, 2013; Schilke, 2018) to hegemonic forces (Camangian & Cariaga, 2021) and market-
based logics that position schools as places of competition overly focused on academics, and
stemming from a deficit-based model of schooling (del Carmen Salazar, 2013). Indeed,
collective visioning of care works as a steadying force, a kind of North Star for the community of
La Subida, consistent with theories about the power of positive emotions in organizations
(Fredrickson, 2001, 2003; Fredrickson, 2013; Fredrickson & Losada, 2005).
In sum, the healing-centered, collective vision of care revealed through these case data is
in line with—and contributes to—a growing body of research that takes up the project of a
collective, transformative envisioning of social-emotional and caring work that is politicized,
color- and race-conscious, and connected to community uplift (e.g., Forman et al., 2021; Foster
et al., 2022; Jagers et al., 2019; Legette et al., 2020; White & Bristol, 2022; Williams & Jagers,
2020). Prior research on care and love in K12 schools further points to the importance of
culturally specific and relevant care, as evidenced in the collective vision of care that was rooted
in a love of place in La Subida (e.g. Antrop-Gonzalez & De Jesus, 2006; Curry, 2016; García et

136
al., 2012; Johnson, 2011; Lewis et al., 2012; Matias & Allen, 2016; Pimentel, 2011; Rivera-
McCutchen, 2021; Sosa-Provencio, 2017). Moreover, a collective vision of care as a form of
disruptive institutional work adds empirical evidence to conceptual literature that combines
theoretical constructs from institutional work with positive organizational psychology (e.g.,
Nilsson, 2015).
Improvisation as Caring Work
Above I described the creation of novel structures and routines to support the growing
social-emotional well-being needs of La Subida’s students and staff. These improvisations
included student support groups, advocating for adult caring needs, and the inclusion of student
voices in data collection via student focus groups. In essence, La Subida’s leaders were able to
improvise amidst crisis and complexity because of a strong, stable base of trust, routines, and a
collective vision of care. Moreover, a type of creation work is naming and theorizing (Lawrence
& Suddaby, 2006). When La Subida’s teams collaborated across silos and departments, they
improvised and named their new structures, thus doing the institutional work of embedding,
routinizing, and naming. This might also be considered a type of boundary work, when actors in
disparate departments act as boundary spanners (Honig, 2006) in service of caring supports. In
sum, improvisations were an important part of La Subida’s response to COVID-19, and a key
part of the distributed caring leadership that enabled social-emotional well-being supports.
Implications and Conclusion
La Subida is a caring school district, with caring practices distributed across a wide
continuum of people and departments, including parents, community partners, school district
staff, classified staff, teachers, school leaders, school board members, and central office leaders.
While this case study was originally intended to explore district central office practices that

137
contributed to the social-emotional well-being of students and staff, it became apparent, after
listening to the voices of participants, watching online meetings, reviewing documents, and
observing social media posts, that the “story” of care in La Subida was far greater than the
actions of central office leadership.
Implications for Policy and Practice
In La Subida, many teachers and leaders were from the community. This homegrown
pipeline was viewed by most as a positive way to reach students and families. However, it was
not a formalized mechanism. As research increasingly points to the benefits of a “grow-your-
own” teaching force (e.g., Redding, 2022), it will be important for educators and policymakers to
consider how to formalize their teacher and leadership pipelines in meaningful and impactful
ways. For example, La Subida encouraged interns from local universities to help fill in social
work needs.
Another consideration gleaned from the La Subida case is the story of the actors behind
the caring continuum that enabled a range of supports during the COVID-19 crisis. Before this
crisis, the district had weathered many storms, including financial problems, leadership turnover
in the central office, state interventions, and lawsuits. However, a stable, long-term system of
actors—classified staff, influential central office leaders, and community organizers—acted as a
type of protective or caring buffer (Astor et al., 2007; Honig & Hatch, 2004) by continuing to
serve students and families despite turmoil and problems. An important implication for policy
and practice here is the need to intentionally invest in actors at all levels within and external to a
school district to help with caring buffering work.
There has been a large investment in community schooling models in the state of
California of late (Oakes et al., 2017). While admirable, this La Subida case study offers a few

138
cautions for policymakers embarking on the community school journey. First, successful
community schools may require a long-term, sustained investment in parent organizing. In La
Subida, community organizations and funders had been allocating resources to community
wraparound supports for several decades. Second, these findings suggest that a community
schooling model ought to be culturally relevant and contextualized to the place and people. That
is, community school models need to be situated in their racial and political realities, an idea
supported by prior research (e.g., Trujillo et al., 2014).
Finally, this case study contributes to the field by offering an account of crisis leadership.
As districts and district leaders are called on to manage complex political, historical, financial,
and environmental change—think school boards banning books, wildfires, and trans sports
bans—La Subida’s distributed caring work adds to a growing base of district crisis leadership
research (e.g., Bridgeforth, 2021; Hemmer & Elliff, 2020; Ganon-Shilon et al., 2022). This
expanded notion of caring leadership may help leaders weather future crises, as well.
Implications for Research
La Subida was a case study conducted during one (very tumultuous) academic year.
Additional research based on a longitudinal, ethnographic investigation of place-based caring
leadership over multiple years would enrich our understanding of how the work of care is
institutionalized. Further research is also needed to consider how shared mood and collective
rituals (Lepisto, 2022) may contribute to the institutionalization of caring practices, especially
during times of profound grief and loss. In the case of La Subida, the pandemic may have given
increased meaning and purpose to the rituals and routines of the wraparound supports provided
via the Community Services Centers, for example.
In this article I argue that caring is a form of institutional work. Types of work found in

139
this case study include maintenance and expansion work, namely relational care,
communications, and mobilization of community; creation work, including improvisations,
naming the work, changing normative associations, advocacy, and vesting/inclusion; and
disruption work, exemplified by a healing-centered collective vision of care.
While there is a research base on institutional work related to maintenance, creation, and
disruptions (Lawrence et al., 2013), the addition of expansion work is a contribution to the field
of institutional theory and institutional work (Lawrence et al., 2011; Lawrence et al., 2013;
Wright et al., 2020). Conceptualizing expansion work within the context of public-serving
institutions (such as schools) could serve to strengthen theoretical understandings of positive
institutional work. Research on expansion work, rather than creation or disruption work, might
also be better suited to the staid grammar of schooling (Marsh, Allbright, Bulkley, et al., 2020;
Tyack & Tobin, 1994) that makes true disruption a near impossibility. Future research might
explore to what extent this type of work creates an institution of care, or if caring leadership can
be institutionalized via expansion work.
In conclusion, this paper demonstrates how a multidimensional, distributed leadership
approach allows for social-emotional well-being supports during a crisis, attending to issues of
unprecedented loss, grief, and isolation. The role of school districts and community leadership
under crisis conditions has necessarily expanded current notions of care, which I document and
offer here as we collectively rethink our roles as scholars, policymakers, and practitioners in an
era of healing and “post” COVID recovery.

140

Chapter 5: The Subject Is Care; The Verb Is Institutionalizing: A Field-Level Analysis and
Implications for Equity

This chapter is a qualitative case study that takes up the topic of institutionalization and care.
Using a case study of district leaders, which is the same data set drawn on in chapter 3, I
examine how, and to what extent, care and well-being supports are institutionalized across the
field level. I draw primarily on school district leader interviews to find field-level patterns of
care and social-emotional well-being supports that point to evidence of institutionalization. I
present indications of diffusion of social-emotional supports and a budding “Care Improvement
Industry;” commonalities across district structures (e.g., departments, teams) that suggest
isomorphism; legitimacy-seeking via caring “agents” who play a major role in crafting care
within districts; how instances of institutional interstitiality lead to an outsourcing of care; and
transactions with agencies of the state that suggest high levels of isomorphism. I offer a
discussion on the process of institutionalization, putting classic ideas from institutional theory
into conversation with case study findings. Ultimately, I argue that care is in the process of
becoming institutionalized. Institutionalization of care may bring efficiency to the provision of
social-emotional supports, as well as broader support for care, but may also neglect to attend to
the needs of minoritized students. Care as a gendered act, relegated to female central office
support staff, is discussed.

Introduction
The school district serves as an organizing structure for nearly 13,000 local education
agencies in the United States (U.S. Department of Education, 2012). Ranging from one to 1,859
schools (NYC Department of Education, n.d.), school districts vary considerably in size,

141
location, and type of students served. Policymakers increasingly view the school district as a
“site of intervention” (California Department of Education, 2019). Researchers suggest that the
school district as an organizational form—and the actors within it—wields considerable power
and ability to persuade (Honig, 2008; Marsh, Allbright, Brown, et al., 2020; Spillane et al., 2002;
Wong et al., 2020). Major philanthropists are attuned to the significance of school districts in
creating lasting change, as evidenced by MacKenzie Scott’s recent no-strings-attached gift of
$20 million to the Fresno Unified School District (Morano, 2022). Dumbfounded and shocked
by Scott’s generous donation, Fresno District Superintendent Bob Nelson surmised that Scott’s
confidence in Fresno might be attributed to a handful of newsworthy endeavors, including a
mental health and substance abuse hub that had gained the governor’s attentions and support
(Fensterwald, 2022).
As the school district swells in importance and power, the need for greater social-
emotional well-being attention in schools is also becoming apparent across the country. Many
school district leaders are increasingly keen to implement policy changes and actionable
solutions to support social-emotional well-being (AASA, 2022). And yet, there has been little
research outlining how leaders, policymakers, and researchers think about the provision of care
and social-emotional well-being supports. This may be because understanding how the district
may—or may not—operate as a site of care is not a straightforward endeavor, as care and well-
being supports in education are not clearly defined or understood. Disparate mental health
programs are funded, implemented and blended with others under the broad umbrella of any
number of related terms that convey the work of care. Programs meant to support noncognitive,
caring initiatives may include (but are not limited to): social-emotional learning programs (such
as Second Step, Conscious Discipline, or Capturing Kids’ Hearts), partnerships with the

142
Collaborative for Academic, Social, and Emotional Learning, whole child reforms, trauma-
informed practices, restorative justice, discipline reforms, after school programming, school
climate lessons, “kindness clubs,” mental health resources, well-being supports, and more. There
are nearly as many care-oriented programs as there are school districts in the United States. How
school districts take up care supports in particular or similar ways—and the implications of these
commonalities—is the subject of this paper.
In this article, I draw on institutional theoretical concepts to explore care and the process
of institutionalization. Ultimately, I argue that care is in the process of becoming
institutionalized, as evidenced by diffusion of social-emotional programs and processes,
commonalities across district structures that suggest isomorphism, legitimacy-seeking through
caring agents, outsourcing of care, and transactions with agencies of the state pointing to
isomorphism.
This qualitative case study investigates two research questions:
1. Research Question 1: What field-level patterns are found within district-level care and
social-emotional practices and routines?
2. Research Question 2: How, and to what extent, is caring institutionalized?
For the purposes of this paper, I define district-level care as a holistic leadership
approach that attends to the physical, academic, and emotional needs of students and staff
(Kennedy & Walls, 2022). In other words, I define district-level care broadly as a
multidimensional approach, interdisciplinary in nature. Through this definition, I am refusing
artificial boundaries from the world of education research that don’t hold up in the busy,
complex halls of school districts, such as more limited concepts of culture and climate,
psychological constructs such as self-regulation, or education policy’s focus on discipline

143
referral studies.
My main aim in this paper is to put classic ideas from theories of new institutionalism
into conversation with case study findings about district-level care and social-emotional well-
being. I present patterns that exist at the field-level with an eye toward implications for equity. I
begin by offering insights drawn from extant literature on school districts and the work of central
office leaders, followed by a brief discussion of relevant research on district-level care. Next, I
introduce a conceptual framework derived from new institutional theory that guides this study.
After sketching out the case study methods employed, I present the results and discussion,
organized by research questions.
Insights from Extant Literature
On School Districts
The school district central office is more than a building: It is a sophisticated, evolved
organization. Historically, districts were conceived of as rational organizations, passing down
state-developed policies (Tyack & Cuban, 1995). In the 1990s, the school district was analyzed
anew. Marsh (2002) summarized empirical evidence supporting the idea that school districts
“can be important agents of institutional change” (p. 25). In a review on the evolution of school
district research, education scholars Gamson and Hodge identify the mid-1990s as a key time
period that heralded a turning point in research on school districts (2017). Citing important
research (e.g., Spillane, 1996), Gamson and Hodge note that this time period offered a renewed
focus on the school district and its “critical role in instructional improvement” (2017, p. 237).
This somewhat limited literature base illuminates the role of school districts in policy
implementation and educational change.

144
Research highlights central office workers as important to the policymaking process (e.g.,
Datnow, 2006; Spillane, 1996, 2008; Spillane et al., 2002; Woulfin et al., 2016). Nearly all of the
research focused on the role of central office workers has looked at instructional reforms, yet
with important implications for the study of school districts. For example, Spillane (1996, 2008)
argues that not all districts act in similar ways. In other words, they are not “monoliths” but
rather exhibit within and between district variation in implementation of programs and policies
(Spillane, 2008). Datnow’s (2006) study illuminated district central office workers as “important
midlevel policy actors in the implementation chain” (2006, p. 120). Further, in a qualitative study
of Connecticut’s educator evaluation policy using frame analysis, Woulfin and colleagues (2016)
concluded that district leaders act as mediators of state policy. Overall, scholars have relied on a
limited number of organizational theories to situate their findings on district level leaders,
including sensemaking (Spillane, 2008), frame analysis (Woulfin et al., 2016), institutional
logics (Marsh, Allbright, Bulkley, et al., 2020), and theories of co-construction (Datnow, 2006).
Scholars have further studied how central office managers act as brokers and boundary
spanners, engaging in buffering and bridging activities. This set of studies is shaped by Meredith
Honig’s body of work (e.g., 2006, 2008). To elaborate, in a study of central office leaders
charged with implementing collaborative education policies, Honig investigates boundary
spanners, who are “central office staff members assigned to work among schools and partners to
broker new support relationships” (2006, p. 357). This study found that, over time, central-office
administrators with boundary spanning duties tend to take on more traditional, “command and
control” style leadership functions, even though they were hired to build partnerships and
implement innovative policy from within the district office. This study also shows that boundary

145
spanners, in this case, were often assigned to marginal roles in the central office, which limited
their influence.
Suggesting that we think of district central offices as institutions, Honig (2009) illustrates
how relationships among people within a nested school system are more important to a policy’s
success (or failure) than formal board adoption of a new policy. Finally, Burch and Spillane
(2004) studied mid-level district staff, or those “who administer or manage programs or services
but are not in top cabinet positions” (p. 3). They focused their analysis—part of a three-year,
qualitative study of instructional improvement in Chicago, Milwaukee, and Seattle—on mid-
level district staff members because these workers were in charge of policy implementation.
Drawing on interview data, Bruch and Spillane concluded that mid-level district staff members
perform brokering roles by acting as tools designers, data managers, trainers and support
providers, and network builders. In sum, this body of research on school district actors informs
this study. While these studies offer much to scholars interested in the school district as a site of
change, gaps remain. The bulk of the research cited above has examined instructional reforms,
with scant attention paid to social-emotional well-being initiatives. This study—an examination
of care and institutionalization—seeks to add to this research and expand thinking about the
school district as a site of institutional change vis-à-vis care and social-emotional supports.
Care in the School District
Scholars have highlighted the complicated, messy nature of social-emotional-related
work (Allbright et al., 2019; Kennedy, 2019; Schwartz et al., 2020). Organizational and
education policy scholars have only just begun exploring the complexity and multileveled nature
of caring leadership in schools (e.g., Louis et al., 2016; Ordoñez-Jasis et al., 2016; Tichnor-
Wagner & Allen, 2016; Walls et al., 2021), with most care research focused on individual

146
student-teacher relationships (e.g., Cooper & Miness, 2014). Recent research suggests that
district priorities that emphasize the importance of social-emotional supports may contribute to
creating enabling conditions for care (Marsh et al., 2018), and that the district central office can
serve a coordinating role for social-emotional supports across district schools (Schwartz et al.,
2020). In other words, while school district office leaders generally are not in direct caring
relationships with students and staff in individual schools, their role is to provide the conditions
for care at the organizational level (Noddings, 2015). The question of how, what, and through
what means school district staff create the conditions for organizational care are current chasms
in the literature base. Researchers have yet to identify organizational processes, mechanisms, and
implementation levers that are used to enact organizational care. Similiarly, the diffision of
caring supports and social-emotional programs represents another wide open area for research.
In this paper, I build on recent related scholarship (Kennedy & Walls, 2022, see chapter
3) suggesting that district-level care is about ensuring the social-emotional well-being, mental
health, and safety of students and staff in the school system. Care at the district level is relational,
and caring district leaders provide a continuum of care through partnerships. District care is
embodied through a warm presence and enacted through the provision of nurturing learning
environments. While this research defines and offers conceptions of district-level care, it does
not go so far as to probe for ideas related to the meso-, or field-, level. Through this study, I aim
to investigate this and other key gaps in the literature on school districts and care.
Conceptual Framework
School Districts: Organizations and Institutions
New institutionalism is the conceptual framework that I use to examine the durability and
spread of care and social-emotional well-being supports in the school district central office.

147
Descended from sociology, new institutional theorists consider organizations to be part of
institutions that shape choices in ways that may not be rational, intentional, or easily understood.
According to scholars Paul DiMaggio and Walter Powell (1991):
The new institutionalism in organization theory and sociology comprises a rejection of
rational-actor models, an interest in institutions as independent variables, a turn toward
cognitive and cultural explanations, and an interest in properties of supraindividual units
of analysis that cannot be reduced to aggregations or direct consequences of individuals’
attributes or motives (p. 8).
In other words, a study using new institutional theory focuses on organizations and individuals in
ways that may not be immediately obvious or explicit. These ideas have been developed,
empirically, over the last three decades. Education studies that draw on new institutional theory
attend to a number of helpful concepts. In the interest of using theory sensibly, I highlight and
define a handful of new institutional concepts below in Table 11. The terms from institutional
theory described in Table 11—diffusion, institutionalization, institution, institutional
interstitiality, isomorphism, legitimacy, and organizational field—are employed in this case
study as sensitizing concepts (Charmaz, 2014).

148
Table 11. Sensitizing Concepts from New Institutional Theory
Concept Definition Source

Diffusion “The notion of structural forms diffusing throughout
institutional sectors serves as one of the central
models of institutional change.”

“The process in which an innovation is communicated
through certain channels over time among the
members of a social system.”

Rowan, 2006a, p.
212

Rogers, 2003
Institutionalization “The process by which individual actors transmit what
is socially defined as real, and at the same time, at any
point in the process the meaning of an act can be
defined as more or less a taken-for-granted part of this
social reality.”
“A particular set of social reproductive processes…”

Zucker, 1991, p. 85

Jepperson, 1991, p.
144

Institution “Represents a social order or pattern that has attained
a certain state or property…”

“Cognitive, normative, and regulative structures and
activities that provide stability and meaning to social
behavior.”

Jepperson, 1991, p.
145

Scott, 1995, p. 33
Institutional
Interstitiality
“The cognitive state in which two alternative possible
realities are juxtaposed in ways that disrupt
institutionalized beliefs and practices.”

Bridwell-Mitchell,
2020, p. 430
Isomorphism Describes the process of organizational
homogenization, credited to Hawley, who defines
isomorphism as “… a constraining process that forces
one unit in a population to resemble other units that
face the same set of environmental conditions.”

Hawley, 1968, as
cited in DiMaggio &
Powell, 1991, p. 66
Legitimacy “A generalized perception or assumption that the
actions of an entity are desirable, proper, or
appropriate within some socially constructed system
of norms, values, beliefs and definitions.”
Suchman, 1995, p.
574, as cited in Scott
& Davis, 2007, p.
208
Organizational Field “Organizations that constitute a recognized area of
institutional life; that produce similar services or
products.”

DiMaggio &
Powell, 1991, p. 64

149
To briefly summarize, institutional theory helps us to understand how ideas and
structures are spread (diffusion, Rogers, 2003; Rowan, 2006a), how organizational processes are
reproduced, often in little understood or taken-for-granted ways (institutionalization, Jepperson,
1991; Zucker, 1991), and how patterns take shape and become incorporated into daily lived
realities across structures (institutions, Jepperson, 1991; Scott, 1995). Moreover, new
institutional theory offers interesting ideas for empirical analysis, including one way through
which taken-for-granted beliefs might be disrupted (institutional interstitiality, Bridwell-
Mitchell, 2020), how things come to look the same over time and across disparate organizations
(isomorphism, Hawley, 1968, as cited in Scott & Davis, 2007), or how organizations might act in
order to comply with social norms and customs in response to outside pressures such as
competition (legitimacy, Suchman, 1995, as cited in Scott & Davis, 2007). Finally, the concept
of organizational field (see DiMaggio & Powell, 1991) allows for rich probing across alike
organizations that share characteristics.
This deep bench of related theoretical concepts offers a conceptual roadmap for exploring
the institutionalization of school district care. Most importantly, they offer a theoretical toolkit
(Kezar, 2005) for considering structures within organizations (districts), as well as agency within
the field of school district central offices (Rigby et al., 2016). In particular, there are a few tricks
that new institutional theory performs quite elegantly: it is well suited for illuminating why
change is so hard and why certain beliefs and customs persist (even in the face of evidence that
new beliefs are in order).
During my preliminary review of the case study data presented in this paper, I was
surprised to find so many similarities, or field-level patterns, among case study participants. That
a small rural superintendent in the South described relational care, say, or the use of partnerships

150
to provide a continuum of care in ways that are strikingly similar to descriptions from an urban
superintendent in the West befuddled me. But they’re on different sides of the country, I thought.
One leader lives in a “red” state, the other in a blue” state. How could this be?
The second conundrum that led to my exploration of institutionalization is related to
equity. Over and over again, most (but not all) research participants skirted my questions related
to equity (e.g., probes about race or sexual orientation), choosing instead to discuss “care for all”
and generalized notions of social-emotional supports. These interview conversations were
happening during the 2020-2021 school year, amidst Black Lives Matter protests, collective
weeping over the image of George Floyd losing his breath to white supremacy, and as our queer
kids were relentlessly attacked by extremist legislation. How, during this time of chaos and fear,
could research participants forget about those who were most in need of individualized, color-
conscious, queer-affirming care? I could not make sense of it, for I believed that their perceived
lack of equity-oriented care did not stem from a place of willful harm. So, if not that, then what?
The answer, I believe, lies in processes of institutionalization.
In sum, I draw on new institutional theory to examine school districts, care, and the
process of institutionalization. Using this conceptual framework allows for insights into how
district actors may be constrained—or empowered—by institutional forces across the field.
Understanding institutionalization may help illuminate how, and to what extent, districts are
taking up ideas related to equity-oriented care, for example, or why they are structuring the
district central office into particular subunits (e.g., offices of student services). In other words,
new institutional theory is used here to interrogate and examine the taken-for-granted structures
and processes across school districts related to social-emotional well-being and care. As districts
increasingly take up the mantle of care, an institutional analysis provides fresh insights into the

151
durability and spread of social-emotional well-being supports and care, with implications for
equity and change.
Method
This paper presents a case study that examines school district central offices’ provision of
care and social-emotional supports and the process of institutionalization. It comes from a larger
project that broadly investigates school district care through a multi-method approach. Case
study interviews were part of a collaborative project aimed at understanding central office care
and social-emotional well-being. Other papers to emerge from this joint endeavor include an
article aimed at practitioners on caring conditions (Kennedy & Walls, 2022) and a definition of
district-level care (see chapter 3). This case study examines these research questions: What field-
level patterns are found within district-level care and social-emotional practices and routines?
How, and to what extent, is caring institutionalized?
Case Study Participants: School District Leaders During COVID-19
I bounded this case study at the unit of analysis of school district leaders (Yin, 2014). I
recruited case study participants via convenience and snowball sampling methods (Merriam &
Tisdell, 2016), seeking a wide range of “typical” school district leaders. That is, I did not seek
out outlier caring districts. The informed consent sheet shared with participants during the
recruitment stage and emailed at the beginning of formal and informal participant interviews is
included in Appendix I. This study was conducted during 2020-2021, which, the reader may
recall, was a turbulent time for everyone. During spring 2020 and into the winter of the 2020-
2021 academic year, district leaders rode waves of COVID-related school closures and
weathered shifting state and federal guidance. At the time, administrators were operating in
survival and command mode, burdened with food pick-ups, masks, and providing devices for

152
virtual learning, swimming in pools of collective grief, stress, and the fractured, politicized
feelings of stakeholders. In response, I approached recruitment with humility and kindness,
offering leaders an opportunity to reflect and contribute to research on care during dark times.
For this case study I set out to recruit a diverse sample of district leaders in the roles of
superintendent, assistant superintendent, director, or assistant director. My ultimate aim was to
reach data saturation, which occurred when themes started to emerge, and no new major findings
were coming up across interviews and document analysis (Maxwell, 2013). As school district
size and makeup varies widely, I was open to different types of central office leaders based on
initial recruitment calls. During the initial data collection phase, I decided to collaborate with Jeff
Walls, a researcher-scholar who had also been leading a study on central office care. We
compared interview protocols, research aims, and early findings, and decided that pooling
(Ruggiano & Perry, 2019) our qualitative data would be a fruitful and fulfilling enterprise. It was
a joy to collaborate during the chaotic and isolating days of COVID stay-home orders.
Through the pooling of qualitative data collected across two projects, this case study
includes districts in the West, Midwest, and South. There are 34 districts represented across our
sample. In eight school districts, we were able to interview between two and four central office
leaders each. In most school districts, however, we interviewed just one central office leader.
Participant districts were located predominantly in cities (n=17), followed by suburban districts
(n =15), towns (n =9), and, finally, rural areas (n =6). In all, the case study sample is made up of
17 superintendents, 10 assistant superintendents and chief officers, 10 directors and assistant

153
directors, five SEL (social-emotional learning) or whole child leaders
4
, and one academic coach.
That is, across two separate studies, we interviewed 47 central office leaders.
5

Data collection took place from May 2020 - May 2021. Study participants ranged in age
from 40 to 70. Central office leaders in our pooled sample were majority white and male, a
limitation of the data, but consistent with the broader national demographics of school district
leaders (White, 2021). Table 4 (in chapter 3) includes a list of research participants and
demographics, included to personalize our anonymous research participants as well as build
trustworthiness of the findings presented herein (Creswell & Poth, 2018; Long-Sutehall et al.,
2011; Ruggiano & Perry, 2019).
Limitations of our sample include only four leaders of color (one Native-American and
three Black leaders) and the inclusion of only male superintendents. Our sample is missing
representation from the Northeast and the Mountain West regions.
Data Collection and Analytical Approach
For this case study, I collected documents, reviewed district materials (e.g., web sites),
and conducted individual interviews. Interviews were held individually with research
participants and one of the researchers via videoconferencing technology. Interviews lasted about
an hour each. Semi-structured interview protocols were used to guide interviews, and interview
transcripts were professionally transcribed. Researchers wrote analytical memoranda (Miles et
al., 2020) throughout the data collection process.

4
These titles varied greatly and were oftentimes very specific and potentially revealing, thus all titles have been
changed and anonymized to shield research participants.

5
More detailed information on participant demographics and district characteristics was first presented within
chapter 3, and can also be found in a series of tables located in Appendix I.

154
Data analysis was iterative, relying on both inductive and deductive approaches (Merriam
& Tisdell, 2016). The first step in the analysis process was to build inter-rater reliability between
researchers for the larger project through the creation of a provisional set of analytic codes
(Maxwell, 2013). Our team used inductive analyses to collaboratively and independently code a
preliminary set of transcripts, meeting throughout the process to discuss emergent themes and
areas of disagreement. This early process resulted in a provisional set of analytical codes. Next,
we used these provisional codes to analyze and code a second set of transcripts, meeting to norm
our process and finalize our coding tree (Saldaña, 2016). After we agreed on a coding schema—
created from deductive ideas, including “caring supports,” “central office structures,” and
“agency,” as well as inductively discovered themes such as “responsiveness,” “partnerships,”
and “change and care,”—we reviewed each transcript carefully, coding it for themes. This was
an ongoing, iterative process. Once all transcripts had gone through initial data analysis,
researchers met to discuss salient themes and findings.
For this case study, additional rounds of analysis were conducted. Using the original
codes as a launchpad, I further analyzed the data, first categorizing how care was enacted across
district leaders (see Appendix K for a memo on these early categories). I further probed the data
for field-level patterns and evidence of institutionalization. Second cycle coding at this stage of
analysis included categorizing data by types of programs and practices, including: “agency”
“structures” and “programs”. From this second cycle coding emerged salient themes that I
finalized and refined through additional axial coding, the goal of which “is to strategically
reassemble data that were ‘split’ or ‘fractured’ during the Initial Coding process” (Strauss &
Corbin, 1988, p. 124, as cited in Saldaña, 2016). Analytical memos were utilized to further refine
themes. Throughout data analysis, I returned to sensitizing concepts from new institutional

155
theory, using analytical memoranda to reflect and analyze themes related to institutionalization
(e.g., isomorphism, diffusion). In what follows, I present the study results and discussion in one
cohesive narrative, following qualitative methodological tradition (e.g., Denzin, 2010). That is,
unlike the postpositivist, quantitative approach to splitting “results” and “discussion,” I weave
together findings and discussion.
Findings and Discussion
This case study sought to answer two research questions: What field-level patterns are
found within district-level care and social-emotional practices and routines? How, and to what
extent, is caring institutionalized? I present findings for each research question below.
Research Question 1: Field-Level Patterns
The first research question aimed to understand field-level patterns of district-level care
and social-emotional well-being supports. The level of organizational field (e.g., meso level) is a
helpful concept for understanding similarities and differences across school district
organizations. Field-level analysis might reveal how school districts respond to political
pressures in similar ways, make surface-level symbolic change, or come to disrupt taken-for-
granted assumptions. In this section, I address the research question: What patterns exist at the
level of organizational field?
Case study analysis showed much similarity with respect to how care and social-
emotional supports are provided. In what follows, I examine field-level patterns found in the case
study data: diffusion, as evidenced by similarities in programs and processes for providing care;
isomorphism in departments and teams; legitimacy-seeking via caring agents; the outsourcing of
care as a result of instances of institutional interstitiality; and transactions with agencies of the
state that suggest high levels of isomorphism.

156
Diffusing Care and Social-Emotional Supports: MTSS, Second Step, and CASEL
The first finding when analyzing patterns at the field level was the diffusion of particular
caring programs and supports, comprising nationally known programs such as Multi-Tiered
Systems of Supports (MTSS) and concepts developed by the Collaborative for Academic, Social,
and Emotional Learning (CASEL), as well as lesser known, locally derived care supports such as
“elementary family groups.” Further, many participants credited MTSS with guiding their caring
work and identified MTSS as an organizing umbrella for care. MTSS is a state-driven policy
initiative that is gaining traction across the country (Samuels, 2016). Under the umbrella of
MTSS is a wide variety of affective policies that a district might implement, such as social-
emotional learning, bullying prevention, behavior supports, and restorative justice, among others.
In essence, MTSS is a widely used program that leaves room for local implementation discretion
(Choi et al., 2019).
Tabitha, director of student services, described how MTSS was enacted in her district as
an infrastructure for care:
What’s called a multi-tiered system of support, MTSS, it’s really an infrastructure that
takes this comprehensive system and brings them all together. We have a number of
different strategies and programs that we use within that multi-tiered systems of support.
You’ll hear like positive intervention systems, and we use a social-emotional component
called sound discipline, which is like restorative practices. Obviously, our mental health
work and our social-emotional curriculum. All of these different strategies and
interventions, and it’s all within this what’s called a multi-tiered system of support. With
that, we developed a district guideline that says these are the guidelines that need to be
followed for a multi-tiered system of support. Then these are the resources within them.

157
Then each team, each building creates their own MTSS team, that then deals with all of
the different systems and discipline. They will look at attendance and grades and look at
discipline and look at school-wide practices and individual practices for students.
Tabitha succinctly described how MTSS provides an infrastructure for bringing together
different care supports and programs. This type of explanation was typical within the case study.
In other words, few participants among the various districts included in this case study described
MTSS in ways that differed. Case study analysis revealed similar structures across the field level,
with few outliers.
Some may interpret these descriptions of MTSS as an example of isomorphism in action,
for at the field level, school districts are responding to similar pressures: rising mental health
needs, greater political pressure, and anxiety related to COVID-19 or extreme political attacks on
students and teachers. Others might suggest that adoption of MTSS is a move toward legitimacy
when schools must sell themselves in the neoliberal marketplace in order to attract students
(Dimartino & Jessen, 2018).
Indeed, case study participants discussed the role of external, commercialized curriculum
providers with ease and comfort. Take the example of Kyle, a superintendent, who shared how
his district’s SEL curriculum had provided a shared language for care and social-emotional well-
being work:
We had no common framework to talk about social and emotional learning standards in
our schools. Even though there’s no perfect curriculum, I think [our SEL curriculum] was
important because that really came from our student leaders. Our students are learning it
explicitly within the classroom, and then they’re practicing it and spreading the values

158
around character development and social-emotional skills throughout the school
community.
Kyle mentioned using student input, as well as the benefits of a shared SEL language. However,
like Kyle, very few participants in our case study questioned the philosophical roots of their
chosen program, nor did they wonder whether it might be contextualized to fit their student
population. Prior literature has raised concerns about the hegemonic nature of mainstream SEL
curricula, questioning whether it can be responsive to the needs of students of color or queer
students, for example (Hoffman, 2009; Kennedy, 2019). In other words, diffusion of mainstream
SEL curricula and organizing frameworks points to the process of institutionalization, with little
resistance or reflection at the field level. Only a handful of participants discussed infusion of
equity or anti-racist lenses in their approach to caring supports, citing CASEL and the National
Equity Project as influential (see Williams & Jagers, 2020).
Common Structures: Departments, Strategic Plans, and Teams
Another pattern that emerged at the organizational field-level shows commonality in the
structures of social-emotional well-being supports, including department names and titles. These
commonalities suggest isomorphism at the field-level. For example, Henry, a district
superintendent, described his district’s decision to hire someone to oversee care:
Our central office is pretty small, but we hired an assistant director of teaching and
learning a couple of years ago and we made it SEL-specific. Assistant director of
teaching and learning, but with a focus on social-emotional learning. We hired somebody
with a counseling background, administrative background that can support that work.
That’s been a big piece from the district level is that we have somebody that really
oversees what that looks like to be able to help push that effort forward… It’s been real

159
helpful to have that assistant director that really takes on and oversees that work to keep
the focus there, so it doesn’t happen, like I said, just falls to the wayside, that that’s
somebody’s role and responsibility within our system.
In this short vignette, Henry illustrates a piece of caring district leadership: hiring and staffing
the central office for care. Many central office leaders in this case study described hiring
especially for care, as well as “staffing up” the assistant superintendent or director levels in
pursuit of providing better caring supports. Prior research points to job titles as evidence of
institutionalization (Rowan, 1982).
The incorporation of care and social-emotional well-being into district strategic plans was
another commonality across the field, showing further evidence of potential institutionalization.
For example, Isaac, a superintendent, described how care is prioritized in his district’s strategic
plan:
I think it’s just that piece of knowing that everything really is a team. Yes, as the
superintendent, I’m in charge of that capacity of the team, but knowing who to plugin in
different roles, and then, of course, making sure the board knows, so that they can make
the decisions that they make as a school board to help support those processes. One of the
things that we’ve been able to do is we’ve redone our strategic planning… and created
these three main areas. One is safe and caring culture. The second one is academic
success and future readiness. The third one is community engagement. From a systems
perspective, everybody from the district office to buildings to departments are focused on
those three areas.
Isaac’s quote showcases how his district prioritizes care and formalizes caring supports through
official channels like the district’s strategic plan.

160
Finally, many districts in this case study have launched “well-being” or “SEL teams,”
both at the district office and within school buildings. These teams are in charge of the work of
care, and are made up of an interdisciplinary, multi-level cadre of staff. In sum, throughout the
interview process, many participants pointed to the formalization of care supports by way of
improvement plans, official rollout plans, SEL teams, or student services departments and
agendas. In this way, caring structures appeared consistently and in similar ways across the
organizational field, suggesting isomorphism.
Caring Agents: Boundary Spanners or Legitimacy-Seeking
Across the field level—that is, among the school districts included in this case study—
there emerged a pattern of “caring agents” who acted as caretakers of social-emotional supports,
champions for mental health programs, and as risk-takers who swam against the tide in the
interest of care and social-emotional well-being supports. Much like I found strong patterns of
structures and titles at the field level, so too did ample evidence abound related to individual
agency across districts. At first glance, this might seem to be conflicting data. However, this
finding resonates with prior research on the work of educating “whole people,” which is ill-
defined, chaotic, and evolving (Allbright et al., 2019; Cohen, 2017; Noddings, 2006).
It was common for research participants to point to one champion of care within their
district, or for a participant to suggest that they themselves were taking on much of the care
responsibility by acting as an agent of care. What might explain this pattern of individual agents
of care? Extant literature and new institutional theory offer a few explanations. First, those
charged with care often act as boundary spanners, connecting district-level resources, school
building supports, and external agencies. As the “care agent” role evolves, organizational theory
predicts that these roles are likely to shift to become more bureaucratic and less about, say,

161
building relationships (Honig, 2008). COVID-19 offered glimpses into what this might look like,
as many of my research participants—those who are charged with district care—had also been
handed the additional responsibility of COVID contact tracing, school closure and opening
protocols, and even coordinating additional school nurses. This means that, at times, their
responsibilities for care and social-emotional supports were abandoned while they took up
COVID-related tasks. When I probed to learn why this might be—an unexpected finding to
emerge within this larger project—participants said things like, “Nobody else was available,” or
“I’m good at juggling,” or “In the past, nursing has been under the department of student
services, so it just made sense for me to be in charge of COVID.”
Second, districts may be adopting care and social-emotional supports in order to seek
legitimacy. That is, they may espouse caring priorities on their web sites and in board meetings,
but in practice, they may relegate care to the already full plate of one hard-working, middle-level
central office leader. Structures such as departments and titles may point to institutionalization,
but lack of resources, multiple competing priorities, and a greater importance placed on
academics suggest that care may be less systemic and left to individual agents of care (Allbright
& Marsh, 2020; Marsh, Allbright, Bulkley, et al., 2020).
In one case, identifying “champions” was an intentional part of SEL implementation.
Nicole, director of SEL, shared her district’s process for creating a structure for SEL:
When [our central office SEL department] partners with the [school building], we
onboard them, we explain to them what comprehensive SEL is, those four buckets that I
told you. And we ask them to identify three goals. All campuses in our district have
campus improvement plans, so we encourage them, instead of thinking of SEL as another
thing on their plate, I always tell principals, SEL is the plate that you put stuff on. So it’s

162
really both a philosophy and practices. So philosophically, you have to embody and think
about SEL, and then you implement the practices as well. And so, we typically ask
campuses to identify an SEL champion, and that’s the person that’s going to be the high
leverage driver of it on the campus. Typically, we ask that it’s not necessarily the
principal, because the principal gets really busy. So [it] might be an AP, or a counselor,
or a teacher, but then the principal is always in the know. We also have created leadership
pathways with SEL, because the more the principal is passionate about SEL, we noticed
those are our higher implementer campuses. So we have to kind of design multiple PD
tracks for teachers, and then also leaders of the campuses. And then we ask that they form
a steering committee, which is a diverse group of people of teachers, counselors, APs,
community members that manage the SEL on the campus. So those are the ‘must haves’
before you start SEL on the campus.
In this quote, Nicole shared her district’s strategy for systemizing the “champion” role in SEL
implementation.
Quinn, a director of student services, described a superstar caring agent in her district,
who created relationships with families:
Our McKinney-Vento specialist is the person that handles all of our homeless students.
She’s the liaison. She does amazing work, and I think she’s one of those people. A lot of
people in those positions in districts go unrecognized for the time, the effort, all of the
things they do behind the scenes and how they become this integral part of these families
of worlds. I know some of the entanglements that she gets in with these families, and how
she has grown to really care about the families. Again, I just think it’s one of those
positions and if you have the right person in that position as we do now. It’s just a real

163
relationship building piece that can be really successful, and I think we have that. She
shows that every single day. She puts in hours upon hours, and she’s amazing.
In these short vignettes, both Nicole and Quinn discuss the role of “care champions” in their
school districts. This finding is in conflict with a dominant recommendation from many leaders
in the field of care and social-emotional learning to make this work systemic and spread across
organizations (e.g., Mahoney et al., 2020); plainly put, the “work” of care should be on
everyone’s plates, and not sit with one champion.
In sum, agents of care were a major pattern in the case study data. Prior research and
theory suggest that this may be part of the boundary-spanning role, or that one way in which care
is diffused is through caring agents. These agents may work within or outside of the institutional
structures described in the previous section and may be connected to legitimacy-seeking at the
field level (e.g., SEL teams, departments).
Outsourcing Care and Transactions with the State: Interstitiality and Isomorphism
This case study shows that the social-emotional well-being needs far outpace the
resources of school district central offices. To close the gap in feasible ways, school districts in
this study turned to external partnerships with local or county agencies. They also applied for
state grants to fund mental health supports. In addition, the government influenced care supports
in school districts through funding streams such as Medicaid, which provided mental health
supports for students during COVID-19. June, an assistant superintendent, described how county
and foundation funding helped support her district’s mental health therapists:
We have a mental health therapist at one of our middle schools and we are working with
the [X Family] Foundation on a grant to pay for another one. We used to be in a [county
education agency] grant where we had five mental health therapists around the district

164
and the grant was up and so we lost the funding. They were super helpful when they were
here. Something that we know we need additional support with.
What might explain this pattern of outsourcing care described by June? The concept of
institutional interstitiality holds that, when juxtaposition appears, actors may be forced to rethink
(or disrupt) common institutionalized practices. It would appear that COVID-19, political unrest,
racial justice movements, and the trauma of collective grief created juxtapositions across the
field. For example, June touches on one juxtaposition, citing a stark difference between sources
of funding and mental health needs. Juxtapositions (or conflicts) such as these may create the
perfect institutional interstitiality storm that could have led many school districts to outsource
care. Previously considered outside the purview of the district, or left to individual counselors in
some school buildings, district-level care is now provided via the school district through a
complex web of partnerships and programs that creates a continuum of care. This pattern was
quite salient in the case study data.
Further, these episodes of interstitiality that led to different or altered practices were
accompanied by a national rising awareness of mental health needs and collective mourning.
That is, it is possible that due to news coverage and personal experiences with COVID loss, it
became more legitimate and accepted to provide care supports. In sum, a final pattern to emerge
in the case study data was related to the role of federal, state, county, and local policies and
programs in shaping care at the field level. It is possible that greater interactions with state
agencies lead to greater levels of isomorphism at the field level.
Summing Up: Patterns in the Organizational Field
In response to the research question, What patterns exist at the level of organizational
field? I offer four patterns derived from case study data, illustrated in Figure 9 below. Patterns

165
found at the field level include diffusion of a particular flavor of care, structures such as teams,
titles, and departments, caring agents who act as champions, and policies and programs.
Figure 9. Field-Level Patterns in Care and Social-Emotional Supports

Research Question 2: The Institutionalization of Care
The second research question is: How, and to what extent, is caring institutionalized?
Throughout this study, I wondered: What is the difference between institutionalizing and being
an institution? Why does this matter for policy, research, and practice? In attempting to puzzle
out my case study data, these are the questions that I returned to again and again. There are some

166
classic theories that I drew on in thinking about care and institutionalizing, institutions, and
institutionalization.
The first theory originates with scholar Lynne Zucker, whose American Sociological
Review article on cultural persistence (1977) was reprinted in the (now) classic
6
book The New
Intuitionalism in Organizational Analysis edited by Walter Powell and Paul DiMaggio (1991).
Zucker says that institutionalization is:
… both a process and a property variable. It is the process by which individual actors
transmit what is socially defined as real, and at the same time, at any point in the process
the meaning of an act can be defined as more or less a taken-for-granted part of this
social reality (1991, p. 85).
Zucker argues that institutionalization is a process of forming social realities, but, as a noun, is
also static. She does not say that institutionalization is reality, but rather that, through actors’
transmissions of realities through actions, a thing becomes a taken-for-granted part of society. Or
rather, it becomes institutionalized.
Another seminal article in the American Sociological Review, “The Iron Cage Revisited:
Institutional Isomorphism and Collective Rationality in Organizational Fields,” by Paul
DiMaggio and Walter Powell (1983/1991), was also reprinted in the iconic orange book. In their
discussion of institutional isomorphism, the authors offer six hypotheses regarding field-level
predictors and the degree to which isomorphism—or similarities, homogenization—might
happen. Five of them are relevant to the question of the institutionalization of care across the
field of school districts. In brief, the authors suggest that the nature and degree of isomorphism

6
This is the “go-to” handbook for new institutional theory. It is an iconic orange.

167
might be due to: (a) single (or similar) sources of support (e.g., resource suppliers, such as
CASEL or Second Step), (b) transactions with agencies of the state (such as state education
agencies, or professional licensing boards), (c) uncertain technologies and/or ambiguous goals,
(d) extent of professionalization in the field, and (e) the extent of structuration, defined as “stable
and broadly acknowledged centers, peripheries, and status orders” (DiMaggio & Powell, 1991, p.
77). In all, these hypotheses about isomorphism are used to guide the following exploration of
case study data, in response to this research question: How, and to what extent, is caring
institutionalized?
Isomorphism and the Care Improvement Industry
In this section, I take up ideas of isomorphism presented above to consider the
institutionalization of care. In the case study, participants broadly described care and social-
emotional supports as related to programs, policies, and structures including: (a) Multi-Tiered
System of Supports (MTSS), (b) Positive Behavior Intervention Supports (PBIS), (c) SEL
curricula and tools, (d) discipline programs, such as Restorative Practices, (e) mental health
supports (e.g. social workers, counselors, and trauma-responsive teaching), (f) specialized
supports such as therapy dogs or early childhood programs, (g) adult care supports, such as
wellness programs and professional development, and, finally, as (h) structures, staffing, or
plans, such as employing whole child specialists and engaging with school improvement teams.
These categories comprised the “how” of school district care. A more detailed description of
these care supports can be found in Appendix L. In all, there were many similarities, and some
differences, among the caring programs and practices across school districts. Whether these are
evidence of isomorphism—which could point to institutionalization—is the open question,
explored using DiMaggio and Powell’s (1991) heuristic:

168
Hypothesis 1: Single Source of Support. The first hypothesis (DiMaggio & Powell,
1991) regarding isomorphism states that if there is a single source of support, this may lead to
isomorphism. Case study data, including participant interviews and document analysis, showed a
variety of supports in the vein of care and social-emotional well-being. There were dominant
sources of support for school districts, however. Leaders pointed to the prevalence of MTSS,
PBIS, and particular SEL and discipline curricula in their districts. Only a few sources of care
support rose to the top.
Hypothesis 2: Transactions with Agencies of the State. DiMaggio and Powell (1991)
hypothesized that greater transactions with state agencies would lead to isomorphism. As found
in the field-level patterns section above, agencies of the state in case study data included state-
level MTSS programs, county and state-level PBIS trainings, mental health specialists from
county agencies, and universal screening tools created by public health agencies. Especially in
the realm of mental health, there were many state-district transactions that pointed to a
potentially high level of isomorphism and institutionalization.
Hypothesis 3: Uncertain Technologies, Ambiguous Goals. DiMaggio and Powell
(1991) suggest that “in fields characterized by a high degree of uncertainty, new entrants, which
could serve as sources of innovation and variation, will seek to overcome the liability of newness
by imitating established practices within the field” (1991, p. 77). While education is generally
quite certain and structured, with a similar grammar across schools (Marsh, Allbright, Bulkley, et
al., 2020; Tyack & Cuban, 1995), case study data shows that within the organizational field there
is much uncertainty and ambiguity with care and social-emotional supports. As discussed in
other research (see chapter 3), caring conceptions are somewhat messy and ill-defined. There is
evidence that, when faced with social-emotional challenges, district leaders seek to imitate

169
established practices through partnerships and purchasing of curriculum. I found very little
evidence of innovation or variation in care and social-emotional well-being supports.
Hypothesis 4: Professionalization of the Field. DiMaggio and Powell (1991)
hypothesized that the greater a field is professionalized, the greater it will see evidence of
isomorphism. There is a high level of professionalization in the field of education broadly, and in
school district central offices in particular. Indeed, when asked about backgrounds, most central
office leaders reported that they had been teachers, and then principals before finally moving up
to the school district central office. Case study participants pointed to national membership
organizations and role-alike groups as influences on their leadership practices. Their comments
confirmed that there is a high degree of professionalization in the field.
Hypothesis 5: Structuration. The final hypothesis posits that high levels of
structuration may lead to isomorphism. This idea about structuration is especially fruitful for
thinking about school districts, which are highly structured (and hierarchical) organizations.
Across the field, school districts described strikingly similar structures (e.g., departments,
executive cabinets, school-based improvement teams). High levels of structuration were found in
case study data, suggesting that there may be a “best care system” (Tyack & Cuban, 1995) across
the field level.
Taken together, this exploration of isomorphism using DiMaggio and Powell’s (1991)
ideas suggest high levels of isomorphism are occurring at the field level.
The Dark Side of Institutionalization: Caring Agents and the Gendered Act of Caring
This case study drew on interviews with 47 school district central office leaders. All of
the superintendents were men; most of the assistant or director level central office leaders were

170
women. In this section, I discuss the dark side of institutionalization: taken-for-granted sexism in
caring district work.
For example, a few female mid-level central office leaders described their frustrations
with care in the central office. They worried they were taking on too much, and that male central
office leaders weren’t as concerned with care. One female student services director shared the
following challenges with systematically doing care work:
What would help me is other people being accountable for their work. People know that
they can always turn to me and come to me and I will do whatever is asked of me
because I have a level of professionalism. What would help me is to have other people be
held accountable to finish their work. What we find is in student services, we do serve
with a smile. We have an awesome department of just a few of us. Other people, maybe
they don’t do the task that was asked of them. It’s, ‘Hey, can you girls—' We happen to
be all females. ‘Can you girls do this for us? We know that you’re going to do it well,
people will feel good when you work with them.’ Sometimes that gets draining,
sometimes I get really frustrated. Like, where’s the courageous conversation to have with
other entities or people? Why are we always the ones to do it?
In this quote, we see that “girls” are doing the work of care in this district, within the all-female
department of student services. This care work is done with a “smile,” another gendered act. The
only participants to question the gendered act of caring were female. The fact that male
participants did not question the status quo points to the taken-for-granted assumption that all is
well with gender balance in the act of caring leadership.
Is Care Institutionalized?
This study seeks to investigate whether care has become institutionalized. In the above, I

171
argued that findings from my case study point to isomorphism, as well as the diffusion of a few
ways of delivering care—such as MTSS and PBIS—that it would appear there is a booming
Care Improvement Industry (Rowan, 2006b). I also reported evidence of isomorphism across the
field-level, pointing to institutionalization, or at least the process of institutionalizing. Moreover,
I identified some taken-for-granted assumptions about care—that it is devoid of attention to race,
that it is taken up by women (or “girls” as one superintendent called them)—with implications
for equity. Further, commonalities across structures—evidenced by growing student services
departments and “well-being teams”—suggest isomorphism and that care is being
institutionalized. There is no recipe for determining whether or not something has become
institutionalized, but based on case study evidence and my current reading of new institutional
literature, I offer a tentative argument here that care is in the process of becoming
institutionalized. What this means for caring school district leadership, policy, and future
research is explored next.
Implications and Conclusion
This case study seeks to answer two research questions: What field-level patterns are
found within district-level care and social-emotional practices and routines? How, and to what
extent, is caring institutionalized? Patterns at the field level suggest an institutionalization of care
and social-emotional supports. The conditions and patterns described herein lead to a number of
implications for research, policy, and practice.
Implications for Research
New institutionalists will note that this case study departs from other new institutional
education studies (e.g., Bridwell-Mitchell, 2013; Ishimaru & Galloway, 2020; Rigby, 2015) in
that I did not draw on logics to examine field-level patterns in case study data. While a logics

172
study would have elicited a number of likely interesting themes, it would have pointed to macro
level forces, less applicable to a study of the meso- or field-level. Choosing to focus on meso,
field-level conditions across school districts was an intentional choice meant to surface patterns
across the organizational form of the school district, an area ripe for more research (Gamson &
Hodge, 2017). Research implications from this study include a renewed attention to field-level
patterns using multiple concepts from new institutional theory other than logics, including
isomorphism, interstitiality, legitimacy, and institutionalization.
Another major finding was evidence suggesting that institutionalization of care and
social-emotional well-being is occurring in the field. Education abounds with studies that use
institutional theory to look at aspects of institutions, but rarely do scholars reflect on whether
something is an institution, or what institutionalization entails. Additional evidence confirming
these tentative findings, perhaps drawing on mixed methods studies, would add depth to the
current discussion of institutionalization and care. This is a wide-open area prime for future
scholarly pursuit.
Caring as a female endeavor has been lightly explored in extant literature (e.g., Acker,
1995; Witherspoon & Arnold, 2010). This study identified a large disconnect between male
superintendents and their female assistant directors charged with care. Further research on
power, gender, and the work of care in educational leadership is warranted. In particular, further
research—qualitative and quantitative—needs to be done to consider the varied perspectives on
care by gender and role type.
Implications for Policy and Practice
Policymakers are crafting programs and policies while funneling resources into the
bucket of mental health and social-emotional supports. These many choices—such as mental

173
health funding via the county, federal and state Medicaid allowances for social workers, and
adoption of state-level social-emotional learning standards—have wide-ranging and long-lasting
implications for the business of school district care. This study suggests that policymakers may
need to coordinate across this disparate umbrella of policies and bring in stakeholder input.
Research participants stressed how much time and energy they spent navigating different county
programs and grant opportunities; surely there might be a way for policymakers to streamline
some of these processes in support of care and social-emotional well-being for students and staff
within school districts.
Evidence of caring institutionalization suggests that, although we have left the
accountability regime of the No Child Left Behind Era in the recent past, care and social-
emotional supports are now a part of “the business” of school districts. If this is so—and I
welcome scholarly debates on the topic—then what must follow is a dedicated funding source
for social-emotional well-being supports. Currently, as this research shows, districts are left to
cobble together a disparate number of resources to provide care. This is not efficient or practical,
nor does it honor the real care needs of students and staff. Thus, I join other education scholars in
arguing for dedicated federal funding for care and social-emotional supports (e.g., Debray et al.,
2022).
This study revealed that many leaders are implementing policies and programs of care,
such as MTSS and PBIS, that may not serve the needs of LGBTQ+ or minoritized students.
Typically centered around “care for all,” this new “Care Improvement Industry” may lead to
greater efficiency and broader adoption of care and social-emotional supports. However, there
might be a tradeoff, for “care for all” programs tend to neglect the individualized needs of
minoritized students. Local innovation, creativity, and responsiveness could be enough to

174
mitigate this shadow of institutionalization, however. Further, barriers to equity-oriented care
may be greater now that care is institutionalized; resistance at the field level may be more of an
uphill battle for champions of equity-oriented care.
There are some caring agents who are disrupting the hegemonic “Care Improvement
Industry” by partnering with equity-oriented organizations, or by using recent guidance from
CASEL on transformative SEL (e.g., Williams & Jagers, 2020). These care agents seem to be
driven by a passion for equity, personal identity, or belief in social justice. District leaders
interested in infusing social-emotional supports with an equity orientation might consider
seeking out and empowering their own internal caring agents. Leaders might also consider
partnering with external equity-minded organizations in service of care.
In conclusion, there is evidence that a “best system of care” is in the process of
widespread diffusion (Tyack & Cuban, 1995). Policymakers and practitioners who are interested
in intervening in the process of institutionalization might encourage or incentivize local
innovations, provide technical assistance on creating caring feedback loops with stakeholders as
a way to build responsive, contextualized caring supports, or elevate the voices of local families
and students in order to build caring programs that are in line with community needs (e.g.,
Stephens, 2021).

175

Chapter 6: Conclusions

This dissertation study sought to examine care, social-emotional well-being supports, and
the school district central office. Across four empirical chapters, the six research questions I
addressed were:
1. How is love and caring in education conceptualized and defined in empirical research?
2. To what extent does the current landscape of love and caring theory in education extend
to school leadership? To education policy research?
3. How do district leaders conceptualize care and social-emotional supports at the district
level?
4. How do central office leaders create or maintain well-being and social-emotional
supports in a crisis?
5. What field-level patterns are found within district-level care and social-emotional
practices and routines?
6. How, and to what extent, is caring institutionalized?
These research questions aimed to probe, interrogate, and question the role of school districts
in providing care and social-emotional supports for students and staff. I investigated these
research questions through four standalone papers—one research synthesis and three qualitative
studies—presented in chapters 2 through 5. In what follows, I briefly review the major study

176
findings. I then discuss the significance of this study, ending with implications for research,
policy, and practice.
In Brief: Dissertation Findings
Across this dissertation study, I seek to synthesize current knowledge on care as well as
offer novel definitions of care, caring practices, and caring leadership. These chapters build upon
one another, as shown in Table 12. To date, the education field has not coalesced around a
particular understanding of care at the organizational level; this dissertation study sought to
remedy this gap.

177
Table 12. Empirical Focus, Contributions, and Connections

Chapter Focus of
Empirical
Investigation
Prior Literature

How the findings relate to prior
literature
Conceptual Contributions & Connections

How this chapter contributes conceptually and
relates to other dissertation chapters
Chapter 2:

Love and Care in
Education: A Critical
Qualitative Research
Synthesis

Prior empirical
studies on care in
K12 education
policy and
leadership

Reviews and critiques prior
literature

Finds little prior research and
conceptual exploration of care in
education policy and leadership
literature
Outlines empirical conceptions of care to date

Sets the stage for later chapters; both Ch. 3 and
4 fill the gaps described in this chapter
Chapter 3:

Ensuring the Social-
Emotional Well-Being of
Students and Staff: Toward
a Theory of School District
Care

District-level
care
Builds on prior care literature
using key care terms as
sensitizing keywords

Builds on research on caring
educational leadership at the
school level

Defines school district care as
ensuring the social-emotional well-being,
mental health, and safety of students and staff;
is relational, systemic, and embodied; and
equity- and needs-driven

Contributes a novel definition of district-level
care; prior care research has focused on
individual relational care at the classroom or
school levels

Offers propositions towards theorizing about
organizational care

Closes an outstanding research gap as described
in chapter 2

178
Chapter 4:

“You Are One of Us, and
We Are One of You:” The
“Work” of Mobilizing,
Advocating, and Organizing
for Care in The School
District Central Office

Leadership to
enact district-
level care
Prior research has investigated
cases of caring schools, programs,
and teachers; this chapter uses the
case study method to build upon
prior care concepts developed
primarily at the school level
In chapter 2, I noted a dearth of understanding
and conceptual clarification about caring
leadership. This case study addresses this gap
by explicating caring leadership practices
within one caring school district

This chapter complements the definition of
district-level care described in chapter 3, adding
nuance and contextualized findings from one
caring district

Chapter 5:

The Subject is Caring; The
Verb is Institutionalizing: A
Field-Level Analysis and
Implications for Equity

Field-level
patterns of
district-level care
Prior research on patterns at the
field-level have focused on
academic reforms; this paper
builds on previous field-level
analyses by taking up care and
social-emotional well-being

Care literature has primarily
focused on the relational,
programmatic, or philosophical
sides of care; this complements
prior literature by examining
caring practices across the field
level
This chapter contributes conceptually by
exploring the diffusion of caring practices at the
field-level. I also take up the question of care as
an institution, a topic previously unexplored

This relates to other chapters by conducting a
higher-level analysis of patterns at the field (or
meso) level

This chapter builds on the leadership
conceptions and district definition described in
chapter 3, as well as the caring leadership
practices described in chapter 4

179
First, through a critical qualitative research synthesis presented in chapter 2, I explore
four decades of research on care. I find that there are many definitions of care in K12 education,
but no consensus or clear definition of caring leadership. This literature synthesis revealed a lack
of research on the school district as a site for care. Thus, in chapter 3, I sought to define and
clarify district-level care, shoring up a major gap revealed in chapter 2. In sum, analysis showed
that district-level care is complex and comprised five main components. The first is that care at
the district level is about ensuring the social-emotional well-being, mental health, and safety of
students and staff. Also, district-level care is relational, systemic, embodied and environmental,
and equity and needs-driven. In this paper we aim to go beyond conceptions and toward
theorizing. Thus, we conclude by offering propositions as a move toward theorizing
organizational care, extrapolating from our particular case to a broader theory of organizational
care. This paper contributes to research through theorizing organizational care and to practice by
offering a grounded definition of district-level care.
In the next paper, included here as chapter 4, I present an instrumental, purposively
chosen case study of a caring school district called La Subida. This chapter builds on the
previous chapter by studying one instrumental school district. In this case study, I worked to
understand how district leaders create or maintain well-being and social-emotional supports in a
crisis. Drawing on new institutional work literature to ground the study (e.g., Lawrence &
Suddaby, 2006), I found that there were several types of caring leadership work that allowed for
the creation, maintenance, and expansion of care during the COVID-19 crisis: mobilization of
community leadership, creation of improvisational structures, and maintenance of counseling

180
supports. Moreover, I present findings suggesting that in La Subida, district-level care was
enacted through a collective vision of care, rooted in a love of place and focused on healing.
Finally, chapter 5 is a qualitative case study on the institutionalization of care. I examined
how care and well-being supports are institutionalized across the field level. Analysis revealed
field-level patterns of care and social-emotional well-being supports, including diffusion of
social-emotional supports, commonalities across district structures that point to potential
isomorphism, legitimacy-seeking in central office leaders, instances of institutional interstitiality
leading to an outsourcing of care, and transactions with agencies of the state that suggest
isomorphism. I then discussed the process of institutionalization, arguing that care is in the
process of becoming institutionalized. Together, these empirical studies point to the importance
of structures, processes, and agency in creating district-level care.
Significance of this Study & Implications
This study contributes to research, practice, and policy in substantive ways. First, I offer
empirical evidence on the roles that school districts and central office leaders play in cultivating
care. Previous research on care (e.g., Smylie et al., 2016) has largely examined classroom or
school-level relationships, with extant scholarship neglecting to examine the role that districts
play as sites of intervention, change, and caring leadership. Second, I used an asset-based lens to
lift up an account of a caring school district located in a Latinx farmworker community. Positive
institutional work (Nilsson, 2015) was used as a conceptual guidepost to elevate the caring work
in one school district. Third, I offer the field a concise definition of district-level care, as
described above. Finally, I contribute to theory by (a) offering propositions in the interest of
theorizing about organizational care, (b) adding the concept of expansion work to the corpus of
studies that use new institutional theory and institutional work, (c) reconceptualizing distributed

181
leadership theory to be inclusive of parents and community members, and (d) considering the
implications of institutionalizing care. This dissertation study offers a number of implications for
research, policy, and practice.
First, there was wide variation in how districts thought about care, where care is enacted
within school districts, what constitutes care, and who takes up the charge of care. Future
research could help illuminate, on a larger scale, to what degree departments of student services
or directors of SEL are driving the work of care within the central office. Similarly, the data
presented in this study was collected over the course of one academic year, 2020-2021. Research
using longitudinal ethnographic methods, for example, could highlight how school districts
struggle, and potentially overcome, barriers to care over time. Similarly, a limit of this
dissertation is that I was unable to explore the nested nature of care within school districts.
Future researchers might investigate school district systems as nested, ecological systems—that
is classrooms, buildings, districts, and communities—using participatory action research
methods, or via research practice partnerships, to examine the multi-level, multidimensional
aspects of organizational care.
By way of policy, this study suggests that policymakers ought to attend to how formal
policies at the state level are interpreted and used by educational leaders. As I discussed in the
introduction, half of the states in the United States have social-emotional guidance, and nearly all
states have social-emotional learning laws (National Association of State Boards of Education,
n.d.; Yoder et al., 2020). And yet, very few participants discussed state guidance when
discussing their own caring leadership. Considering how district leaders are putting together
resources, programs, and funding streams in search of social-emotional well-being supports,
there seems to be a wide chasm between policy and need at the district level. Policymakers might

182
consider helping school district leaders streamline their resources through legislation or clarify
their caring supports through improvement plan processes.
In the La Subida case study presented in chapter 4, there were a number of policies that
enabled caring supports during the COVID-19 crisis. Historically, there had been state and
philanthropic investments in community services centers that provided wraparound supports,
which had continued to grow and provide for the community of La Subida. Second, research
participants credited a state-required stakeholder input process for helping to create high levels
of trust between the school district and the community. This trust enabled caring supports to
flourish during the pandemic. Third, local activists had pushed for more resources for school
counselors, asking that funds be diverted away from school resource officers. These efforts paid
off when more counseling staff were needed during the pandemic, because a stable foundation of
counseling supports was already in place. Together, these policies provided a tapestry of caring
supports in La Subida School District.
Finally, this dissertation reveals a number of implications for practice. First, the case
study data in chapter 4 showed that what allowed the school district to overcome a number of
barriers was a committed stable of dedicated actors, including teachers, support staff, and central
office leaders. School districts, when thinking about hiring, should consider not only how new
staff might contribute to an architecture of care, but also how leadership might expect care from
all levels of the organization. Sometimes care champions do not rise up through the traditional
ranks of teacher, principal, and central office leader. This dissertation reveals that social workers,
mid-career entrants to education, and outside partners can provide new thinking and caring
innovations; human resources departments would be wise to consider expanding district rosters
to include those who take less travelled paths.

183
The importance of superintendent vision for setting the tone and prioritizing social-
emotional well-being was a significant finding in this study. School boards, when selecting
superintendents, might carefully consider how, and to what extent, potential superintendents
have the skills, ethics, and warmth to lead caring organizations. Similarly, education leadership
preparation programs should consider requiring courses on caring systems that include
instruction on how to create structures, processes, and strategic plans in service of care and
social-emotional supports. Going beyond a few class sessions on ethics, future school and system
leaders could use the case studies within this study to analyze, reflect upon, and reconceptualize
care.
A Call to Action: An Agenda for District-Level Care
I conclude by considering what love and care in education could be, and by imagining
what caring school districts can become. I draw on gaps and tensions from this dissertation study
to offer remarks on a renewed agenda for action and district-level care. First, caring leaders
should affirm race, ethnicity, and sexual orientation. By cultivating color-conscious systems of
affirming care, central office leaders can move toward more equity-oriented notions of
organizational care. Similarly, there is a need for queerer visions of care that support and lift up
LGBTQ+ students and staff. That is, during a time when teachers are being told “Don’t say
gay,” and are asked to remove safe space rainbow stickers, queer staff and students are in dire
need of queer-affirming care. Queerer care might be enacted through the inclusion of queer-
affirming language in social-emotional strategic plans, and by including the central office leader
who oversees diversity, equity, and inclusion in the executive cabinet. In this vein, district
leaders tasked with care work ought to be included in higher-level district meetings as well. In

184
other words, those responsible for care, diversity, and academics should sit at the same table with
the superintendent.
The rising care needs of adults in the school district system were revealed through this
study. School districts responded with wellness days, yoga sessions, and increased counseling
supports. But, for the most part, these supports were restricted to teaching staff. There was a
clear need evidenced by educational leaders and classified staff for system-wide adult caring
supports. I would urge school district leaders and community partners to widen their continuum
of care to include all adults in the organization. A caring audit—one that takes stock of the
mental health, physical safety, and social-emotional needs, programs, services, and
partnerships—would be a good starting place for moving organizational care forward. Finally,
this study was conducted during a time of extreme stress and collective grief caused by COVID-
19. I remain in awe of how leaders remained optimistic and hopeful, and how they collaborated
across sectors and departments to provide care for so many. Cultivating this collective energy
toward healing will be paramount to collective thriving, and a more just and caring future.

185
References
AASA. (2022, October 5). AASA’s mental health summit to highlight innovative atrategies,
solutions, & resources. https://www.aasa.org/content.aspx?id=48299
Acker, S. (1995). Carry on caring: The work of women teachers. Sociology of Education, 16(1),
21–36.
Alder, N. (2002). Interpretations of the meaning of care: Creating caring relationships in urban
middle school classrooms. Urban Education, 37(2), 241–266.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0042085902372005
Alexander, P. A. (2020). Methodological guidance paper: The art and science of quality
systematic reviews. Review of Educational Research, 90(1), 6–23.
https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654319854352
Allbright, T. N., & Marsh, J. A. (2022). Policy narratives of accountability and social-emotional
learning. Educational Policy, 36(3), 653-688.
Allbright, T. N., Marsh, J. A., Kennedy, K. E., Hough, H. J., & Mckibben, S. (2019). Social-
emotional learning practices: Insights from outlier schools. Journal of Research in
Innovative Teaching & Learning, 12(1), 35–52. https://doi.org/10.1108/JRIT-02-2019-
0020
Anderson, G. L. (1989). Critical ethnography in education: Origins, current status, and new
directions. Review of Educational Research, 59(3), 249–270.
Antrop-Gonzalez, R., & De Jesus, A. (2006). Toward a theory of critical care in urban small
school reform: Examining structures and pedagogies of caring in two Latino community-
based schools. International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education, 19(4), 409–433.
https://doi.org/10.1080/09518390600773148
Apple, M. W. (2019). On doing critical policy analysis. Educational Policy, 33(1), 276-287.
Astor, R. A., Benbenishty, R., & Estrada, J. N. (2007). School violence and theoretically atypical
schools: The principal’s centrality in orchestrating safe schools. American Educational
Research Journal, 46(2), 423–461. https://doi.org/10.3102/0002831208329598
Averill, R. (2012). Caring teaching practices in multiethnic mathematics classrooms: Attending
to health and well-being. Mathematics Education Research Journal, 24(2), 105–128.
Ball, S. J. (2003). The teacher’s soul and the terrors of performativity. Journal of Education
Policy, 18(2), 215–228. https://doi.org/10.1080/0268093022000043065
Barnes, C., & Mercer, G. (2003). Disability. The Polity Press.
Bass, L. (2012). When care trumps justice: The operationalization of Black feminist caring in
educational leadership. International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education, 25(1),
73–87.
Bass, L., & Alston, K. (2018). Black masculine caring and the dilemma faced by Black male
leaders. Journal of School Leadership, 28(6), 772–787.

186
Beard, K. S., & Thomson, S. I. (2021). Breaking barriers: District and school administrators
engaging family, and community as a key determinant of student success. Urban
Education, 56(7), 1067-1105.
Beauboeuf-Lafontant, T. (2002). A womanist experience of caring: Understanding the pedagogy
of exemplary Black women teachers. The Urban Review, 34(1), 71–86.
https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1014497228517
Bertrand, M., & Rodela, K. C. (2017). A framework for rethinking educational leadership in the
margins: Implications for social justice leadership preparation. Journal of Research on
Leadership Education, 13(1), 10-37.
Borman, G. D., Hewes, G. M., Overman, L. T., & Brown, S. (2003). Comprehensive school
reform and achievement: A meta-analysis. Review of Educational Research, 73(2), 125–
230.
Bourdieu, P. (1966). The forms of capital. In J. Richardson (Ed.), Handbook of theory and
research for the sociology of education (pp. 241–258). Greenwood.
Brackett, M. A., Elbertson, N., & Rivers, S. E. (2015). Applying theory to the development of
apporaches to SEL. In J. A. Durlak & T. P. Durlak, J. A., Domitrovich, C. E., Weissberg,
R. P., & Gullotta, (Eds.), Handbook of social and emotional learning (pp. 20-32). The
Guilford Press.
Brenan, M. (2022, September 1). Parent, student school safety concerns elevated. Gallup.
https://news.gallup.com/poll/399680/parent-student-school-safety-concerns-elevated.aspx
Bridgeforth, J. C. (2021). “This isn’t who we are”: A critical discourse analysis of school and
district leaders’ responses to racial violence. Journal of School Leadership, 31(1-2), 85-
106.
Bridwell-Mitchell, E. N. (2013). The rationalizing logics of public school reform: How cultural
institutions matter for classroom instruction. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 7(2),
173–196. https://doi.org/10.1177/1558689812468792
Bridwell-Mitchell, E. N. (2020). Between what is and what is possible: Theorizing the role of
institutional interstitiality in state-led school turnaround. Peabody Journal of Education,
95(4), 423–438. https://doi.org/10.1080/0161956X.2020.1800177
Burch, P. (2007). Educational policy and practice from the perspective of new institutional
theory: Crafting a wider lens. Educational Researcher, 36(2), 84-95.
Burch, P., Bingham, A. J., & Miglani, N. (2020). Combining institutional and distributed
frameworks in studies of school leadership. Peabody Journal of Education, 95(4), 408–
422.
Burch, P., & Spillane, J. P. (2004). Leading from the middle: Mid-level district staff and
instructional improvement. Cross-City Campaign for Urban School
Reform.
Burton, B. K., & Dunn, C. P. (2005). The caring approach and social issues in management
education. Journal of Management Education, 29(3), 453-474.

187
Byrd, J., Lundeberg, M., Hoffland, S. C., Couillard, E. L., & Lee, M. S. (1996). Caring,
cognition, and cultural pluralism: Case studies of urban teachers. Urban Education,
31(4), 432–452. https://doi.org/10.1177/004208599603100405
California Department of Education. (2018). Multi-tiered system of
supports. https://www.cde.ca.gov/ci/cr/ri/
Camangian, P., & Cariaga, S. (2021). Social and emotional learning is hegemonic miseducation:
Students deserve humanization instead. Race Ethnicity and Education, 1–21.
Carter, P. L., Skiba, R., Arredondo, M. I., & Pollock, M. (2017). You can’t fix what you don’t
look at. Urban Education, 52(2), 207–235. https://doi.org/10.1177/0042085916660350
Castagno, A. E., & Brayboy, B. M. J. (2008). Culturally responsive schooling for indigenous
youth: A review of the literature. Review of Educational Research, 78(4), 941–993.
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. (2018, October 31). Well-being concepts.
https://www.cdc.gov/hrqol/wellbeing.htm
Charmaz, K. (1990). “Discovering” chronic illness: Using grounded theory. Social Science and
Medicine, 30(11), 1161–1172. https://doi.org/10.1016/0277-9536(90)90256-R
Charmaz, K. (2005). Grounded theory in the 21st century: Applications for advancing social
justice studies. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), The SAGE Handbook of
Qualitative Research (pp. 443–466). SAGE Publications, Inc.
Charmaz, K. (2014). Constructing Grounded Theory (2
nd
ed.). SAGE Publications, Inc.
Chase, M. M. (2016). Culture, politics, and policy interpretation: How practitioners make sense
of a transfer policy in a 2-year college. Educational Policy, 30(7), 959–998.
Choi, J. H., McCart, A. B., Hicks, T. A., & Sailor, W. (2019). An analysis of mediating effects of
school leadership on MTSS implementation. Journal of Special Education, 53(1), 15–27.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0022466918804815
Coburn, C. E. (2016). What’s policy got to do with it? How the structure-agency debate can
illuminate policy implementation. American Journal of Education, 122(3), 465–475.
Coburn, C. E., Toure, J., & Yamashita, M. (2009). Evidence, interpretation, and persuasion:
Instructional decision making at the district central office. Teachers College Record,
111(4), 1115–1161.
Cohen, J. (2017). School climate, social emotional learning, and other prosocial “camps”:
Similarities and a difference. Teachers College Record.
Cooper, H. (2010). Research synthesis and meta-analysis: A step-by-step approach (4th ed.).
SAGE Publications, Inc.
Cooper, K. S., & Miness, A. (2014). The co-creation of caring student-teacher relationships:
Does teacher understanding matter? High School Journal, 97(4), 264–290.
Cornelius-White, J. (2007). Learner-centered teacher-student relationships are effective: A meta-
analysis. Review of Educational Research, 77(1), 113–143.
https://doi.org/10.3102/003465430298563

188
Creswell, J. W., & Poth, C. N. (2018). Qualitative inquiry & research design: Choosing among
five approaches (4th ed.). SAGE Publications, Inc.
Cuban, L. (2020). Reforming the grammar of schooling again and again. American Journal of
Education, 126(4), 665-671.
Curry, M. W. (2016). Will you stand for me? Authentic cariño and transformative rites of
passage in an urban high school. American Educational Research Journal, 53(4), 883–
918. https://doi.org/10.3102/0002831216660380
Darling-Hammond, L., & Cook-Harvey, C. M. (2018). Educating the whole child: Improving
school climate to support student success. Learning Policy Institute.
Datnow, A. (2006). Connections in the policy chain: The ‘co-construction’ of implementation in
comprehensive school reform. In M. I. Honig (Ed.), New directions in education policy
implementation: Confronting complexity (pp. 105–148). State University of New York
Press.
DeBray, E., Finnigan, K.S., George, J., & Scott, J. (2022). A civil rights framework
for the reauthorization of ESEA. National Education Policy Center.
http://nepc.colorado.edu/publication/reauthorization
del Carmen Salazar, M. (2013). A humanizing pedagogy: Reinventing the principles and practice
of education as a journey toward liberation. Review of Research in Education, 37(1),
121–148.
Dempsey, V., & Noblit, G. (1993). The demise of caring in an African-American community:
One consequence of school desegregation. The Urban Review, 25(1), 47–61.
https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01108045
Denzin, N. (2010). The qualitatative manifesto: A call to arms. Routledge.
Deterding, N. M., & Waters, M. C. (2021). Flexible coding of in-depth interviews: A twenty-
first-century approach. Sociological Methods & Research, 50(2), 708-739.
Dewey, J. (1916). Democracy and education. University of Chicago Press.
Dillon, D. R. (1989). Showing them that I want them to learn and that I care about who they are:
A microethnography of the social organization of a secondary low-track English-reading
classroom. American Educational Research Journal, 26(2), 227–259.
DiMaggio, P. J., & Powell, W. W. (1983). The iron cage revisited: Institutional isomorphism and
collective rationality in organizational fields. American Sociological Review, 48(2), 147–
160. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2015.02.067
DiMaggio, P. J., & Powell, W. W. (1991). Introduction. In W. W. Powell & P. J. DiMaggio
(Eds.), The new institutionalism in organizational analysis (pp. 1–38). The University of
Chicago Press.
Dimartino, C., & Jessen, S. B. (2018). Selling school: The marketing of public education.
Teachers College Press.
Donaldson, M. L., Mavrogordato, M., Youngs, P., & Dougherty, S. (2021). “Doing the ‘real’
work”: How superintendents’ sensemaking shapes principal evaluation policies and
practices in school districts. AERA Open, 7(1).

189
Duckworth, A. L., & Seligman, M. E. P. (2005). Self-discipline outdoes IQ in predicting
academic performance of adolescents. Psychological Science, 16(12), 939–944.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9280.2005.01641.x
Durlak, J. A., Weissberg, R. P., Dymnicki, A. B., Taylor, R. D., & Schellinger, K. B. (2011). The
impact of enhancing students’ social and emotional learning: A meta-analysis of school-
based universal interventions. Child Development, 82(1), 405–432.
Dutton, J. E., Worline, M. C., Frost, P. J., & Lilius, J. (2006). Explaining compassion organizing.
Administrative science quarterly, 51(1), 59-96.
Eagly, A. H., Johannesen-Schmidt, M. C., & Van Engen, M. L. (2003). Transformational,
transactional, and laissez-faire leadership Styles: A meta-analysis comparing women and
men. Psychological Bulletin, 129(4), 569–591. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-
2909.129.4.569
Eakins, S. L., Adams, D. A., & Falaise, J. B. (2021). Building resilient voices: A conceptual
framework for culturally responsive SEL. In Research Anthology on Racial Equity,
Identitity, and Privelege (Vol. 3) (pp. 95-110). IGI Global.
Eisenhardt, K., & Graebner, M. (2007). Theory building from cases: Opportunities and
challenges. Academy of Management, 50(1), 25–32. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01033590
Eisler, R., & Eisler, R. T. (2008). The real wealth of nations: Creating a caring economics.
Berrett-Koehler Publishers.
Ellerbrock, C. R., & Kiefer, S. M. (2010). Creating a ninth-grade community of care. Journal of
Educational Research, 103(6), 393-406.
Ellerbrock, C. R., & Kiefer, S. M. (2013). Extending a community of care beyond the ninth
grade: A follow-up study. Journal of Educational Research, 106(4), 319–331.
Emirbayer, M., & Johnson, V. (2008). Bourdieu and organizational analysis. Theory and Society,
37(1), 1–44. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11186-007-9052-y
Epstein, J. L., Galindo, C. L., & Sheldon, S. B. (2011). Levels of leadership: Effects of district
and school leaders on the quality of school programs of family and community
involvement. Educational Administration Quarterly, 47(3), 462–495.
Ferguson, K. E. (1984). The feminist case against bureaucracy. Temple University
Fensterwald, J. (2022, October 5). Fresno Unified gets game changing 20 million gift from
philanthropist MacKenzie Scott. EdSource. https://edsource.org/2022/fresno-unified-gets-
game-changing-20-million-gift-from-philanthropist-mackenzie-scott/679335
Finkelstein, V. (1998). Re-thinking care in a society providing equal opportunities for all.
Discussion Paper prepared for the World Health Organisation. Milton Keynes: Open
University.
Fisher, B., & Tronto, J. (1990). Toward a feminist theory of caring. In E.K. Abel & Nelson,
M.K. (Eds.), Circles of care: Work and identity in women’s lives (pp. 35-62). State
University of New York Press.

190
Forgas, J. P., & George, J. M. (2001). Affective influences on judgments and behavior in
organizations: An information processing perspective. Organizational Behavior and
Human Decision Processes, 86(1), 3–34. https://doi.org/10.1006/obhd.2001.2971
Forman, S. R., Foster, J. L., & Rigby, J. G. (2021). School leaders’ use of social-emotional
learning to disrupt whiteness. Educational Administration Quarterly, 589(3), 351-385.
Foster, J. L., Louis, L., & Winston, E. (2022). Creating conditions for social-emotional learning:
An ecological framework. Theory Into Practice, 61(2), 224-235.
Fredrickson, B. L. (2001). The role of positive emotions in positive psychology: The broaden-
and-build theory of positive emotions. American Psychologist, 56(3), 218–226.
https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.56.3.218
Fredrickson, B. L. (2003). Positive emotions and upward spirals in organizations. In K. S.
Cameron, J. E. Dutton, & R. E. Quinn (Eds.), Positive organizational scholarship:
Foundations of a new discipline (pp. 163–175). Berrett-Koehler Publishers, Inc.
Fredrickson, B. (2013). Love 2.0: Creating happiness and health in moments of connection.
Hudson Street Press.
Fredrickson, B. L., & Losada, M. (2005). Positive affect and the complex dynamic of human
flourishing. American Psychologist, 60(7), 678–686.
Friedman, S. D., Christensen, P., & DeGroot, J. (1998). Work and life: The end of the zero-sum
game. Harvard Business Review(76), 119-130.
Fronius, T., Darling-Hammond, S., Persson, H., Guckenburg, S., Hurley, N., & Petrosino, A.
(2019). Restorative justice in US schools: An updated research review. WestEd.
Frost, P.J., Dutton, J.E., Maitlis, S., Lilius, J.M., Kanov, J.M. & Worline, M.C. (2006). Seeing
organizations differently: Three lenses on compassion. In Hardy, C., Clegg, S.,
Lawrence, T. & Nord, W. (Eds.), Handbook of organization studies (pp. 843–866).
SAGE Publications, Inc.
Gallagher, K. (2016). Can a classroom be a family? Race, space, and the labour of care in urban
teaching. Canadian Journal of Education, 39(2), 36.
Gamson, D. A., & Hodge, E. M. (2017). Education research and the shifting landscape of the
American school district, 1816 to 2016. Review of Research in Education, 40(1), 216–
249. https://doi.org/10.3102/0091732x16670323
Ganon-Shilon, S., Finkelstein, I., Sela-Shayovitz, R., & Schechter, C. (2022). Inclusive
leadership in times of COVID-19 crisis: The role of district and school leaders in
fostering school sense-making processes within a national inclusion and integration
reform. Leadership and Policy in Schools, 1-21.
García, O., Woodley, H. H., Flores, N., & Chu, H. (2012). Latino emergent bilingual youth in
high schools: Transcaring strategies for academic success. Urban Education, 48(6), 798–
827.
Garza, R. (2008). Latino and White high school students’ perceptions of caring behaviors: Are
we culturally responsive to our students? Urban Education, 44(3), 297–321.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0042085908318714

191
Garza, R., & Soto Huerta, M. E. (2014). Latino high school students’ perceptions of caring: Keys
to success. Journal of Latinos and Education, 13(2), 134–151.
Geertz, C. (1972). Notes on the Balinese cockfight. Daedalus, 134(4), 56–86.
Germain, E. (2022). Well-being and equity: A multi-disciplinary framework for rethinking
education policy. Peabody Journal of Education, 97(1), 6–17.
Gilgun, J. F. (2019). Deductive qualitative analysis and grounded theory: Sensitizing concepts
and hypothesis-testing. In Bryant, A., & Charmaz, K. (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of
current developments in grounded theory (pp. 107–122). SAGE Publications, Inc.
Gilligan, C. (1982). In a different voice: Psychological rheory and women's development.
Harvard University Press.
Glaser, B., & Strauss, A. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory: Strategies for qualitative
research. Aldine Publishing Company.
Goldstein, L. S. (1999). The relational zone: The role of caring relationships in the co-
construction of mind. American Educational Research Journal, 36(3), 647–673.
Gordon, J. (2005). White on White: Researcher reflexivity and the logics of privilege in White
schools undertaking reform. Urban Review, 37(4), 279–302.
Gray, N. L., & Gardiner, M. E. (2013). Educator-peer workplace bullying: Why leadership must
address incivility and create a quilt of caring in the school. Journal of School Leadership,
23(5), 23.
Griffith, Cardichon, & DiNapoli. (2020, December 28). A second round of federal relief: An
important next step. Learning Policy Institute blog.
https://learningpolicyinstitute.org/blog/covid-second-round-federal-relief
Hackenberg, A. (2010). Mathematical caring relations: A challenging case. Mathematics
Education Research Journal, 22(3), 57–83. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03219778
Hemmer, L., & Elliff, D. S. (2020). Leaders in action: The experiences of seven Texas
superintendents before, during, and after Hurricane Harvey. Educational Management
Administration & Leadership, 48(6), 964-985.
Hoffman, D. M. (2009). Reflecting on social emotional learning: A critical perspective on trends
in the United States. Review of Educational Research, 79(2), 533–556.
https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654308325184
Honig, M. I. (2006). Street-level bureaucracy revisited: Frontline district central-office
administrators as boundary spanners in education policy implementation. Educational
Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 28(4), 357–383.
https://doi.org/10.3102/01623737028004357
Honig, M. I. (2008). District central offices as learning organizations: How sociocultural and
organizational learning rheories elaborate district central office administrators’
participation in teaching and learning improvement efforts. American Journal of
Education, 114(4), 627–664. https://doi.org/10.1086/589317

192
Honig, M. I. (2009). No small thing: School district central office bureaucracies and the
implementation of new small autonomous schools initiatives. American Educational
Research Journal, 46(2), 387–422. https://doi.org/10.3102/0002831208329904
Honig, M. I., & Hatch, T. C. (2004). Crafting coherence: How schools strategically manage
multiple, external demands. Educational Researcher, 33(8), 16–30.
Honig, M., & Rainey, L. (2020). District systems to support equitable and high-quality teaching
and learning. Brief No. 10. EdResearch for Recovery Project.
Horsch, P., Chen, J.-Q., & Wagner, S. L. (2002). The Responsive Classroom approach: A caring,
respectful school environment as a context for development. Education and Urban
Society, 34(3), 365–383. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013124502034003006
Hos, R. (2014). Caring is not enough: Teachers’ enactment of ethical care for adolescent
Students With Limited or Interrupted Formal Education (SLIFE) in a newcomer
classroom. Education and Urban Society, 48(5), 479–503.
Huguet, A., Coburn, C. E., Farrell, C. C., Kim, D. H., & Allen, A. (2021). Constraints, values,
and information: How leaders in one district justify their positions during instructional
decision making. American Educational Research Journal, 58(4), 1–38.
Iannello, K. (1992). Decisions without hierarchy. Routledge.
Inverness Institute. (2021, February 19). Teachers speak out on students’ social and emotional
well-being. Edsource. https://edsource.org/2021/spotlight-2-students-social-and-
emotional-wellbeing/649021
Irby, D. J., Green, T., & Ishimaru, A. M. (2022). PK–12 district leadership for equity: An
exploration of director role configurations and vulnerabilities. American Journal of
Education, 128(3), 417–453.
Ishimaru, A. M. (2019). From family engagement to equitable collaboration. Educational Policy,
33(2), 350-385.
Ishimaru, A. M. (2022). Possible futures: Youth, families, and communities as educational
leaders. Phi Delta Kappan. https://kappanonline.org/possible-futures-youth-families-
communities-leaders-ishimaru/
Ishimaru, A. M., & Galloway, M. K. (2021). Hearts and minds first: Institutional logics in
pursuit of educational equity. Educational Administration Quarterly, 57(3), 470-502.
Jackson, I., Sealey-Ruiz, Y., & Watson, W. (2014). Reciprocal love: Mentoring Black and Latino
males through an ethos of care. Urban Education, 49(4), 394–417.
Jagers, R. J., Rivas-Drake, D., & Williams, B. (2019). Transformative social and emotional
learning (SEL): Toward SEL in service of educational equity and excellence. Educational
Psychologist, 54(3), 162–184.
Jansen, A., & Bartell, T. (2013). Caring mathematics instruction. Middle Grades Research
Journal, 8(1), 33–49.
Jarvis, L. C., Goodrick, E., & Hudson, B. A. (2019). Where the heart functions best: Reactive–
affective conflict and the disruptive work of animal rights organizations. Academcy of
Management Journal, 62(5), 1358–1387. https://doi.org/10.5465/AMJ.2017.0342

193
Jeffrey, A. J., Auger, R. W., & Pepperell, J. L. (2013). “If we’re ever in trouble they’re always
there.” The Elementary School Journal, 114(1), 100–117.
Jepperson, R. (1991). Institutions, institutional effects, and institutionalism. In W. W. Powell &
P. J. DiMaggio (Eds.), The new institutionalism in organizational analysis (pp. 143-163).
The University of Chicago Press.
Johnson, C. S. (2011). Addressing the moral agency of culturally specific care perspectives.
Journal of Moral Education, 40(4), 471–489.
Jones, S., Brush, K., Bailey, R., Brion-meisels, G., Mcintyre, J., Kahn, J., Nelson, B., & Stickle,
L. (2017). Navigating SEL from the inside out: Looking inside & across 25 leading SEL
programs: A practical resource for schools and OST providers (elementary school focus)
(Issue March). Harvard Graduate School of Education.
Kahn, W. A. (2005). Holding fast: The struggle to create resilient caregiving organizations.
Routledge.
Kaomea, J. (2003). Reading erasures and making the familiar strange: Defamiliarizing methods
for research in formerly colonized and historically oppressed communities. Educational
Researcher, 32(2), 14–23.
Keese, J. (2018, November 7). Review of Demoralized: Why teachers leave the profession they
love and how they can stay, by D. A. Santoro. Education Review, 25.
http://dx.doi.org/10.14507/er.v25.2391
Kendziora, K., & Osher, D. (2016). Promoting children’s and adolescents’ social and emotional
development: District adaptations of a theory of action. Journal of Clinical Child &
Adolescent Psychology, 45(6), 797–811.
Kennedy, K. (2019). Centering equity and caring in leadership for social-emotional learning:
Toward a conceptual rramework for diverse learners. Journal of School Leadership,
29(6), 473–492.
Kennedy, K., & Walls, J. (2022). How district leaders create caring organizations. Phi Delta
Kappan, 103(5), 13–17.
Kezar, A. (2005). To use theory or not to use theory: Is that the question? In J. C. Smart (Ed.),
Higher education: Handbook of theory and research, Vol. XXI (pp. 283–344). Springer
Netherlands.
Khalifa, M. A., Gooden, M. A., & Davis, J. E. (2016). Culturally responsive school leadership: A
synthesis of the literature. Review of Educational Research, 86(4), 1272-1311.
Knight-Diop, M. G. (2010). Closing the gap: Enacting care and facilitating Black students’
educational access in the creation of a high school college-going culture. Journal of
Education for Students Placed at Risk, 15(1–2), 158–172.
Kohlberg, L. (1984). The psychology of moral development: The nature and validity of moral
stages (Essays on moral development, Vol. 2). Harper & Row.
Konishi, C., & Saewyc, E. (2014). Still a target: Sexual diversity and power of caring. School
Psychology International, 35(5), 504–515.

194
Kosciw, J. G., Greytak, E. A., & Diaz, E. M. (2009). Who, what, where, when, and why:
Demographic and ecological factors contributing to hostile school climate for Lesbian,
Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender youth. Journal of Youth Adolescence(38,) 976–988.
Labaree, D. F. (1997). Public goods, private goods: The American struggle over educational
goals. American Educational Research Journal, 34(1), 39–81.
Ladson-Billings, G. (1995). Toward a theory of culturally relevant pedagogy. American
Educational Research Journal, 32(3), 465–491.
https://doi.org/10.3102/00028312032003465
Ladson-Billings, G., & Tate, W. (1995). Toward a critical race theory of education. Teachers
College Record, 97(1), 47–68. https://doi.org/10.1080/10282580701850413
Larson, A. (2006). Student perception of caring teaching in physical education. Sport, Education
and Society, 11(4), 337–352. https://doi.org/10.1080/13573320600924858
Lawrence, T. B., Leca, B., & Zilber, T. B. (2013). Institutional work: Current research, new
directions and overlooked issues. Organization Studies, 34(8), 1023–1033.
Lawrence, T. B., & Maitlis, S. (2012). Care and possibility: Enacting an ethic of care through
narrative practice. Academy of Management Review, 37(4), 641–663.
Lawrence, T. B., & Suddaby, R. (2006). Institutions and institutional work. In S. R. Clegg, C.
Hardy, T. B. Lawrence, & W. R. Nord (Eds.), Handbook of organization studies (pp.
215–254). SAGE Publications, Inc.
Lawrence, T., Suddaby, R., & Leca, B. (2011). Institutional work: Refocusing institutional
studies of organization. Journal of Management Inquiry, 20(1), 52–58.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1056492610387222
Liedtka, J. M. (1996). Feminist morality and competitive reality: A role for an ethic of care?.
Business Ethics Quarterly, 179-200.
Livingston, M., Jarvie, J., & Castillo, A. (2018, March 25). ‘Welcome to the revolution’
Students’ pleas for gun control echo in protests around the world. Los Angeles Times, pp.
A1, A12, A13.
Legette, K. B., Rogers, L. O., & Warren, C. A. (2020). Humanizing student–teacher relationships
for Black children: Implications for teachers’ social–emotional training. Urban
Education, 57(2), 278-288. https://doi.org/10.1177/0042085920933319
Lenhoff, S. W., Singer, J., & Gottfried, M. (2022). Thinking ecologically in educational policy
and research. Peabody Journal of Education, 97(1), 1–5.
Lepisto, D. A. (2022). Ritual work and the formation of a shared sense of meaningfulness.
Academy of Management Journal, 65(4), 1327–1352.
Lewis, J. L., Ream, R. K., Bocian, K. M., Cardullo, R. A., Hammond, K. A., & Fast, L. A.
(2012). Con cariño: Teacher caring, math self-efficacy, and math achievement among
Hispanic English learners. Teachers College Record, 114(7), 42.
Levin, S., Leung, M., Edgerton, A. K., & Scott, C. (2020). Elementary school principals’
professional learning: Current status and future needs. Learning Policy Institute.

195
Long-Sutehall, T., Sque, M., & Addington-Hall, J. (2011). Secondary analysis of qualitative
data: A valuable method for exploring sensitive issues with an elusive population?
Journal of Research in Nursing, 16(4), 335–344.
Louis, K. S., Murphy, J., & Smylie, M. (2016). Caring leadership in schools: Findings from
exploratory analyses. Educational Administration Quarterly, 52(2), 310–348.
Luker, K. (2008). Salsa dancing in the social sciences. Harvard Education Press.
Luttrell, W. (2013). Children’s counter-narratives of care: Towards educational justice. Children
& Society, 27(4), 295–308.
McAllister, D. J., & Bigley, G. A. (2002). Work context and the definition of self: How
organizational care influences organization-based self-esteem. Academy of Management
Journal, 45(5), 894-904.
Mackinnon, C. A. (1989). Toward a feminist theory of the state. Harvard University
Mahoney, J. L., Durlak, J. A., & Weissberg, R. P. (2018). An update on social and emotional
learning outcome research. Phi Delta Kappan, 100(4), 18–23.
Mahoney, J. L., Weissberg, R. P., Greenberg, M. T., Dusenbury, L., Jagers, R. J., Niemi, K.,
Schlinger, M., Schlund, J., Shriver, T. P., VanAusdal, K., & Yoder, N. (2020). Systemic
social and emotional learning: Promoting educational success for all preschool to high
school students. American Psychologist, 76(7), 1128–1142
Marsh, J. A. (2002). How districts relate to states, schools, and communities: A Review of
emerging literature. In A. M. Hightower, M. S. Knapp, J. A. Marsh, & M. W.
McLaughlin (Eds.), School districts and instructional renewal. Teachers College Press.
Marsh, J. A., Allbright, T. N., Brown, D. R., Bulkley, K. E., Strunk, K. O., & Harris, D. N.
(2020). The process and politics of educational governance change in New Orleans, Los
Angeles, and Denver. American Educational Research Journal, 58(1), 107–159.
https://doi.org/10.3102/0002831220921475
Marsh, J. A., Allbright, T. N., Bulkley, K. E., Kennedy, K. E., & Dhaliwal, T. K. (2020).
Institutional logics in Los Angeles schools: Do multiple models disrupt the grammar of
schooling? American Journal of Education, 126(4), 603–651.
Marsh, J. A., & Kennedy, K. (2020). Possibilities and challenges: Conditions shaping educators’
use of social-emotional learning indicators. Teachers College Record, 122(14), 1-28.
Marsh, J. A., Mckibben, S., Hough, H. J., Hall, M., Allbright, T. N., Matewos, A. M., &
Siqueira, C. (2018). Enacting social-emotional learning: Practices and supports
employed in CORE districts and schools. Policy Analysis for California Education.
Marshall, C., Patterson, J.A., Rogers, D.L., & Steele, J.R. (1996). Caring as career: An
alternative perspective for educational administration. Educational Administration
Quarterly, 32(2), 271-294.
Martí, I., & Fernández, P. (2013). The institutional work of oppression and resistance: Learning
from the Holocaust. Organization Studies, 34(8), 1195–1223.
Matias, C.E. (2022). Birthing the motherscholar and motherscholarship. Peabody Journal of
Education, 1–5.

196
Matias, C. E., & Allen, R. L. (2016). Do you feel me? Amplifying messages of love in critical
race theory. Educational Foundations, 29(1–4), 5–28.
Mattheis, A. (2017). Central district office leadership for diversity and equity: Constraints and
opportunities for policy intermediaries. Journal of School Leadership, 27(4), 521–552.
Maxwell, J. A. (2013). Qualitative research design: An interactive approach. SAGE
Publications, Inc.
McKinney de Royston, M. M., Vakil, S., Nasir, N. S., Ross, K. M., Givens, J., & Holman, A.
(2017). “He’s more like a ‘brother’ than a teacher”: Politicized caring in a program for
African American Males. Teachers College Record, 119(4), 1–40.
McKinney de Royston, M., Madkins, T. C., Givens, J. R., & Nasir, N. S. (2021). “I’m a teacher,
I’m gonna always protect you”: Understanding Black educators’ protection of Black
children. American Educational Research Journal, 58(1), 68–106.
Mehta, J. (2013). How paradigms create politics: The transformation of American educational
policy, 1980-2001. American Educational Research Journal, 50(2), 285–324.
Mehta, J., & Datnow, A. (2020). Changing the grammar of schooling: An appraisal and a
research agenda. American Journal of Education, 126(4), 491-498.
Mercado, C. I. (1993). Caring as empowerment: School collaboration and community agency.
The Urban Review, 25(1), 79–104.
Merriam, S. B., & Tisdell, E. J. (2016). Qualitative research: A guide to design and
implementation. Jossey-Bass.
Meyer, E.J., Leonardi, B., & Keenan, H.B. (2022). Transgender students and policy in K-12
public schools: Acknowledging historical harms and taking steps toward a promising
future. National Education Policy Center.
http://nepc.colorado.edu/publication/transgender
Meyer, J. W., & Rowan, B. (1977). Institutionalized organizations: Formal structure as myth and
ceremony. American Journal of Sociology, 83(2), 340–363.
https://doi.org/10.1086/226550
Miles, M. B., & Huberman, A. M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis (2nd ed.). SAGE
Publications, Inc.
Miles, M. B., Huberman, A. M., & Saldaña, J. (2020). Qualitative data analysis: A methods
sourcebook (4th ed.). SAGE Publications, Inc.
Miles Nash, A., & Grogan, M. (2021). Leadership and the U.S. superintendency: Issues of race,
preparation and impact. School Leadership and Management, 42(1), 24-43.
Merriam, S. B., & Tisdell, E. J. (2016). Qualitative research: A guide to design and
implementation. Jossey-Bass.
Morano, J. (2022, October 26). MacKenzie Scot just gave Fresno Unified Schools $20 million.
‘Nothing Short of a Miracle.’ Fresno Bee.
https://www.fresnobee.com/news/local/education-lab/article266798806.html

197
Morris, B. L., Short, M., Bridges, D., Crichton, M., Velander, F., Rush, E., ... & Duncombe, R.
(2021). Responding to student mental health challenges during and post-COVID-19.
Social Work Education, 1-18.
National Association of State Boards of Education. (n.d.). State policy database, social-
emotional learning or character cevelopment (also called SEL, citizenship education,
relationship skills). https://statepolicies.nasbe.org/health/categories/social-emotional-
climate/social-emotional-learning-or-character-development
National Policy Board for Educational Administration. (2015). Professional Standards for
Educational Leaders 2015. https://www.npbea.org/wp-
content/uploads/2017/06/Professional-Standards-for-Educational-Leaders_2015.pdf
Neumann, A., & Pallas, A. (2015). Critical policy analysis, the craft of qualitative research, and
analysis of data on the Texas Top 10%. In A. M. Martínez-Alemán, B. Pusser, & E. M.
Bensimon (Eds.), Critical approaches to the study of higher education (pp. 153–173).
JHU Press.
Nilsson, W. (2015). Positive institutional work: Exploring institutional work through the lens of
positive organizational scholarship. Academy of Management Review, 40(3), 370–398.
Noblit, G. W. (1993). Power and caring. American Educational Research Journal, 30(1), 23–38.
Noddings, N. (1988). An ethic of caring and its implications for instructional arrangements.
American Journal of Education, 96(2), 215–230.
Noddings, N. (2002). Educating moral people: A caring alternative to character education.
Teachers College Press.
Noddings, N. (2006). Educational leaders as caring teachers. School Leadership & Management,
26(4), 339–345.
Noddings, N. (2013). Caring: A relational approach to ethics and moral education. University
of California Press.
Noddings, N. (2015). Care ethics and “caring” organizations. In D. Engster & M. Hamington
(Eds.), Care Ethics & Political Theory. Oxford University Press Online.
Noguera, P. (1995). Preventing and producing violence: A critical analysis of responses to school
violence. Harvard Educational Review, 65(2), 189–212.
NYC Department of Education. (n.d.). DOE Data at a Glance.
https://www.schools.nyc.gov/about-us/reports/doe-data-at-a-glance
O’Laughlin, L., & Lindle, J. C. (2015). Principals as political agents in the implementation of
IDEA’s least restrictive environment mandate. Educational Policy, 29(1), 140–161.
Oakes, J. (2018). 2016 AERA presidential address: Public scholarship: Education research for a
diverse democracy. Educational Researcher, 47(2), 91-104
Oakes, J., Maier, A., Daniel, J., Welner, K., Mathis, W., & Hinchey, P. (2017). Community
schools: An evidence-based strategy for equitable school improvement. National
Education Policy Center.

198
Ordoñez-Jasis, R., Dunsmore, K. L., Herrera, G., Ochoa, C., Diaz, L., & Zuniga-Rios, E. (2016).
Communities of caring: Developing curriculum that engages Latino/a students’ diverse
literacy practices. Journal of Latinos and Education, 15(4), 333–343.
Oplatka, I. (2007). Managing emotions in teaching: Toward an understanding of emotion
displays and caring as nonprescribed role elements. Teachers College Record, 109(6),
1374–1400.
Park, V., & Datnow, A. (2009). Co-constructing distributed leadership: District and school
connections in data-driven decision-making. School Leadership and Management, 29(5),
477–494.
Park, V., & Datnow, A. (2017). Ability grouping and differentiated instruction in an era of data-
driven decision making. American Journal of Education, 123(2), 281–306.
Parsons, E. C. (2005). From caring as a relation to culturally relevant caring: A White teacher’s
bridge to Black students. Equity and Excellence in Education, 38(1), 25–34.
Patterson, J.A., Gordon, J., & Price, P. G. (2008). The color of caring: Race and the
implementation of educational reform. Educational Foundations, 22(3), 97–116.
Pennington, J. L., Brock, C. H., & Ndura, E. (2012). Unraveling the threads of White teachers’
conceptions of caring: Repositioning White privilege. Urban Education, 47(4), 743–775.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0042085912441186
Peurach, D. J., Cohen, D. K., Yurkofsky, M. M., & Spillane, J. P. (2019). From mass schooling
to education systems: Changing patterns in the organization and management of
instruction. Review of Research in Education, 43(1), 32–67.
Pigott, T. D. (2012). Advances in meta-analysis. Springer.
Pimentel, C. (2011). Hmm ... Hmmm ... Excuse me? A case study of interruptive caring in a
bilingual classroom. Power and Education, 3(2), 128.
https://doi.org/10.2304/power.2011.3.2.128
Posselt, J. R. (2016). Inside graduate admissions: Merit, diversity, and faculty gatekeeping.
Harvard University Press.
Powell, A., & Seed, A. H. (2010). Developing a caring ethic for middle school mathematics
classrooms. Middle School Journal, 41(4), 44–48. https://doi.org/10.1785/0120040037
Ragin, C. C. (1992). “Casing” and the process of social inquiry. In C. C. Ragin & H. S. Becker
(Eds.), What is a case?: Exploring the foundations of social inquiry (pp. 217–226).
Cambridge University Press.
Rallis, S. F., & Rossman, G. B. (2010). Caring reflexivity. International Journal of Qualitative
Studies in Education, 23(4), 495–499.
Redding, C. (2022). Are homegrown teachers who graduate from urban districts more racially
diverse, more effective, and less likely to exit teaching? American Educational Research
Journal, 59(5), 939-974.
Reitzug, U. C., & Patterson, J. (1998). “I’m not going to lose you!”: Empowerment through
caring in an urban principal’s practice with students. Urban Education, 33(2), 150–181.

199
Rigby, J. G. (2015). Principals’ sensemaking and enactment of teacher evaluation. Journal of
Educational Administration, 53(3), 374–392. https://doi.org/10.1108/JEA-04-2014-0051
Rigby, J. G., Woulfin, S. L., & März, V. (2016). Understanding how structure and agency
influence education policy implementation and organizational change. American Journal
of Education, 122(3), 295-302.
Riehl, C. J. (2018). Taking stock of complementary methods: The perpetual quest for good
research methods for educational leadership and policy. In C. Miller (Ed.),
Complementary research methods for educational leadership and policy studies (pp.
359–381). Springer.
Rivera-McCutchen, R. L. (2012). Caring in a small urban high school: A complicated success.
Urban Education, 47(3), 653–680. https://doi.org/10.1177/0042085911433522
Rivera-McCutchen, R. L. (2020). We don’t got time for grumbling: Toward an ethic of radical
care in urban school leadership. Educational Administration Quarterly, 57(2), 257-289.
Rivera-McCutchen, R. L. (2021). Radical care: Leading for justice in urban schools. Teachers
College Press.
Roberts, M. A. (2010). Toward a theory of culturally relevant critical teacher care: African
American teachers’ definitions and perceptions of care for African American students.
Journal of Moral Education, 39(4), 449–467.
Robinson, V. M. J., Lloyd, C. A., & Rowe, K. J. (2008). The impact of leadership on student
outcomes: An analysis of the differential effects of leadership types. Educational
Administration Quarterly, 44(5), 635–674. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013161X08321509
Rogers, E. M. (2003). The diffusion of innovations (5th ed.). Free Press.
Rogers, J., Franke, M. Yun, J.E., Ishimoto, M., Diera, C., Geller, R., Berryman, A., Brenes, T.
(2017). Teaching and learning in the age of Trump: Increasing stress and hostility in
America’ s high schools. UCLA’s Institute for Democracy, Education, and Access.
Rogers, L. K. (2022). Is role change enough? District organizational supports for principal
supervision. Education Administration Quarterly, 1–34.
Rolon-Dow, R. (2005). Critical care: A color(full) analysis of care narratives in the schooling
experiences of Puerto Rican girls. American Educational Research Journal, 42(1), 77–
111. https://doi.org/10.3102/00028312042001077
Rowan, B. (1982). Organizational structure and the institutional environment: The case of public
schools. Administrative Science Quarterly, 27(2), 259–279.
Rowan, B. (2006a). Lessons learned and future directions. In H.-D. Meyer & B. Rowan (Eds.),
The new institutionalism in education (pp. 203–215). State University of New York
Press.
Rowan, B. (2006b). The school improvement industry in the United States: Why educational
change is both pervasive and ineffectual. In H.-D. Meyer & B. Rowan (Eds.), The new
institutionalism in education (pp. 67–86). State University of New York Press.

200
Ruggiano, N., & Perry, T. E. (2019). Conducting secondary analysis of qualitative data: Should
we, can we, and how? Qualitative Social Work, 18(1), 81–97.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1473325017700701
Ryu, J., Walls, J., & Seashore Louis, K. (2022). Caring leadership: The role of principals in
producing caring school cultures. Leadership and Policy in Schools, 21(3), 585-602.
Saldaña, J. (2016). The coding manual for qualitative researchers (3rd ed.). SAGE Publications,
Inc.
Saldaña, J. (2018). Researcher, analyze thyself. International Journal of Qualitative Methods,
17(1), 1–7.
Samuels, C.A. (2016). What are multitiered systems of supports? EdWeek.
https://www.edweek.org/policy-politics/what-are-multitiered-systems-of-
supports/2016/12
Schilke, O. (2018). A micro-institutional inquiry into resistance to environmental pressures.
Academy of Management Journal, 61(4), 1431–1466.
Schussler, D., & Collins, A. (2006). An empirical exploration of the who, what, and how of
school care. Teachers College Record, 108(7), 1460–1493.
Schwartz, H. L., Hamilton, L. S., Mills, S. F., Gomez, C. J., Huguet, A., Jaycox, L. H., Leschitz,
J. T., Tuma, A. P., Tosh, K., Whitaker, A. A., & Wrabel, S. L. (2020). Schools and out-
of-school time programs implementing social and emotional learning (Vol. 1). RAND
Corporation.
Scott, W. R. (1995). Institutions and organizations. SAGE Publications, Inc.
Scott, W., & Davis, G. (2007). Organizations and organizing: Rational, natural, and open
systems perspectives. Upper Saddle River.
Selznick, P. (1949). TVA and the Grass Roots: A study in the sociology of formal organization.
University of California Press.
Sevenhuijsen, S. (1998). Citizenship and the ethics of care: Feminist considerations on justice,
morality and politics. Routledge
Sevenhuijsen, S. (2003). The place of care: The relevance of the feminist ethic of care for social
policy. Feminist Theory, 4(2), 179-197.
Shakespeare, T. (2000) Help. Venture Press
Simmons, D. (2019). Why we can’t afford whitewashed social-emotional learning. ASCD
Education Update, 61(April).
Sirin, S. R. (2005). Socioeconomic status and academic achievement: A meta-analytic review of
research. Review of Educational Research, 75(3), 417–453.
Skiba, R. (2015). Interventions to address racial/ethnic disparities in school discipline: Can
systems reform be race-neutral? In R. Bangs & L. Davis (Eds.), Race and social
problems: Restructuring inequality (pp. 107-124). Springer.

201
Smith, A. M. (2008). Neoliberalism, welfare policy, and feminist theories of social justice:
Feminist theory special issue: Feminist theory and welfare. Feminist Theory, 9(2), 131-
144.
Smylie, M. A., Murphy, J., & Louis, K. (2016). Caring school leadership: A multi-disciplinary,
cross-occupational model. American Journal of Education, 123(1), 1–35.
Smylie, M. A., Murphy, J. P., & Louis, K. S. (2020). Caring school leadership. Corwin.
Solórzano, D. G., & Yosso, T. J. (2002). Critical race methodology: Counter-storytelling as an
analytical framework for education research. Qualitative Inquiry, 8(1), 23–44.
Sosa-Provencio, M. A. (2017). Seeking a Mexicana/Mestiza critical feminist ethic of care:
Rosa’s revolución of carrying alongside. Race Ethnicity and Education, 20(5), 650–665.
Spillane, J. P. (1996). School districts matter: Local educational authorities and state
instructional policy. Educational Policy, 10(1).
Spillane, J. P. (2008). State policy and the non-monolithic nature of the local school district:
Organizational and professional considerations. American Educational Research Journal,
35(1), 33–63. https://doi.org/10.3102/00028312035001033
Spillane, J. P., Camburn, E. M., Pustejovsky, J., Stitziel Pareja, A., & Lewis, G. (2008). Taking a
distributed perspective. Journal of Educational Administration, 46(2), 189–213.
Spillane, J. P., Diamond, J. B., Burch, P., Hallett, T., Jita, L., & Zoltners, J. (2002). Managing in
the middle: School leaders and the enactment of accountability policy. Educational
Policy, 16(5), 731–762. https://doi.org/10.1177/089590402237311
Spillane, J. P., Halverson, R., & Diamond, J. B. (2004). Towards a theory of leadership practice:
A distributed perspective. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 36(1), 3–34.
Spillane, J. P., Reiser, B. J., & Reimer, T. (2002). Policy implementation and cognition:
Reframing and refocusing implementation research. Review of Educational Research,
72(3), 387–431.
Stake, R. E. (2005). Qualitative case studies. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), The SAGE
handbook of qualitative research (3rd ed.), (pp. 443–462). SAGE Publications, Inc.
Stephens, G. (2021). “It’s because of community meeting:” Toward a responsive
reconceptualization of social emotional learning. Educational Action Research, 1-18.
Strauss, V. (2018, November 26). Educator: In Finland, I realized how ‘mean-spirited’ the U.S.
education system really is. The Washington Post.
Sutcher, L., Podolsky, A., Kini, T., & Shields, P. M. (2018, September). Learning to lead:
Understanding California’s learning system for school and district leaders [Getting
Down to Facts II Technical Report]. Stanford University and Policy Analysis for
California Education.
Sutton, R. I., & Staw, B. M. (1995). What theory is not. Administrative Science Quarterly, 40(3),
371–384.
Taylor, G., Jungert, T., Mageau, G. A., Schattke, K., Dedic, H., Rosenfield, S., & Koestner, R.
(2014). A self-determination theory approach to predicting school achievement over

202
time: The unique role of intrinsic motivation. Contemporary Educational Psychology,
39(4), 342–358.
Thompson, A. (1998). Not the color purple: Black feminist lessons for educational caring.
Harvard Educational Review, 68(4), 522–555.
Tichnor-Wagner, A. (2019). District agency in implementing instructional reform: A
comparative case study of global education. Journal of Educational Change, 20(4), 495–
525. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10833-019-09346-2
Tichnor-Wagner, A., & Allen, D. (2016). Accountable for care: Cultivating caring school
communities in urban high schools. Leadership and Policy in Schools, 15(4), 406–447.
Tosolt, B. L. (2009). Middle school students’ perceptions of caring teacher behaviors: An
empirical examination by student minority status. The Journal of Negro Education, 78(4),
405–416.
Tronto, J. C. (1993). Beyond gender difference to a theory of care: Feminist and interdisciplinary
perspectives. In M. J. Larrabee (Ed.), An ethic of care: Feminist and interdisciplinary
perspectives (pp. 240-257). Routledge.
Tronto, J. C. (1995). Care as a basis for radical political judgments. Hypatia (10),141-149
Tronto, J. C. (2010). Creating caring institutions: Politics, plurality, and purpose. Ethics and
Social Welfare, 4(2), 158–171. https://doi.org/10.1080/17496535.2010.484259
Trujillo, T. M., Hernández, L. E., Jarrell, T., & Kissell, R. (2014). Community schools as urban
district reform: Analyzing Oakland’s policy landscape through oral histories. Urban
Education, 49(8), 895–929.
Truong, N. L., Zongrone, A. D., & Kosciw, J. G. (2020). Erasure and resilience: The
experiences of LGBTQ students of color, Black LGBTQ youth in U.S. schools. GLSEN.
Tuck, E., & Gorlewski, J. (2016). Racist ordering, settler colonialism, and edTPA: A
participatory policy analysis. Educational Policy, 30(1), 197–217.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0895904815616483
Tyack, D., & Cuban, L. (1995). Tinkering toward utopia: A century of public school reform.
Harvard University Press.
Tyack, D., & Tobin, W. (1994). The “grammar” of schooling: Why has it been so hard to
change? American Educational Research Journal, 31(3), 453–479.
U.S. Department of Education. (2021, October 9). U.S. Department of Education releases new
resource on supporting child and student social, emotional, behavioral and mental health
during COVID-19 era [press release]. https://www.ed.gov/news/press-releases/us-
department-education-releases-new-resource-supporting-child-and-student-social-
emotional-behavioral-and-mental-health-during-covid-19-era
U.S. Department of Education. Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education
Statistics. (2012). Number of public school districts and public and private elementary
and secondary schools: Selected years, 1869-70 through 2010-11.
https://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d12/tables/dt12_098.asp

203
U.S. Department of Education. Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education
Statistics. (2017). Number and percentage distribution of teachers in public and private
elementary and secondary schools, by selected teacher characteristics: Selected years,
1987-88 through 2015-16.
https://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d17/tables/dt17_209.10.asp?current=yes
Valenzuela, A. (2002). Reflections on the subtractive underpinnings of education research and
policy. Journal of Teacher Education, 53(3), 235–241.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0022487102053003007
van der Vyver, C. P., van der Westhuizen, P. C., & Meyer, W. L. (2014). Caring school
leadership: A South African study. Educational Management Administration &
Leadership, 42(1), 61–74.
Walker, E. V. S. (1993). Interpersonal caring in the “good” segregated schooling of African-
American children: Evidence from the case of Caswell County training school. The
Urban Review, 25(1), 63–77. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01108046
Walls, J. (2022). Performativity and caring in education: Toward an ethic of reimagination.
Journal of School Leadership, 32(3), 289-314.
Walls, J., Ryu, J., Fairchild, L., & Johnson, J. (2021). Contexts of belonging: Toward a
multilevel understanding of caring and engagement in schools. Educational Policy, 35(5),
748–780. https://doi.org/10.1177/0895904819843590
Warin, J. (2017). Creating a whole school ethos of care. Emotional & Behavioural Difficulties,
22(3), 188–199
Warren, C. A., Presberry, C., & Louis, L. (2020). Examining teacher dispositions for evidence of
(transformative) social and emotional competencies with Black boys: The case of three
urban high school teachers. Urban Education, 57(2), 251-277.
Watson, W., Sealey-Ruiz, Y., & Jackson, I. (2016). Daring to care: the role of culturally relevant
care in mentoring Black and Latino male high school students. Race Ethnicity and
Education, 19(5), 980–1002.
Webb, J., Wilson, B., & Corbett, D. (1993). Understanding caring in context: Negotiating
borders and barriers. The Urban Review, 25(1), 25–45
Weed, M. (2005). “Meta interpretation”: A method for the interpretive synthesis of qualitative
research. Forum: Qualitative Social Research, 6(1).
Weick, K. E. (1995). What theory is not, theorizing is. Administrative Science Quarterly, 40(3),
385–390.
West, J., & Oldfather, P. (1995). Pooled case comparison: An innovation for cross-case study.
Qualitative Inquiry, 1(4), 452–464. https://doi.org/10.1177/107780049500100405
White, R. S. (2021). What’s in a first name?: America’s K-12 public school district
superintendent gender gap. Leadership and Policy in Schools, 1–17.
https://doi.org/10.1080/15700763.2021.1965169
White, T., & Bristol, T. (2022). Teachers of color & self-efficacy in social and emotional
learning (SEL): Strengthening approaches to SEL. Urban Education.

204
Wicks, A. C., Gilbert Jr, D. R., & Freeman, R. E. (1994). A feminist reinterpretation of the
stakeholder concept. Business Ethics Quarterly, 475-497.
Williams, B. V., & Jagers, R. J. (2020). Transformative social and emotional learning: Work
notes on an action research agenda. Urban Education, 57(2), 191-197.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0042085920933340
Williams, G. (2001). Theorizing disability. In Albrecht, G.L., Seelman, K.D., & Bury, M. (Eds).
Handbook of disability studies, (pp. 123-144).
Wilson, S., & Dumornay, N. M. (2022). Rising rates of adolescent depression in the United
States: Challenges and opportunities in the 2020s. Journal of Adolescent Health, 70(3),
354-355.
Witherspoon, N., & Arnold, B. M. (2010). Pastoral care: Notions of caring and the Black female
principal. The Journal of Negro Education, 79(3), 220–232.
Wolgemuth, J. R., Hicks, T., & Agosto, V. (2017). Unpacking assumptions in research synthesis:
A critical construct synthesis approach. Educational Researcher, 46(3), 131–139.
https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X17703946
Wong, L. S., Coburn, C. E., & Kamel, A. (2020). How central office leaders influence school
leaders’ decision-making: Unpacking power dynamics in two school-based decision-
making systems. Peabody Journal of Education, 95(4), 392–407.
Wong, N.-W. A. (2010). “Cuz they care about the people who goes there”: The multiple roles of
a community-based youth center in providing “youth (comm)unity” for low-income
Chinese American youth. Urban Education, 45(5), 708–739.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0042085909355766
Woulfin, S. L., Donaldson, M. L., & Gonzales, R. (2016). District leaders’ framing of educator
evaluation policy. Educational Administration Quarterly, 52(1), 110–143.
Wright, A. L., Meyer, A. D., Reay, T., & Staggs, J. (2020). Maintaining places of social
inclusion: Ebola and the emergency department. Administrative Science Quarterly, 66(1),
42-85.
Yin, R. K. (2014). Case study research: Design and methods (5th ed.). SAGE Publications, Inc.
Yiu, L. (2016). The dilemma of care: A theory and praxis of citizenship-based care for China’s
rural migrant youth. Harvard Educational Review, 86(2), 261–289.
Yoder, N., Dusenbury, L., Martinez-Black, T., & Weissberg, R. (2020). From insights to action
redefining state efforts to support social and emotional learning. CASEL.
https://casel.org/casel-pr-insights-to-action-state-efforts/
Zhao, Q., & Li, W. (2016). Measuring perceptions of teachers' caring behaviors and their
relationship to motivational responses in physical education among middle school
students. Physical Educator, 73(3), 510
Zongrone, A. D., Truong, N. L., & Kosciw, J. G. (2020). Erasure and resilience: The
experiences of LGBTQ students of color, Latinx LGBTQ youth in U.S. schools. GLSEN.
Zucker, L. G. (1977). The role of institutionalization in cultural persistence. American
Sociological Review, 726-743.

205
AppendicesAppendix A: Educational Leader Standards
Professional Standards for Educational Leaders 2015 (National Policy Board for Educational
Administration)

206
Appendix B: Care and Love Literature Reviewed
Articles included in research synthesis on love and caring (n=66)
Citation Research question(s)
*inferred from text
Methods and data Findings on love and caring in K-12 education
1 Acker, S. (1995). Carry on caring:
The work of women teachers.
British Journal of Sociology of
Education, 16(1), 21-36.
*What are the caring
activities of teachers?
Ethnographic study of one elementary
school, using observations, document
review, and interviews of teachers and
administration as data.
A caring collaborative culture among teachers developed,
partially, as a teacher coping mechanism to material and
discipline challenges in the school and with students.
Teachers exhibited caring despite personal health issues
and displayed maternal-like caring.
2 Alder, N. (2002). Interpretations of
the meaning of care: Creating
caring relationships in urban
middle school classrooms.
Urban Education, 37(2), 241–
266.
What does care mean to
urban middle school
students and their
teachers? How are caring
relationships created by
urban middle school
students and their
teachers?
Qualitative study utilizes interviews,
focus groups, and observations in two
predominantly African American,
urban middle schools of 12 students
and two African American, female
teachers chosen by their principal as
particularly caring.
This study found four main themes related to teacher care
for students at the classroom level: 1. Work ethic (e.g.
pressure to do work, control of classroom), 2. Parent
involvement, 3. Reciprocal, respectful talk between
teachers and students, and time spent with students, and
4. Good teaching as a form care.

3 Antrop-Gonzalez, R., & De Jesus,
A. (2006). Toward a theory of
critical care in urban small
school reform: Examining
structures and pedagogies of
caring in two Latino community-
based schools. International
Journal of Qualitative Studies in
Education, 19(4), 409–433.
*What are the structures and
pedagogies in Latino
community-based schools?
Qualitative study--an ethnography
utilizing decolonizing methods--draws
on interviews, focus group data, and
observations with students, teachers,
and community members at two small
community urban high schools that
serve Puerto Rican/Latino students in
New York City and Chicago (n
unspecified).
This study theorizes a critical care or hard caring, which
entails a caring curricula that is culturally responsive,
transformative, and rooted in high academic
expectations, co-constructed through affirming
interpersonal relationship between teachers and students
(personalismo, familia y comminidad).

207
4 Averill, R. (2012). Caring teaching
practices in multiethnic
mathematics classrooms:
Attending to health and well-
being. Mathematics Education
Research Journal, 24(2), 105–
128.
What teaching pedagogies
and behaviours are
effective for developing
and maintaining caring
teacher-student
relationships in multiethnic
mathematics classrooms?
Qualitative study analyzes observation
data of six teachers and 161 multiethnic
(Maori, Pacific Nations, and New
Zealand) students in 3 urban math high
school classrooms in New Zealand.
Caring teachers had high levels of student engagement and
student-initiated interactions, were available to help, and
showed willingness to persevere; they engendered a
sense of community, had high academic expectations,
and fostered respectful interpersonal relationships, while
ensuring one-to-one time with students.
5 Bass, L. (2012). When care trumps
justice: the operationalization of
Black feminist caring in
educational leadership.
International Journal of
Qualitative Studies in Education,
25(1), 73–87.
How do the African-
American women
educational leaders in this
study define caring?
Qualitative study uses a questionnaire
and focus group to investigate caring as
expressed by African American female
educational leaders in a large urban
Midwestern district at all levels of
education, including teacher leaders,
principals, superintendent, and
professor.

Caring African-American female leaders show affection
and a personalized, 1-1 interpersonal care, characterized
by using an ethic of risk to fight oppressive forces (such
as zero tolerance discipline policies) and evoking a
nurturing, affectionate concern for others in their care.
6 Byrd, J., Lundeberg, M. A.,
Hoffland, S. C., Couillard, E. L.,
& Lee, M. S. (1996). Caring,
cognition, and cultural
pluralism: Case studies of urban
teachers. Urban Education,
31(4), 432–452.
*What teaching strategies are
effective with Black urban
students?
Qualitative study, teacher-initiated action
research, involves lesson observation
and interviews of two high performing
teachers, one White female and one
Black male, in an urban Midwestern
elementary school that is
predominantly African American.
Urban teachers promote learning by caring, as evidenced
by promoting respect, facilitating dialogue among
students, appreciating diverse cultures, showing caring
for individuals and the classroom community,
connecting with families; cognitive strategies that
include having high academic expectations, creating safe
and positive classroom climates, connecting learning to
real-life situations, using differentiated and higher-level
teaching strategies, and reflecting on their teaching
practices.
7 Cooper, K. S., & Miness, A.
(2014). The Co-Creation of
Caring Student-teacher
relationships: Does teacher
understanding matter? High
School Journal, 97(4), 264–290.
How do high school
students’ perceptions of
teacher care reflect the
theoretical distinction
between ‘caring as
relation’ and ‘caring as
virtue’?
Mixed methods study draws on survey
data to identify instrumental case
studies of five teachers who were
reported by students to exhibit varying
degrees of care. Researchers employ
qualitative interview methods to ask 33
White, Latinx, and Black high school
students from a small Texas town about
how much their teacher cares and
knows them.
Findings point to a need to show caring to individual
students in personal (e.g. checking in on how they are
doing) and academic ways both, such as having high
expectations; students perceive this as authentic,
relational care. Students of color reported experiencing
less caring at school, with 80% of non-caring
relationships attributed to students of color.

208
8 Curry, M. W. (2016). Will you
stand for me? Authentic Cariño
and transformative rites of
passage in an urban high school.
American Educational Research
Journal, 53(4), 883–918.
How are rites of passage
structured within an
innovating high school?
How do Latino/a youth
experience these rites?
Qualitative case study investigates
firewalks, rituals of caring that
encourage student reflection at a small
urban high school with Latinx youth,
through observation, interviews, and
focus groups.
Authentic care, rooted in a rite of passage contributes to an
asset-based, or additive, experience of Latinx students
through institutional and interpersonal care, displayed
through a collective familial core, a reflective,
intellectual care, and a future-focused, critical care.
Findings suggest that a color-conscious approach was
lacking, and that the presence of White students may
have constrained the explicit discussion of race.
9 Dempsey, V., & Noblit, G. (1993).
The demise of caring in an
African-American community:
One consequence of school
desegregation. The Urban
Review, 25(1), 47–61.
*How were continuities of
place, purpose, and people
constructed in one African-
American elementary
school?
Oral history and qualitative case study
drawing on school board minutes and
documents, personal and institutional
collections of churches, and interviews
with former students, community
members, teachers and principals of an
African-American elementary school,
which closed in 1975 as part of
desegregation.
Continuity of care and community were disrupted in an
unintended consequence of desegregation, with
implications for policy. Community is essential to school
success.
10 Dillon, D. R. (1989). Showing
them that I want them to learn
and that I care about who they
are: A microethnography of the
social organization of a
secondary low-track English-
reading classroom. American
Educational Research Journal,
26(2), 227–259.

What is the nature of the
social organization in the
observed classroom?
Ethnography relies on field notes and
interview data to analyze a "low-track"
high school English classroom.
This teacher prioritizes relationships with students, taking
time to get to know them and their families; he shows
caring and enthusiasm in the classroom, scaffolds
challenging material, and embraces his students' use of
African-American Vernacular English.
11 Edgar, S. N. (2014). An ethic of
care in high school instrumental
music. Action, Criticism, and
Theory for Music Education,
13(2), 112-137.
*How do band directors
enact Noddings’ ethic of
care?
Qualitative case study uses teacher
interviews, a music educator focus
group, student focus groups, parent
interviews, and observations.
The band teachers showed caring through mutual respect
and compassion, by creating safe and caring learning
environments, and through continuity of care (having
students for multiple years, seeing them inside and
outside of class).

209
12 Ellerbrock, C. R., & Kiefer, S. M.
(2010). Creating a ninth-grade
community of care. Journal of
Educational Research, 103(6),
393–406.
How does Westshore High
School create a community
of care for its ninth-grade
students?
Qualitative case study of one teacher and
nine of her students relies on interviews
with the lead teacher, a focus group
with the students, and classroom
observations.
This school staff was instrumental in implementing a
freshman transition program based on an ethos of care;
essential to this was a strong teacher-program
relationship based on buy-in, developmentally
responsive and aware teaching strategies, and
personalized learning towards a community of learners.
13 Ellerbrock, C. R., & Kiefer, S. M.
(2013). Extending a community
of care beyond the ninth grade:
A follow-up study. Journal of
Educational Research, 106(4),
319–331.
How may Freshman Focus (a
specific program for 9th
graders) foster a
community of care that
extended throughout
students’ high school
years?
Qualitative case study--a follow-up to a
previous study (Ellerbock & Kiefer,
2010)—relies on interview data of one
teacher and nine students as well as
analyzed archival data.
To achieve long-lasting community caring program results,
two relationships are key: teacher-student and program-
student. Teachers foster a caring, long-lasting program;
care is about both academic and social needs; and adding
support structures in the following years may have aided
in student perception of a continued community of care.
14 Enomoto, E. K. (1997).
Negotiating the ethics of care
and justice. Educational
Administration Quarterly, 33(3),
351–370.
How do members of one
school apply the ethics of
care and justice in actual
practice?
Qualitative study relies on ethnographic
methods including interviews,
document review, and observations in a
midwestern urban high school with
over 15 racial/ethnic student groups
and a bilingual program under review
by the state accreditation agency.

Concludes that a caring ethic and a justice ethic are
irreconcilable and in competition with one another; when
exercising care, staff members did not exercise justice,
and when emphasizing rights, relationships were
negotiated.
15 Gallagher, K. (2016). Can a
classroom be a family? Race,
space, and the labour of care in
urban teaching. Canadian
Journal of Education, 39(2), 1–
36.
What do the ideals of
“family” and “community”
mean in the changing
contexts of urban
classrooms?

Qualitative case study of one urban
middle school teacher draws on
interviews, observations, and a class
discussion with students.
Professional identity and actions shaped by a logic of
family, which relies on the metaphor of the family;
important findings were intentional connections to the
community and caring community in her class was
essential to classroom management and trust between
teacher and students. Suggests a reimagining of
classroom management in light of family metaphor, and
a need to attend to space in the classroom.

210
16 Gano-Overway, L. A. (2013).
Exploring the connections
between caring and social
behaviors in physical education.
Research Quarterly for Exercise
and Sport, 84(1), 104–114.
*Is a caring climate
positively associated with
empathy and prosocial
behaviors?
Quantitative study, 528 middle school
physical education students took a
series of surveys (Caring Climate
Scale, Basic Empathy Scale, Child
Social Behavior Questionnaire,
University of Illinois Bully Scale,
bullying survey) which are analyzed
through structural equation modeling.
Caring climates help students understand emotion of others
(empathy), which may result in prosocial behavior. Girls
reported higher levels of empathy and prosocial behavior
than boys, but no difference was found between boys
and girls on antisocial behaviors or bullying.
17 Gano-Overway, L., & Guivernau,
M. (2014). Caring in the gym:
Reflections from middle school
physical education teachers.
European Physical Education
Review, 20(2), 264–281.
*How do physical education
teachers create caring
classrooms?
Mixed methods study uses student scores
of caring teachers (see Gano-Overway,
2013) to identify 6 caring middle
school physical education teachers.
Then case study methods were
deployed to analyze their caring
practices (interviews, informal
conversations, and observations).
Three general themes from teachings: caring means being
in relation with students by developing relationships,
encouraging and developing and caring, and creating
connections, creating an inclusive and accepting
classroom by respecting and trusting students, creating a
safe and accepting place, treating students fairly, and
being inclusive, and empowering students by supporting
personal and skill development, engaging in caring
discipline, and promoting ownership by providing
choice.

18 García, O., Woodley, H. H.,
Flores, N., & Chu, H. (2012).
Latino emergent bilingual youth
in high schools: Transcaring
strategies for academic success.
Urban Education, 48(6), 798–
827.
*What education strategies
lead to success for
Bilingual emergent Latino
youth?
Qualitative study draws on data
(interviews, observations) at seven
New York City high schools that are
successful at graduating Latino,
bilingual youth at high rates.
The authors find an ethic of transcaring, defined as "caring
enacted to build a common collaborative “in-between”
space that transcends linguistic and cultural differences
between schools and homes" (p. 799). Transcaring
strategies include: translanguaging and bilingualism in
education, transculturacion in culturally transforming
pedagogy, transcollaboration and compadrazgo
(godparents and coparents as trusted guides; a system of
support) among all communities of learning, and
transactions through dynamic assessments. Transcaring
goes beyond what has been previously theorized (e.g.
Nodding's ethic of care, 1992; authentic care,
Valenzuela, 1999; personalismo, Antrop-Gonzalez & De
Jesus, 2005).

211
19 Garza, R. (2009). Latino and white
high school students’
perceptions of caring behaviors:
Are we culturally responsive to
our students? Urban Education,
44(3), 297–321.
*How do Latino and White
high school students
perceive caring behaviors?
Qualitative study uses observations, a
survey of Latino and White students
(n=93), and interviews with two female
teachers, one White and one Mexican
American, in a suburban high school in
Central Texas.
Five themes emerged about caring teachers: provide
scaffolding to help students access content and feel good
about their learning, are kind in actions, are always
available to students, show a personal interest in student
inside and outside of classroom, provide caring academic
support in classroom. There were differences between
Latino and White students; White students prioritized
kind actions, whereas Latino students mentioned
scaffolding in the classroom most frequently.
20 Garza, R., & Soto Huerta, M. E.
(2014). Latino high school
students’ perceptions of caring:
Keys to success. Journal of
Latinos and Education, 13(2),
134–151.
What behaviors do Latino
males perceive as the most
important aspects of caring
from teachers?
Mixed methods study includes focus
groups and exploratory factor analysis
on Latino student responses (n=377) at
a suburban high school in Central
Texas (same study as Garza, 2009) on
the instrument Perceptions of Teacher
Caring (an author-created survey,
included in paper). Chi-square tests for
distribution variation by gender.

Exploratory factor analysis found three constructs of
caring to be important: validating student worth,
individualizing academic success, and fostering positive
engagement. Survey results showed that Latina students
valued "prepares me for tests" the most whereas their
male counterparts ranked "shows an attitude that makes
me feel comfortable in class" as top. 84% of Latino male
respondents prioritized "suggest I come to tutorials
whenever I fail something;" this was not on females'
priority list at all.

21 Gray, N. L., & Gardiner, M. E.
(2013). Educator-peer workplace
bullying: Why leadership must
address incivility and create a
quilt of caring in the school.
Journal of School Leadership,
23(5), 23.
How have educators
experienced teacher–peer
social relationships in their
schools? What is
leadership’s role in
defining those
experiences?
Qualitative multi-case study draws on
survey data and interviews of three
teachers and three administrators
purposely selected from Idaho,
Washington, and Oregon.
Teacher-peer relationships and educator-peer bullying are
two significant issues for both teachers and
administrators. Administrators who fail to correct
bullying and conflict among teachers negatively affect
school culture and are ineffective.
22 Hackenberg, A. (2010).
Mathematical caring relations: A
challenging case. Mathematics
Education Research Journal,
22(3), 57–83.
What are the challenges
involved in establishing a
mathematical caring
relation with a
mathematically talented
female student?
Qualitative study emerges from a year-
length experiment in mathematical
constructivist teaching of two middle
school math students and draws on
researcher-led math lessons, analytical
memos, and videotapes of the lessons.
Mathematical caring presents challenges when the carer
(teacher) is unable to account for student struggles
(cognitive and affective) in grasping the material, which
affect performance and student identity; establishing a
mathematical caring relationship defies "typical" math
teaching approaches and conceptions of traditional
student success.

212
23 Horsch, P., Chen, J. Q., &
Wagner, S. L. (2002). The
responsive classroom approach:
A caring, respectful school
environment as a context for
development. Education and
Urban Society, 34(3), 365-383.
*How, and to what extent,
did implementation of the
Responsive Classroom
approach vary across
schools?
Qualitative study of four schools that
implemented the Responsive
Classroom approach in Chicago (a
social-emotional whole school learning
program) are profiled; while descriptive
observational details are included,
specific methodology not discussed.
Implementation varied widely, attributed to variance in
amount and type of support offered by school leadership;
influence of outside accountability pressures; perception
about cultural mismatch (in one school, teachers
believed the program was inappropriate for Black
students). The school with best implementation success
was given in-service professional development time to
align the program curriculum with their own beliefs and
values; other schools were not.
24 Hos, R. (2014). Caring is not
enough: Teachers’ enactment of
ethical care for adolescent
Students with Limited or
Interrupted Formal Education
(SLIFE) in a newcomer
classroom. Education and Urban
Society, 48(5), 479–503.
What are the experiences of
adolescent refugee
SLIFE (students with
limited or interrupted
formal education) in a
secondary newcomer
classroom?
Qualitative, ethnographic study of one
teacher's classroom serving students
who are newly arrived refugees to the
US includes observations, formal and
informal interviews with the teacher
and students, and document and artifact
analysis.
Four themes of caring relevant to recent refugees with
limited schooling included empathy, patience, and
flexibility for students; appropriate pedagogy to serve
this population; building confidence of students;
advocacy for students, exhibited by securing outside
resources and support and staying in touch with former
students.
25 Jackson, I., Sealey-Ruiz, Y., &
Watson, W. (2014). Reciprocal
love: Mentoring Black and
Latino males through an ethos of
care. Urban Education, 49(4),
394–417.
How do the young men and
mentor, as participants,
experience UMOJA
(Umoja Network for
Young Men)?
Qualitative, two-year phenomenological
study analyzes focus group interview
and observation data from 14 male
Black and Latino participants and their
mentor in a school-based mentoring
program within two urban, New York
City alternative high schools for
overage, undercredited youth.

Reciprocal love, defined as "a deeply rooted interest in and
concern for community that extends personal well-being
to communal sustenance" (p. 399) was evident and
essential to students' success, nurtured through
relationships (brotherhood), a collective responsibility
for all, a sense of trust and respect, and a greater sense of
aspiration and capacity.
26 James, J. H. (2012). Caring for
“others”: Examining the
interplay of mothering and
deficit discourses in teaching.
Teaching and Teacher
Education: An International
Journal of Research and Studies,
28(2), 165–173.
What does it mean to care
for students and for one
another? Where do our
ideas about caring
originate and how are they
shaped in the contexts of
teaching?
Qualitative narrative inquiry, data
(document review, principal and
teacher interviews, observations) on six
elementary school teachers in a diverse
Washington, D.C.-area were collected
over an academic year.
A deficit discourse, embodied by teachers and in the form
of selflessness and a desire to mother, damages the
development of caring relationships. A mothering
approach prevents deep listening and assumes that there
is a lack of mothering outside of school.

213
27 Jansen, A., & Bartell, T. (2013).
Caring mathematics instruction:
Middle school students' and
teachers' perspectives. Middle
Grades Research Journal, 8(1),
33.
According to middle school
students and their teachers,
what is caring mathematics
instruction?
Qualitative study utilizes classroom
observations and interviews of middle
school teachers (n=4) and students
(n=22).
Similarities among teachers and students: caring
mathematics instruction includes teaching so that every
student’s learning matters (academic care),
communicating high expectations for students (academic
care), creating a welcoming and inviting classroom
community (interpersonal care), and engaging students
in learning mathematics (academic and interpersonal
care). Students identified both academic and
interpersonal care as necessary for supporting their
learning; teachers did not connect caring practices to
supporting learning as much.

28 Jeffrey, A. J., Auger, R. W., &
Pepperell, J. L. (2013). “If we're
ever in trouble they're always
there:” A qualitative study of
teacher-student caring. The
Elementary School Journal,
114(1), 100-117.
What is the experience of
caring in teacher-student
relationships and how is
that demonstrated? How
do student and teacher
perceptions of care align
with each other?
Qualitative study uses student focus
groups (n=17) and teacher interviews
(n=6) to analyze their similarities and
differences.
Students and teachers identified meeting basic physical
needs, fostering emotional well-being (providing
comfort, connecting, feeling valued), and providing
strategic academic assistance as demonstrations of care.
Students noted that safety and academic help were
demonstrative of caring, teachers did not.
29 Johnson, C. S. (2011). Addressing
the moral agency of culturally
specific care perspectives.
Journal of Moral Education,
40(4), 471–489.
How is one teacher's
culturally specific care
enacted?
Qualitative, instrumental case study of
one Black high school social studies
teacher draws on field notes,
interviews, conversations, and archival
data.
Racial oppression affected this educator's care theory,
rooted in Black Cultural Ethos, and focused on the
collective and uplift of marginalized voices.
30 Knight-Diop, M. G. (2010).
Closing the gap: Enacting care
and facilitating Black students’
educational access in the
creation of a high school
college-going culture. Journal of
Education for Students Placed at
Risk, 15(1–2), 158–172.
*What are Black students’
perspectives of caring
embedded within the
academic expectations of
minihouses, the
distributive counseling
structure of learning
centers, and students’
participation in
cocurricular activities?
Qualitative study of Black students
(n=15) utilizes interview data, student
focus groups, surveys, observations,
and document review in one college-
preparatory high school.
Constraints on enacting institutional and interpersonal care
within a small school: tracking within small
communities, lack of access for all students to college
counseling, dearth of meaningful interpersonal
relationships.
31 Konishi, C., & Saewyc, E. (2014).
Still a target: Sexual diversity
and power of caring. School
Psychology International, 35(5),
504–515.
*What are the effects of
caring adults on levels of
distress among sexual
minority youth? Among
mostly heterosexual and
exclusively heterosexual
youth?

Quantitative study uses a logistic
regression of multiple survey data of
27,000 students.

Caring teacher support is a significant moderator on the
relationship between victimization and school and
social-emotional well-being outcomes for all students,
LGB and heterosexual. Caring teacher support is
associated with liking school.

214
32 Lalama, S. M. (2016). Caring
climate, empathy, and student
social behaviors in high school
band. Action, Criticism, and
Theory for Music Education,
15(3), 180-200.
How do perceived caring
climate, cognitive
empathy, and affective
empathy influence student
social behaviors in band?
Quantitative study employs multiple
linear regression and ANOVA of
questionnaires in 9 schools with 203
students.
Students perceive caring when teachers stay for more than
5 years, small enrollment in band, Title One schools,
students did not hold leadership positions.
33 Larson, A. (2006). Student
perception of caring teaching in
physical education. Sport,
Education and Society, 11(4),
337-352.
*How do students perceive
caring teaching behavior in
physical education?
Qualitative study analyzes 398 written
student responses about caring from
elementary, middle, and high school
students in their physical education
classes.
11 clusters of caring reported by students, in order of
frequency: showed me how to do a skill, honored my
request, gave me a compliment, confronted my behavior,
inquired about my health, attended to me when I was
injured, allowed me to re-do my test, motivated me,
played/participated with me during class, persuaded me,
showed concern for my future health. Findings point to
student perception of caring as attention, such as
individualized instruction or feedback.

34 Lewis, J. L., Ream, R. K., Bocian,
K. M., Cardullo, R. A.,
Hammond, K. A., & Fast, L. A.
(2012). Con cariño: Teacher
caring, math self-efficacy, and
math achievement among
Hispanic English learners.
Teachers College Record,
114(7), 42.

Do student perceptions of
teacher caring impact math
self-efficacy and math
achievement in ways that
vary between Hispanic
English speakers and
Hispanic English learners?
Quantitative study employs fixed effects
and random effects regression of
longitudinal survey and achievement
data to investigate Hispanic student
perception of teacher caring as it relates
to math self-efficacy and achievement,
controlling for gender, free lunch
status, and grade level.

Student perception of teacher caring (taking an interest in
students, exhibiting empathy, and valuing student voice)
is associated with math confidence, which then leads to
better math outcomes. Students who are learning English
are most impacted by teacher caring behaviors.
35 Louis, K. S., Murphy, J., &
Smylie, M. (2016). Caring
leadership in schools: Findings
from exploratory analyses.
Educational Administration
Quarterly, 52(2), 310–348.
Are teachers’ perceptions of
their principals’ caring
behavior associated with
their perceptions of the
school’s provision of a
supportive (caring)
environment for students,
particularly the most
vulnerable students?
Quantitative study employs regression
and structural equation modelling (path
model) to explore 134 teachers'
perception of caring, as measured by
survey items, and the relationship to
student achievement.
Caring school leadership is positively associated with
student achievement, and teachers’ perception of student
academic support and teachers' sense of collective
responsibility. Elementary teachers report much higher
levels of caring than secondary peers. Poverty is
negatively associated with principal caring. Includes the
development of a caring leadership framework and a
measure of Caring Principal Leadership.
36 Luttrell, W. (2013). Children's
counter‐narratives of care:
Towards educational justice.
Children & Society, 27(4), 295-
308.
*How do children perceive
care and love in their
family, community, and
school? What matters most
to children?

Longitudinal ethnographic study of 34
children, uses children's photographs,
interviews, and discussion groups as
counter-narratives analyzed through a
process called collaborative seeing.

Children identified aspects of care as important to their
lived experiences, including individuals at school who
care (teachers, support staff, principal), learning as a
social activity, and kids' involvement in family care and
caring for one another.

215
37 Marshall, C., Patterson, J. A.,
Rogers, D. L., & Steele, J. R.
(1996). Caring as career: An
alternative perspective for
educational administration.
Educational Administration
Quarterly, 32(2), 271-294.
*How do career assistant
principals evidence caring?
Qualitative study of 50 assistant
principals, purposely sampled from the
United States in urban, rural, and
suburban areas, drawing on focus group
and individual interviews, observations,
field notes, documents, and survey
responses to interrogate career assistant
principals', or those who do not move
up to the principalship, leadership style.
Assistant principals showed caring through connections,
context, and concern, and they no longer tried to move
up the career ladder, preferring to care for students and
families. These leaders operate from an ethic of care,
outside of prevailing leadership theories
(bargaining/political management, organic/collegial
management, rational/scientific management, and
mechanistic/bureaucratic management).
38 Matias, C. E., & Allen, R. L.
(2016). Do you feel me?
Amplifying messages of love in
critical race theory. The Journal
of Educational Foundations,
29(1-4), 5-28.
*How might critical race
theory amplify messages
of love in education?
Qualitative counternarrative tells the
story of one student, now a scholar,
who experienced lovelessness in K-12
schooling.
Failing to attend to issues of racism and colorblindness in
the classroom create a loveless condition; critical race
theory offers a humanizing love; theories of love must be
used for writing, theory, and application in racially-just
work.

39 McKinney De Royston, M. M.,
Vakil, S., Nasir, N. S., Ross, K.
M., Givens, J., & Holman, A.
(2017). “He’s more like a
‘brother’ than a teacher”:
Politicized caring in a program
for African American Males.
Teachers College Record,
119(4), 1–40.
What characterizes the
teacher–student
relationships within these
all-Black, all-male classes?
How are these
characteristics enacted in
the classroom by teachers?
This is an illustrative case study drawing
on data collected over three years
within The Manhood Development
Project, a program in the Oakland
Unified School District's Office of
African American Male Achievement.
Four instructors and their students were
interviewed and observed in order to
illuminate the conceptual themes of
politicized caring.

Examples and definition of politicized caring. Teachers are
political workers exhibiting political clarity, communal
bonds, potential affirming, and developmentally
appropriate instruction. Shown in action through clear
examples, politicized caring is enacted through teacher-
student relationships. Caring is conceptualized as
bidirectional (students "welcome and re-instantiate
care").
40 Mercado, C. I. (1993). Caring as
empowerment: School
collaboration and community
agency. The Urban Review,
25(1), 79–104.
*How does a caring,
collaborative ethnographic
pedagogical approach
empower students,
teachers, and
communities?
Qualitative study, a collective narrative,
is constructed about a teacher and
professor who worked together to
employ an innovative approach to
collaborative teaching; interwoven in
the text are interview data and
documents from graduate students,
students, and parents.

Collaborative pedagogy is an empowering act of caring;
the collaboration led to findings that what influences a
sense of caring collaboration are being together, being
genuine, open, honest, and trusting, and being fair.
41 Noblit, G. W. (1993). Power and
caring. American Educational
Research Journal, 30(1), 23–38.
*How can power, in the
caring perspective, be seen
as moral authority?
Ethnography of an African-American
second grade teacher consists of in-
depth observations over the course of
an academic year.
Through his study of Pam, a powerful and influential
teacher, the author reframes his understanding of caring
as reciprocal and relational (influenced by Noddings and
Gilligan) to caring as a form of moral authority that is
related to race and power.

216
42 Oplatka, I. (2007). Managing
emotions in teaching: Toward an
understanding of emotion
displays and caring as
nonprescribed role elements.
Teachers College Record,
109(6), 1374-1400.
What is the place attributed
to emotions in the
teacher’s role on the axial
obligatory versus
discretionary (i.e.,
organizational citizenship
behaviors) role aspects?

Qualitative study uses interviews of 50
teachers on organizational citizenship
behaviors and emotion work
(conscientiousness, work-relevant
courtesy, sportsmanship, altruism, civic
virtue, organizational loyalty,
individual initiative) who were
nominated for going above the regular
call of duty by leadership.

Teachers reported that emotion management is within their
control and a personal choice; it is not determined by
work culture or leadership mandates, although caring,
empathetic teacher behaviors are desirable, they are not
mandated. Teachers of low-income students showed that
they believe their students need more emotional support.
Caring, attentive principal leadership bolsters teacher
caring behaviors toward students.
43 Ordoñez-Jasis, R., Dunsmore, K.,
Herrera, G., Ochoa, C., Diaz, L.,
& Zuniga-Rios, E. (2016).
Communities of caring:
developing curriculum that
engages Latino/a students’
diverse literacy practices.
Journal of Latinos and
Education, 15(4), 333-343.
What are the community of
practice's (COP's) theories
about the role of family
and community literacy on
students’ in-school literacy
learning?
Qualitative study documenting a teacher,
Antonio, leading a community of
practice to see about connecting
literacy to family engagement and the
community; teachers' journals, field
notes, observations, interviews, e-mail
analysis, student writing samples, and
interviews with teachers, parents,
students are used.
Community of practice validated that literacy learning is
embedded in a community, and a COP helped motivate
literacy practices in and outside of classroom.
44 Parsons, E. C. (2005). From caring
as a relation to culturally
relevant caring: A white
teacher’s bridge to Black
students. Equity and Excellence
in Education, 38(1), 25–34.
*What is the context in
which one White teacher
enacts caring of Black
students?
Qualitative, ethnographic study draws
observations and interviews to consider
the caring qualities of one white teacher
of Black students in an urban
Elementary school.
Caring is a reason many White teachers enter teaching, and
thus connecting culturally relevant practices to culturally
relevant practices of care may be a useful bridge in
reducing classroom inequalities and teacher-held beliefs
about race. Findings of evidence of culturally relevant
caring: disrupting White dominance and acting in best
interest of Black students, student reciprocity of teacher's
caregiving, and culturally relevant pedagogical strategies
such as modeling, dialogue, practice, and affirmation of
culturally relevant caring behaviors of students in the
classroom.
45 Patterson, J. A., Gordon, J., &
Price, P. G. (2008). The color of
caring: Race and the
implementation of educational
reform. Educational
Foundations, 22, 97-116.
*How did race
(conceptualized to include
Whiteness) affect the
implementation of the A+
Schools Program, an arts
program, in three different
schools?
Qualitative study is a four-year
evaluation of the A+ Schools arts
program. Data collection includes
observations and interviews with
individuals and focus groups with
students, teachers, assistants, metal
health staff, custodial, office, and
cafeteria staff, administration, and
community members in three schools;
one in the mountains of North Carolina,
another urban diverse school, and a
majority African American rural
school.

Race, and Whiteness, shaped the implementation of the
arts program in each school, as well as how participation
by staff was perceived. An ideology of colorblindness
pervaded the program implementation. White notions of
caring were embraced, and Black womanist notions of
care were dismissed, even when more appropriate, as
they threatened the White power structure.

217
46 Pennington, J. L., Brock, C. H., &
Ndura, E. (2012). Unraveling the
threads of White teachers’
conceptions of caring:
Repositioning White privilege.
Urban Education, 47(4), 743-
775.
*What did the teachers learn
about their White racial
identities and caring? How
did the teachers learn about
their White racial identities
and caring?
Qualitative critical ethnography drew on
observations, fieldnotes, and interviews
of two White teachers who engaged in
adult education classes on Whiteness.
This study illuminated that in order to authentically care
for students of color, White teachers must understand
and examine the role that White privilege plays in caring
classroom relationships and put students of color first
ahead of their own interests.
47 Pimentel, C. (2011). Hmm ...
Hmmm ... Excuse me? A case
study of interruptive caring in a
bilingual classroom. Power and
Education, 3(2), 128.
*What does interruptive
caring look like in one
bilingual classroom?
Qualitative ethnography of one teacher's
classroom relies on observations,
interviews, and informal discussions.
Interruptive caring defined as "an approach to caring for
students that interrupts the ideological underpinnings of
an inequitable education system that devalues bilingual
education (p. 128);" this teacher exemplified this by
teaching a bilingual classroom in an unfavorable
"English Only" political environment, by scheduling
innovative, student-centered teacher-parent conferences,
and by encouraging students in their writing through
poetry.

48 Reitzug, U. C., & Patterson, J.
(1998). “I’m not going to lose
you!”: Empowerment through
caring in an urban principal’s
practice with students. Urban
Education, 33(2), 150–181.
*What is the work of an
effective urban principal?
Qualitative study of an effective urban
middle school principal, a Black
woman, uses a naturalistic inquiry
approach, pulling details from
observational fieldnotes and interviews
to construct a narrative of principal
practice.
This study found an empowering form of caring as
effective principal leadership, exhibited by developing a
personal connection with students, honoring the voices
of students, showing concern for students through
academic and behavioral expectations, connecting to the
surrounding community, and generating alternative
courses of action.
49 Rivera-McCutchen, R. L. (2012).
Caring in a small urban high
school: A complicated success.
Urban Education, 47(3), 653–
680.
How did the school’s caring
model adequately prepare
students to be successful
beyond graduation?
Qualitative study uses a grounded theory
approach to analyze interview and
observation data in one small urban
high school that was created with a
culture of caring for historically
underserved students in New York
City.
Caring was in evidence in the school, however, high
academic expectations missing, which are an essential
part of enacting care.

218
50 Roberts, M. A. (2010). Toward a
theory of culturally relevant
critical teacher care: African
American teachers’ definitions
and perceptions of care for
African American students.
Journal of Moral Education,
39(4), 449–467.
How do ‘successful’ African
American secondary
teachers define teacher
care for their African
American students?
Qualitative study uses a
phenomenological approach to gather
life-history interviews of eight African
American secondary teachers about
how they care for African American
students.
Culturally responsive critical teacher care includes
focusing on affective student needs first, deepens care
theory by actively dispelling color blind, meritocratic
ideology through counternarratives; teachers
demonstrated socio-political critique, operated from an
ethos of political clarity, and encouraged code switching.
51 Rogers, D., & Webb, J. (1991).
The ethic of caring in teacher
education. Journal of Teacher
Education, 42(3), 173–181.
*What is good teaching, and
how does it relate to an
ethic of caring? How might
teacher education be
restructured to include an
ethic of care?
Qualitative study based on classroom
ethnographies in six classrooms
(observation, interviews with students
and teachers, student surveys), part of
The Caring Study at an urban
elementary in the southeast.
Teachers defined caring as how teachers interact and relate
to students, as well as how students relate to the teacher.
Students likened good teaching to caring; good teachers
talk with students, are sensitive, and make school fun,
and not boring. Authors interpret results of ethnography
to conclude that caring must be central in teacher
education, for educational and moral decisions in the
classroom develop from an ethos of caring, and these
decisions require action. Teacher education ought to
include caring considerations of: curriculum
construction, modeling, dialogue, reflection, practice,
and continuity.

52 Rolon-Dow, R. (2005). Critical
care: A color(full) analysis of
care narratives in the schooling
experiences of Puerto Rican
girls. American Educational
Research Journal, 42(1), 77–
111.
How are race/ethnicity and
caring linked in narratives
by and about the schooling
of Puerto Rican girls?
Qualitative study employed ethnographic
methods over a period of two years,
including in-depth observations/field
work and interviews--to study 9 Puerto
Rican middle school girls in urban,
low-income neighborhoods.
Beliefs about race/ethnicity are central to notions of caring,
and must be incorporated into teacher practices,
including dismantling White privilege, countering
educators' deficit-based narratives, and an understanding
of racism's effects on students.
53 Schindel, A., & Tolbert, S. (2017).
Critical caring for people and
place. Journal of Environmental
Education, 48(1), 26–34.
How does a teacher, Mr.
Langdon, enact authentic
caring relationships in his
practice?
Critical, participatory case study of one
high school environmental science
class in a Midwestern city.
Authentic caring positively influenced the learning
process, as evidenced through caring relationships that
cared for the interconnections of people, place, and
environment; politicized activities connected to local
community was especially meaningful, and students
connected to nature as a result of authentic caring.

219
54 Schussler, D. L. & Collins, A.
(2006). An empirical exploration
of the who, what, and how of
school care. Teachers College
Record, 108(7), 1460–1495.
*Who is involved in caring
relationships at the school?
Qualitative study of one small, suburban,
alternative high school attended by
those at risk of dropping out, 16
students and an unspecified number of
faculty are interviewed; observations
also conducted.
Five caring relationships were found: student-to-teacher,
teacher-to-student, student-to-school, school-to-student,
and student-to-student. Organizational aspects
(structural, enabling conditions) contributed to the caring
culture.
55 Scott, B. C. (2012). Caring
teachers and symbolic violence:
Engaging the productive
struggle in practice and research.
Educational Studies,48(6), 530–
549.
*How does one caring
teacher's story reveal
symbolic, institutionalized
violence?
Qualitative study, an ethnography, draws
on observations, interviews, field notes,
and analytic memos, discusses one high
school English teacher's experiences of
caring in Virginia.
Caring, without confronting the larger institutional forces
that contribute to oppression, may be an act of symbolic
violence, defined as “a gentle violence, imperceptible
and invisible even to its victims, exerted through the
most part by the purely symbolic channels of
communication and cognition (more precisely,
misrecognition), recognition, or even feeling" (Bourdieu,
2001, as cited by Scott, 2012).
56 Sosa-Provencio, M. A. (2017).
Seeking a Mexicana/Mestiza
critical feminist ethic of care:
Rosa’s revolución of carrying
alongside. Race Ethnicity and
Education, 20(5), 650–665.
What is a Mexicana/Mestiza
Ethic of Care?
Qualitative study utilizes focus groups,
interviews, and observations to
highlight the testimonio, or personal
narrative, of Rosa, one Mexicana
female Dual Language middle school
teacher of majority-Mexican students
within a charter school along the U.S.-
Mexico border.
Rosa practices a Mexicana/Mestiza ethic of care by
engaging in social-justice, equity-oriented practices that
honor and lift up the lives and struggles of Mexican
students.
57 Tichnor-Wagner, A., & Allen, D.
(2016). Accountable for Care:
Cultivating caring school
communities in urban high
schools. Leadership and Policy
in Schools, 15(4), 406–447.
What are the ways that high
school teachers in lower
and higher performing
schools in an urban public
school district care for
their students?

Qualitative comparative case study of 4
high schools (2 low performing, 2 high
performing), chosen according to
value-added analysis (i.e. those
promoting more or less growth overall
and with low-income, minority, and
ELL subgroups on math and reading
tests). Interviews with teachers and
students and student focus groups.
Higher-performing schools demonstrated caring
communities, which looked like strong relationships,
leadership, caring as a school value, extracurricular
activities and high academic expectations. In contrast,
lower performing schools had caring in isolation but it
was not school-wide or institutionalized.

58 Tosolt, B. (2009). Middle school
students' perceptions of caring
teacher behaviors: Differences
by minority status. The Journal
of Negro Education, 405-416.

*To what extent are caring
teacher behaviors
perceived or experienced
differently by minority
student status?

Quantitative study employs an ANOVA
of survey data of 825 sixth graders on
interpersonal caring, academic caring,
and fairness caring.
Caring looks different to different student groups. Out of
17 questions, White students related behaviors to caring
differently from their Black/Latinx peers 14/17 times.
59 Vaandering, D. D. (2013). Student,
teacher, and administrator
perspectives on harm:
*How do students,
educators, and
administrators’
Qualitative case study conducted in
elementary, junior high, and high
school, grades 4-12, in Newfoundland,
Analysis showed that high school are primarily focused on
control, behavior, and rules; whereas junior high
prioritizes engagement, community, and relationships.

220
Implications for implementing
safe and caring school
initiatives. Review of Education,
Pedagogy & Cultural Studies,
35(4), 298–318.

perspectives of harm and
their school’s response to
harm inform the theory,
implementation, and
practice of RJ in schools?

Canada. Interviews with students,
teachers, administration (n=35) and
focus groups conducted.
60 van der Vyver, C. P., van der
Westhuizen, P. C., & Meyer, W.
L. (2014). Caring school
leadership: A South African
study. Educational Management
Administration & Leadership,
42(1), 61–74.
*To what extent do
principals fulfill their
caring role with regard to
teachers?
Quantitative study draws on the statistical
analysis of survey data using a
systematic stratified cluster sample of
83 schools (n=65 principals, 1041
teachers).
Principals rate their own care giving higher than teachers
did, especially on psychological (as opposed to
management/organizational) factors. Teachers rated
workplace/organizational aspects of principal care as
more important/caring than psychological determinants,
which contributed least to positive care ratings.
61 Walker, E. V. S. (1993).
Interpersonal caring in the
“good” segregated schooling of
African-American children:
Evidence from the case of
Caswell County training school.
The Urban Review, 25(1), 63–
77.

*How did interpersonal
caring function
successfully for African-
American students in one
"good" segregated school?
Qualitative, historical ethnography of the
Caswell County Training School from
1933 to 1969, a historical analysis
utilizing interviews (n=100) and
document review.
In segregated schools, caring was integral to defining
"goodness" of school; caring was the creation of
homelike environment, committed teachers, supportive
environment, and encouraging adults.
62 Warin, J. (2017). Creating a whole
school ethos of care. Emotional
& Behavioural Difficulties,
22(3), 188–199.
How might school leaders
communicate a principle of
mutual care and inspire
whole school commitment
from staff, pupils and
parents?
Qualitative comparative case study of
seven schools in the Northwest of
England draws on interviews, focus
groups, and observations.
Caring leadership is important in enacting a whole school
ethos of care. Caring leaders train and support staff,
understand relationality, and commit to ongoing
attachment relationships. Schools are most effective
when the program (nurture groups) is integrated
throughout school and not an add-on; this includes
specialized classes and a nurturing philosophy for the
whole school.
63 Webb, J., Wilson, B., & Corbett,
D. (1993). Understanding caring
in context: Negotiating borders
and barriers. The Urban Review,
25(1), 25–45.
*How do parents, teachers,
teaching assistants,
students, and researchers
define what caring means
to them?
Qualitative study uses interviews of 61
adults (teachers, teaching assistants,
admin, support staff) and student
surveys (n=125).
In order for a school to be a caring community, all parties
must come together in best interest of kinds, eliminating
borders of race, class, gender, and age. Student voices
are important to an understanding on caring in context;
students spoke more about their teachers' affective side
(caring, kind) than about instruction.

221
64 Witherspoon, N., & Arnold, B. M.
(2010). Pastoral care: Notions of
caring and the Black female
principal. The Journal of Negro
Education, 220-232.

*To what extent do themes
and patterns of religio-
spirituality influence the
leadership process of
Black female principals?

Qualitative, life narrative study using in-
depth interview data of four Black
female principals.

Black female principals are focused on others and not on
themselves; two concepts central to leadership enacted:
spirituality and social justice are closely related

65 Yiu, L. (2016). The dilemma of
care: A theory and praxis of
citizenship-based care for
China’s rural migrant youth.
Harvard Educational Review,
86(2), 261–288.
How do state citizenship
policies in China shape
new conceptions of caring?
And how do the insights
learned from such concepts
contribute to a praxis of
citizenship-based care that
is transformative for rural
migrant students in China?

Qualitative, naturalistic study uses
observations at two urban middle
schools, an ethnographic field
experience of teaching in a school,
school and administrator interviews
(n=30), focus groups of students
(n=45), and student interviews of a
subset of focus group participants
(n=23).
State policies shape teacher-student interactions and
conceptions of care at the local level, there is a care
deficiency at the institutional and classroom level. This
paper advances literature on caring through a
reconceptualization of caring theory in 3 ways: how the
state, through restrictive policies, undermines care by
distorting teacher-student relationship; policies constrain
instructional care, resulting in deficiency; state policy
shapes care conceptions of teachers and students.

66 Zhao, Q., & Li, W. (2016).
Measuring perceptions of
teachers' caring behaviors and
their relationship to motivational
responses in physical education
among middle school students.
Physical Educator, 73(3), 510.
*How do middle school
students’ perceptions of
teachers’ caring behaviors
relate to their attitudes,
effort, and enjoyment in
PE?
Quantitative study employs MANOVA,
ANOVA, and multiple regression of
surveys of 178 middle schoolers.
Middle school students’ perceptions of teacher caring is a
unitary construct with multiple dimensions:
differentiated instruction and feedback, interpersonal
rapport, and a positive motivated learning climate.

Appendix C: Interview Guide for Central Office Leader Interviews
Care During a Crisis: A Grounded Theory Approach
by Kate Kennedy
My introduction: This interview is a part of my dissertation, drawing on a sample of district
leaders to see how they are providing care in a time of crisis. I define care as attending to the
academic, physical, and emotional needs of students and staff in a school system. This study is
compliant with institutional review board standards. I sent you an “informed consent” sheet;
there is nothing to sign. If and when I use this interview information, your name and any
identifying information will be kept confidential. Please only answer questions you’re
comfortable with. If you’d like to skip a question or go “off the record,” that’s fine. Does that
sound ok to you? Do you have any questions? Do I have your permission to record this
conversation?

I. About you: Please briefly state your name, position, and number of years working in this
position.
• Background: Teacher? Principal? Grades and subject areas
• Years in education: ___________
• Are your schools open? Hybrid? Remote?
• If I were to apply for a job in your school district, what would be important for me
to know?

II. About your job and emotional supports in the central office:
• With all the challenges of life and work right now, I’d like to ask: How are you
feeling?
• How are you attending to the emotional needs of staff and students right now?

Possible prompts:
• How is the school district as an organization attending to emotional needs?
§ What barriers are you facing?
§ What is going well?
• What supports or resources do you need to do your job better?
• Can you think of any specific examples of student or staff emotional needs?
• How has remote learning/school closures impacted the emotional needs of
students? Staff?
§ Listen for or ask about: technical assistance providers, third party
products, etc.

III. Caring during COVID-19
• Spring school closures: Balancing/prioritizing
A. When did schools initially close?

223
B. What were your immediate professional priorities?
a) Probe for SEL needs and responses to nonacademic needs
• How are you helping school leaders with specific needs related to COVID-19?
A. Teachers? Other central office staff? Community?
• What new things have you tried to address growing social-emotional needs during
this time?
A. Listen for: Where did these ideas come from?

IV. Care and impact of crisis: equity, and data use:
• Thinking back before school closures what caring or social-emotional programs
were in place? (e.g. MTSS, PBIS, RJ)
A. Listen for/probe for: specific programs, curricula, training
• How has ______ been extended through virtual or hybrid schooling?
• I’m interested in your thinking around, or plans for, serving the emotional needs
of students or staff in the future as full reopening happens/changes.
• Do you have a sense of the extent or size of the emotional needs of students and
staff at this point? (Listen for: data use)
• Care and equity: I want to talk about equity for all students during the pandemic.
For example,
A. The news is reporting higher COVID-19 rates for communities of color.
B. Those on the “front lines” seem to be primarily women, which impacts
families.
C. Additionally, I’ve seen just one instance of the continuation of gay straight
alliance clubs in distance learning environments.
D. Have you seen any of these equity issues or concerns here?

V. Organizing and defining care in the central office:
• How do you define care from your position in the central office?
• Who in the central office is responsible for care?
A. Probe for/listen for “superintendent cabinet”-level positions
• What advice would you give another [enter title here] on creating a caring system
for students and staff?
• What barriers are there to creating caring systems?

VI. Final thoughts:
• How have the crises empowered you to do innovative or new things that you
could not do before?
• Do you have any final thoughts or comments that you would like to share about
how the central office is providing emotional supports during this crisis?
• *If you are comfortable, please state your age, race, and gender.

224
Appendix D: Interview Protocol
Semi-Structured Interview Protocol for District Leader Interviews
Study Led by Jeff Walls

Research Questions
• What is the district doing now, in these new circumstances, to promote a district-wide continuum of
care for students? What is working well, and what areas need improvement?
• In the time before Covid, what was the district doing to promote a district-wide continuum of care
for students? What has changed and what has remained the same?
• What innovative strategies and approaches have districts used to:
o Create an inclusive process that draws feedback from schools and students?
o Help school-based employees gain the knowledge and skills necessary to effectively care for
students?
o Introduce school- or system-wide approaches to meet students’ emotional needs
o Engage the broader community to partner alongside the district to care for students?
• How well-equipped do superintendents and district central office officials feel to create caring school
districts? In what areas do they need additional support?
Interview Questions
1.) How would you describe what makes a school caring?
a. What would you hear, see, feel standing in a caring school?
2.) In your district, how do you support schools in their efforts to care for students?
3.) From your perspective, what does your district do well in helping to create caring schools for
students?
a. On the other hand, what areas might be improved?
4.) How do you maintain open lines of communication for caring and support with students,
families, and schools?
5.) Do you have any school or district level systems or strategies to create socially supportive
environments for students?
6.) How do you engage the broader community in building caring and supportive schools for
students?
7.) Do you feel like you have the knowledge and skills that you need to support schools in creating
caring environments for students? Why or why not?
a. What knowledge, skills or supports might be helpful in these efforts?
8.) Are there specific supports or resources that would be helpful in these efforts?
a. How would they help?
9.) In your job, do you ever feel as though you know the “right thing to do” but are prevented from
doing so?
a. What are some examples of when you feel like this?
b. How do you navigate these feelings?
10.) What is giving you heartburn these days?
a. Are there any aspects of this that create personal or professional value dilemmas for
you or people you work with?
11.) What have you observed about the value dilemmas people in the district have faced in
responding to Covid?
a. How are you feeling about this?
12.) What is the district doing now, in these new circumstances, to promote a continuum of care for
students?
13.) How has COVID changed your district’s work around care?

225
Appendix E: Analytical Summary
Care & Social-Emotional Supports: A National Study of District Leaders
Example
• Interview: 10N
• Title/position of interviewee: Director
• Number of yrs. in education: 20
• Type of district: Suburban
• Demographics of interviewee: 40, white, female
1. DEFINING Care: How is it defined?
Yeah, I hear that. I'm asking everybody this, how do you define care? If I were to ask
you to define care from your position, what does it look like for you?
That’s a good question too. I think I would define care as seeing every human being as who they
are, right? Like listening, not making assumptions about what people need. That care is really
listening and knowing that, I don't know that's it and knowing that you might not have the
answers right but that care means that you're in it together. So if you care about someone, if you
care about a system, if you care about people, you can wrap your arms around them and say,
"Okay, let's figure this out together." So I do worry that we make a lot of assumptions about what
children need without really listening to them. So I do think part of care for students is just
letting go of actually any piece of adultism, letting go of that adultism and letting kids leave

2. Caring programs & supports:
● What PROGRAMS are mentioned that make up the constellation of care?
o Working on their own equity-SEL curriculum
● What SUPPORTS are provided for teachers/adults
o Anti-racism PD
o SEL PD
o Adult SEL focus, “meetings centered on staff wellness”, this was in response
to COVID, created by a volunteer committee
But it used to just be equity and we used to talk about... I mean, I'll be honest, until this year, we
probably didn't even really talk about SEL the right way. Like we've shifted a lot in the way we
talked about things, but we also, we would do, what's called the [X], but it's like a two day anti-
racism training. And then we also have this workshop called [X] champions, which is like a four
days throughout the course of the year. And it's parents alongside staff, always. And so we have
tons of parents that sit on our teams in each individual building. And then I have a district wide
team that has like representatives from each of the building teams, so like we actually meet
tonight.
And so we meet once a month and kind of the work that we do kind of filters out to the building
teams, because I can't go to every building meeting, although I try to go at least once a year to
each building. So there's like a few different levels of team. I also have an SEL leadership team,

226
which is a team that's writing our curriculum right now. So we're kind of in this like curriculum
writing cycle, but that's brand new this year.
I don't think you can sit in a position like this and be if that's how you work, it's not going to go
well for you. So essentially post COVID, over the summer, I was like, okay, we have to do
something, we need a plan. And it was something that our superintendent felt really strongly
about, SEL is something that that's his passion, equity as well. And so I was like, okay, so end of
the year, I just sent out an email to the entire district. Like hey, I just want to meet over the
summer and start figuring out like what does SEL look like for us? What does it mean? What do
we want? And let me know if you'd like to volunteer. So I got 25 people said yes, which was
amazing.
Interviewer: This is the whole district?
Yeah, district wide. So I got 25 people. I had secretaries, paraprofessionals, just people from all
over and had good representation among the buildings. And we met like two hours, like five
times, so 10 hours total. And came up with a plan, and I'll share the plan with you. I'll find it in a
minute. But essentially, so it was their plan. I was like what, essentially just started with the
question like, what do we need? What does SEL mean to us? What does it look like for us? And a
lot of what the staff talked about was staff, like we need people taking care of us. And so that's a
large focus of our plan for this year. So we require that in meetings, whether it be a team
meeting, or a staff meeting, that there is some sort of focus on Adult SEL. It might just be a check
in, it might be an actual SEL lesson, but that there are some sort of, that the meetings are
centered in this idea of staff wellness.
So that was a big goal. The second goal was like check in, check out routines for students. So
whether virtual or in person, like having those regular, like how are we checking in with kids to
make sure they're okay to get them talking to see what they have to say. So that skill two, and
then three was this 30 minute dedication every week to SEL. And so what happened was that
team, we put together essentially implementation guide, and it went out to the whole district from
that team of 25 and like all of their names are on it.
It was just anybody in the district who wanted to volunteer, so I think there was two other central
office people besides me there were both on Learning Services team. A few building
administrators, I think four building administrators. And so we had some from every level, and
then a couple of paraprofessionals that yeah, mostly classroom teachers, but it was a really good
mix which was great. So we had so many different perspectives. And the fact that we were able to
kind of land on like, these are three priorities, I really didn't know where we would get, or what
would happened but I was really happy with where we landed. And honestly, I went in with like, I
don't know what's going to happen, and I tried to do this anyways, like go in with, you're going
to be okay no matter what happens and try to not leave them.
I try really hard not to do that because I know teachers quite often feel like they don't actually
have a voice, like you put them together, but you have an end in mind anyways. And so I tried
really hard not to do that. So these 25 people were totally willing to have their names on it. We
did some training in the beginning of the year, every single one of them was involved in the
training with our staff, they owned it which was really helpful in getting people to buy in.
● Oher programs/supports

227
3. PEOPLE: how are STAFF/PEOPLE resources contributing to the architecture of
care? Is care the responsibility of an individual or several individuals? (list who) Or
is it systemic? (how) SYSTEMIC
o Equity teams and SEL teams are one and same
o Asked about who does this work, she says there is a district team and building
teams:
● Now, you've got these teams that are meeting but right now, when you say we, who
are you referring to? Like who are you doing this work with? Who's the teams?
● That's a good question too because like it's kind of weird when you create a position
like this, then things kind of shift in that way. And it was some of my hesitancy even
with, although I'm fortunate enough to be connected with some people with similar
type positions across the country. But I actually set it on our Learning team, which is
essentially our teaching and learning team. So it's essentially our teaching and
learning team. So I am a part of that. So I sit alongside our director of elementary ed
or director of secondary ed, assistant superintendent of teaching and learning.
● So we all work very closely together. And then we've also worked really hard to build
teams within each building. So every year we do at least a few like, and this year, it's
not happening because I feel really strongly about doing them in person, but anti-
racism, two day trainings. And so once someone goes through that, then we invite
them to be a part of the team in the building. So staff go through those and parents.
4. PARTNERSHIPS
● National Equity Project

5. SEL: Social-emotional needs/issues: of adults, kids, the leader, other
● Kids at home, shouldn’t need to turn cameras on, debated with super over this
policy
● Adults feeling disconnected

6. EQUITY: How is equity discussed, if at all? (e.g. SES, race, etc.) Note if it is not
discussed or question was evaded.
● Race
● Personal background for equity work
I think it would be important to know that we have been, as a district really focused on equity
for going on almost 10 years now. It has been a huge focal point and we still have a ton of
work to do. But I think we have come a long way. And so coming in here regardless of what
your position is, you have to have at least the desire to be involved in equity work. And that's
what most of your professional learning through the course of your year will be centered
around, right? Like even if it's how to teach reading, we're going to make sure that that focus
is how to teach reading from an equity lens. If it's how to teach writing, we're going to make
sure it's how to teach writing from an equity lens. And so like I said, we still have a really
long way to go, but it is our priority.
I think a lot of the work that I've done with national equity project has helped me see different
paths for how to get to things. So I think they have helped me vision and feel confident and
maybe steps that I wouldn't have done prior to working with them. I also just, I have my own

228
children are biracial, my husband is black like there's a lot of personal investment just in making
the world a better place for my children to grow up in.

HISTORY OF EQUITY WORK/RACIAL VIOLENCE INCIDING INCIDENT
... So my first year as associate principal at the high school there was like a couple of parents
and some staff that were just kind of chatting. And we were like, you know what? We're not
talking about race in this district, why aren't we talking about race in this district? And we are
always like touting that we're diverse, but yet we were never really having honest conversations
about it, we're just saying we're diverse. And so there was a group of maybe 10 of us that were
like, let's start talking about race. So we would meet once a month and have a circle with a
talking piece.
And there was a couple parents, a couple administrators and a couple of teachers. I think there
was like 10 people total, at least two parents were in that circle and at least myself and one other
administrator, and then I think the rest of the teachers. So we started asking you, like just started
talking, it wasn't like necessarily anything, it was just like, okay, let's get over the stigma and
talk. And after we did that for probably a year, we were like okay, so we've been doing this for a
year, what's next? And one of the parents had worked with a consultant in a previous district that
she had been in and was like, "I want this consultant to come in and do some workshops." So we
brought her in and she ended up until I was put in this position, she was a consultant in the
district. So for five years, I think she was consulting in a district and doing a lot of anti-racism
training and things like that.
Her first year, this is what many people think was the catalyst for equity. We had a real big
national story. I think that pushed us. And then I'll be honest, I think we had another big push
this summer with the murder of George Floyd and kind of the reckoning that this country is
having right now. I think that has helped propel us a little bit this year as well.
Well, we work really closely with national equity project who is also in, so we're in a
partnership with them. They are also in partnership with CASEL, who I assume you know
CASEL, created our fabric for academic social, emotional learning.
So a big push from national equity project is this idea of transformative SEL, and transformative
SEL is really SEL from an anti-racist lens. And the idea is that SEL is actually a lever for equity.
Right? And that if we're talking about things like how to have healthy relationships, and we're
not addressing the role that racism plays in having healthy relationships, then we're actually
harming our students of color more by teaching about relationships and ignoring their
experiences. Not just students of color, but students from other marginalized groups like
LGBTQIA, students with disabilities.
If we're not talking about the role that those things play in having relationships in social
emotional health, like so many of our students, like we know racism contributes to mental health.
We know that just being discriminated against contributes to really big mental health concerns.
And so for not also taking care of those things, and are we really serving all students? So that's
kind of where we're at is we're writing our own SEL curriculum because we don't feel that there's
a curriculum out there that meets that need. That really is coming at SEL from an anti-racist lens
fully and so we're trying to write our own curriculum and do it that way, but yeah, we spent a lot
of time talking about that.

229
We used to have just equity teams, we call them, because we don't call anything in Poplar like
the same thing as anywhere else. They are essentially equity teams, but we call them [X]
Education teams. So we had those in every building. And then rather than starting up social
emotional learning teams, we're calling them like global education, social emotional learning
teams, like we're putting them together, so that we're never talking about that work separately.

7. CHANGE and care: Has care changed? What innovations will they keep post-COVID?
• None mentioned

8. Overall/Summary
● Challenges or BARRIERS to providing care
i. None mentioned
● What is working WELL
i. Teams
ii. Superintendent support
iii. Equity & SEL focus
iv. Partnerships
v. Adult SEL
● Anything else that is salient/stands out
i. Student feedback via Equity Council
1. Because what's been interesting is the students I meet with every
week give me a ton of feedback. And they call themselves an
[Equity Council]. It's really like very student driven. And they
determined when we meet, how much meet. They fill me in on
what's going on. And when they started, they were like, "We need
to train everybody." And I'm like, "Okay." But what they're starting
to realize is that even people who have been through training, if
they just went through training to check off that box, they're not...
things haven't changed in their classrooms.
ii. Given autonomy/empowered by superintendent
1. And then I do think that with our superintendent coming in as a
new superintendent with this as his passion, like he kind of gave
me a little bit of license and freedom to just move and that has also
helped.
2. No, I think that was more... That's a good question because I don't
know that necessarily, I was never told like, "No, you can't." But he
was just like, "What do you want to do? Do it. Like don't ask
permission," he's like just do it, just go. And I'm like, okay, so I
kind of just stopped, like I was always trying to go through the
right channels, like being new to central office as a building
administrator and in my building, I was never a big like oh, I got to
check on this. It was always like move ahead and see, but as a
central office, like I understand some of the things I do could have
larger implications with the community, with the staff.

230
3. So I think I was just hesitant myself, and not really knowing like,
okay, I don't want the community. And we're in, I don't want to say
a difficult community, but a community that's involved, and has a
lot of feelings about how things should go. And not all of them
align with what I believe. And that's okay, but I think I was
hesitant. So his support, and me knowing that he as a
superintendent was going to have my back no matter what, I think
that just made me feel like okay, I can do that then And then I do
think that with our superintendent coming in as a new
superintendent with this as his passion, like he kind of gave me a
little bit of license and freedom to just move and that has also
helped.

231
Appendix F: Analytical Memo: Grounded Comparative Method
Grounded Constant Comparative Method: Theorizing
Sample of Second Cycle Data Analysis
Name Care defined Comparative categories
applied (*from whole
interview) and documents
Robert “I define care as perspective taking. As a member of
[cabinet team], I find that I constantly am trying to say,
‘What's the other perspective? What's a different way
of thinking about this? Because I know that, if we
make this decision in this room, which we're going to
have to, if we don't take these other perspectives, we're
going to miss something big, and it's going to hurt our
kids, staff, adults.’... Sometimes, you can just go,
"Well, what would someone think?" But, sometimes,
you have to go out and actually ask. And part of care is
asking.”

Whole system
Complex
Academics important
Collaborative
Partnerships, political

Linda “I think that, that is health, safety and care of young
people is our primary job. Of course, we are to educate
them, but it's making sure that they feel safe, and that
they are in an environment where they are able to
learn. And I think that if you don't have an
environment where people, adults as well, feel safe and
comfortable and that their needs are being met, that is
very difficult to build a strong culture. If our teachers
were wondering whether or not we were laying them
off, I don't think they could deliver a good lesson. So
it's just making sure that we reassure them, okay, no
matter what they're talking about over in this other
district, that's not happening here, you're fine, we're
doing this and really just making sure that we are
constantly thinking about the concerns that they
probably have. I really think it goes back to
relationships, I think it's important to know your staff”
Complex
Academics also
Adults and kids (whole
system)
Individual needs
Relationships

232
Sarah “I think care is the support, the resources and just
making sure... Like I said, from our standpoint when
we're away from kids, just making sure everybody has
what they need to be able to provide the kids what they
need.. physical piece, a sensory motor, something to
help calm kids down, just making sure that the
resources, the knowledge and those pieces are there for
our teachers and our staff, and then the building so the
kids can get what they need. I think we wear a lot of
hats as educators, and meeting all of those basic
physical needs or physiological of kids is one of those
packs. Safety and security is definitely one of them in
mental health. There's a piece of that. I think from that
care standpoint, that's a long definition of care.”

Individual needs
Complex
Whole system (adults and
kids)
Partnerships

Noah “So, care goes back to relationships for me, and it's
important, first, you know your people. Thankfully, I
know my people pretty well, so I get a good
understanding of when they're about to jump off the
cliff, that they've had enough. So, things that we've
tried to do with care, is to let teachers know it's okay
not to answer emails late into the night. It'll be there
for you tomorrow. It's okay, principals, not to go to
every event right now, the events that we have. Let's
divide that up. You go home and be a mom and a dad
and go do the things you need to do to take care of
yourself. Go work out, go have a good meal, go do
those things. We've tried to look at homework
expectations, what we're asking students to do at
home, because they need to take care of themselves.
Some of them are babysitting. Some of them are
having to do more than ever before. So, I gauge care
based on mental health, physical health, and just
overall wellbeing of individuals, and knowing that we
deeply care about our people, whether they're people
on my staff or there are people that we're responsible
for, meaning students.”

Relationships
Self-care for teachers
Whole system (adults and
kids)
Presence

233

Appendix G: Semi-Structured Interview Protocol
For School District Leaders

*denotes questions asked as part of larger PACE (Policy Analysis for California Education)
project

Introduction
1. State name and position

2. *How are things going in the district right now?
a. What would you say is your biggest success and
b. Biggest challenge?

3. Please briefly describe your professional roles/responsibilities.
District & Community Context
4. *Can you describe the local community and any significant equity challenges the district
faced prior to COVID? To what extent has COVID changed that?

5. *Prior to the crisis, how would you characterize the district’s relationship with
community members and parents?
6. How about other local stakeholders and partners [potential probe for levels of trust]?
7. How, if at all, have these relationships changed during the pandemic?
Crisis Response
8. *Throughout the pandemic, what have been the priorities of your school district in terms
of supports and services provided to students and families (or specific constituencies,
e.g., labor, community)? Probe: How, if at all, did these priorities change over the course
of the pandemic and why?

9. *We noticed from online sources that the district took action on a few key areas such as:
academics/learning, technology, social-emotional supports.
a. Were you involved in any of these decisions or plans? Did the district elicit input
from other community members, parents, students or organizations? If so, how?
b. What are your thoughts on how these efforts are working out, what is enabling
success, or what might be barriers to success? [possible probes:]
i. Academics/learning
ii. Technology
iii. Opening schools/classrooms for on-site instruction - health/safety (probe:
ventilation, testing, PPE)
iv. Social-emotional and mental health

10. *Are there particular areas, schools, or subgroups of students that your district has been
supporting during this time? What have been some of the challenges and successes?

234

Care and Social-Emotional Well-Being Supports:
11. What social-emotional needs have you seen during this time? Probe for a specific
example; listen/probe for data systems.

12. What programs did your district have in place to support the social-emotional well-being
of students? Staff?

13. Has the district made any hiring or staffing decisions around social-emotional learning or
mental health since February 2020?

14. How is the district helping school leaders meet the social-emotional well-being needs of
students and staff? Partnering with community organizations to do so?

15. How have you, as a district leader, acted to take care of social-emotional well-being
needs? Been empowered to act? Held back?

16. Probe for: Collaborations with other central office staff? School leaders? Parents?
Community organizations?

17. How have the crises changed your social-emotional supports or services?

18. Have previous supports continued in a virtual learning environment?

19. Parental engagement right now—have they asked for help with social-emotional needs?

Conclusion
20. *Have there been any local policies and practices that the district has adopted that you
believe should stay post-pandemic? Why?

21. *We recognize that simultaneously with the pandemic we’ve experienced a wave of
protests/uprisings regarding racial injustice. How if at all has the district responded?
From your perspective, have they responded well?

22. *To your knowledge, has your district relied on experiences from prior crises/disasters or
plans in responding to COVID-19?

23. *What are the lessons learned from this crisis? Do you think your district is better
prepared for future disasters?

Follow-Up Questions
24. *Do you have any final thoughts or comments that you would like to share with us?

25. *How do you identify yourself in terms of race, gender, and age or age-range?

235

Appendix H: Coding Schema
Sample codes used for multiple rounds of inductive and deductive coding during data analysis
First Cycle
Code
Second Cycle
Code
Sample Quotation

Social-
Emotional
Well-Being
Supports

Adult social-
emotional

And as far as staff is concerned, I just see everyone being very
short-tempered and very raw. We know we're all not well and we
keep saying that, but we really don't have... I mean, what I do in
my job is I try to keep pushing things for social-emotional health,
right? Like, there's going to be this seminar on how to take care of
yourself and this and that or the other, but beyond that what else?
(Marisol, Central Office Leader)
Mental health
So we were the ones that they go to and we don't have any
professional training through grief counseling. All we carry with
us to the table is humanity. So burnout from that personal
investment, I think, has become very real for my staff when they
started to see that amount of loss. (Isabella, Central Office Leader)

Caring
Practices

Community
organizing

I went to talk to [a leader], I sent emails to the state superintendent,
to the county superintendent, and I told them, "This is what's going
on, guys, hold off in the there. I'll try my part as a parent, and if I
need assistance, I'll make sure you're aware of what's going on
here." And I told them, "Oh no, because that's the reason that I put
you there, so you can go and speak for me, and I'm just here
bringing you that information that we are going through, or what's
going on." (Pilar, Parent)
Relational care
And then we had one member actually normally a very contentious
member, I was thrilled. She said, I want to work to help families of
teachers who pass away, because I understand that they don't know
all of their rights. They don't know about the insurance. I want to
be the person who reaches out. Wow. Okay. That's great. (Faith,
Teachers Union Leader)

Institutional
Work
Improvisations
District-wide, have we done student focus groups. Not in this way,
this has been the first time I've seen it done in a pandemic situation
where it's all remote. But we do as a district, through PBIS ... I'd
say they're more surveys to see how the kids are feeling about the

236
school culture and what would they like to see in the student store,
and what events would they like to see for spirit week, and so we
try to survey… It's like, as a site leader, you recognize our students
need to have voice and choice, and if we keep giving them, this is
what we're doing, and this is how we're doing it, then we're
negating the most important customer that we're catering to.
(Tracy, School Leader)

Routines
I report progress for them, as required. I am not as in tune with the
professional development that my co-director in special ed
facilitates, but I collaborate with him, in the development of
actions that are part of our district's special education plan.
(Samuel, Central Office Leader)
Collaborative
problem
solving
I think it's just an overall shift for collaborative work. I'm guessing
collective impact isn't a new phrase for you. It's like the hot thing
in doing anything, and addressing holistic needs is the hot thing in
any kind of thing, so that naturally means you have to work
together. This kind of inter-dependency is getting clearer and
clearer. No one thing affects an individual, we know that, so we
have to work together. It's just the way it works. I think it's just an
overall tendency. We have a bit of history, as many counties do,
but organizing in La Subida County, and I think we're smart
enough to let it evolve. (Kristin, Community Partner).

COVID-19
Crisis

Crisis
response

So it started off as a debriefing meeting. What's the need? What do
you see? What do we still need? Trying to get down schedules and
just your basic food schedules, close this down. Now we're going
to open up, we're going to have, we need more people here just
listening to the sites and their needs so that the directors in the
different departments could respond to those needs. (Amelia,
Central Office Leader)

Increased need
We are bringing another agency in to help us with the targeted and
intensive interventions for students, because the referral lists are so
great. I mean, very long lists of students and for the counselors to
truly serve them well. They too have families and friends that are
getting sick. I've had a couple of our counselors get sick with
COVID. Three, I think. Four. So all of those things are happening
for them too. And we do have the money with Cares, and we do
have the money with other things. So we have put forth money to
bring in additional outside counselors for a day and a half a week
for each campus. (Jennifer, Central Office Leader)

237
Appendix I: Case Study Participant Demographics
Roles of Research Participants

Role Number
Superintendents 17
Assistant Superintendents & Chief Officers 10
Directors &Assistant Directors 14
SEL & Whole Child Leaders 5
Academic Coach 1

Gender of Research Participants

Gender Number Percentage
Male 25
53%
Female 22
47%

Gender of Research Participants by Role Type

Gender and Role Number Percentage
Male Superintendents
17 36%
Female Superintendents
0 0%
Female Other Central Office Leaders
22 47%
Male Other Central Office Leaders

8 17%

District Locations of Research Participants by U.S. Geographic Region

Region Number
Midwest 7
South 9
West 31

Participant District by Type

District Type Number
City 17
Suburb 15
Town 9
Rural 6

Source: National Center for Education Statistics, Common Core of Data District Directory

238
Appendix J: Participant Informed Consent Handout
The Caring School Systems Project: A Doctoral Dissertation Study

You are invited to participate in a research study conducted by Kate Kennedy at the University of Southern
California. Please read through this form and ask any questions you might have before deciding whether or
not you want to participate.

Purpose of the Study
This research study aims to understand care and social-emotional supports in K-12 public schools.

Participant Involvement & Confidentiality
If you agree to take part in this study, you will be asked to answer interview questions. I am going to record
our interview so that I can review it later. You do not have to answer any questions you don’t want to. If at
any point you would like me to stop recording or go “off record,” we can do that. Every attempt will be made
to keep your responses confidential. That means that no one besides the researcher and the professional
transcriber will hear the audio recording of this interview. Transcripts will not contain your real name; I will
provide you with a pseudonym. I will make every effort to keep your identity and exact regional location
confidential and will mask any revealing information in publications to the best of my ability. At the
completion of the study, direct identifiers will be destroyed, and the de-identified data may be used for
future research studies. If you do not want your data used in future studies, you should not participate.

You will receive no compensation for this study.

Publishing
I will use no identifiable information in any published research papers or presentations. I will do all I can to
keep information completely anonymous. I will only use general terms to refer to participants, such as
teacher, school leader, district leader, state leader, technical assistance provider, etc. I aim to conduct at
least sixty interviews throughout the United States from 2020-2022, so your voice will be one among many.
Please know that members of the University of Southern California’s Human Subjects Protection Program
(HSPP) may access the data. The HSPP reviews and monitors research studies to protect the rights and
welfare of research subjects.

Researcher Contact Information
If you have any questions or concerns about the research, please feel free to contact Kate Kennedy at
614.323.4299 or by email at katekenn@usc.edu.

Institutional Review Board Contact Information
If you have questions, concerns, or complaints about your rights as a research participant or the research in
general and are unable to contact the research team, or if you want to talk to someone independent of the
research team, please contact the University Park Institutional Review Board (UPIRB), 3720 South Flower
Street #301, Los Angeles, CA 90089-0702, (213) 821-5272 or upirb@usc.edu.

This is IRB # UP-18-00084

239
Appendix K: Analytical Memo on Caring Practices, Strategies, and Supports
“How” of Care: Practices, Strategies, & Supports for Care and Social-Emotional Well-Being in the School District Office,
Elaborations, and Thick Description

Practices, Strategies & Supports
for Care and Social-Emotional
Supports

Elaborations Thick Description (Quotes) or Summary

Higher-level District Leadership

A strategy for enabling care and
social-emotional supports from the
school district office stems from
higher-level district leadership that
guides, creates organizational
structures, and prioritizes care and
social-emotional well-being.
-Superintendent pushing for
SEL
-Supportive school board
-Hiring new central office
staff
-Changing titles, shifting
departments
-Assigning care/SEL to staff
(e.g. finding mental health
partnerships)
-Beliefs and values
-Attending to culture and
structure
-Connecting SEL to equity
-Responding to community
need
-Empowering central office
leaders to “do” the work of
care

Our new superintendent, [social-emotional learning] is a big
part of her focus. One of the things that she charged was
[with] two new members of the executive staff ... She hired me
and she hired a new assistant superintendent of school support
services. One of the things she charged us with [throughout
each department] was social and emotional learning… -
Robert, Assistant Superintendent

Our superintendent had asked me to take that on as working
on finding some different partnerships or just different
supports that could be available to students and staff. -Sarah,
Director of Student Services

Our last superintendent made a huge push for [social-
emotional learning], due to our population; 95% of our
schools are title one. -Kevin, Academic Coach

But [our superintendent] made it very clear from the top that
he's vested in [social-emotional] work and then it kind of
comes down. We also are very blessed that our school board
members have endorsed this program as well. So it's from the

240
top down. -Theresa, Director of Student Services

I've consistently said that building a caring and holistic
experience for kids and a holistic and caring work
environment for staff, it involves a culture and it involves
structure. -David, Superintendent

I do think that with our superintendent coming in as a new
superintendent with [equity and social-emotional supports] as
his passion, like he kind of gave me a little bit of license and
freedom to just move and that has also helped. -Lori, Director
of SEL

Agency

A practice for enabling care and
social-emotional supports from the
school district central office
involves using agency for decision
making, leadership, and navigation
of systems.

-Defining care or social-
emotional supports for the
district
-Creating a shared or common
language
-Brokering through training
-Applying passions to programs
and training
-Navigating systems in spite of
resistance to provide student
supports
-Building partnerships and
connections with external
providers (bridging)
-Deciding what, if any, SEL or
well-being curricula to purchase
and make available for use in
schools
-Leading strategic planning for
SEL
Because again, I try to tell people MTSS is just great teaching,
don't overthink it. SEL is not over here. There is a universal
approach to SEL. DEI is not over here, it's one thing. And so
what the hope would be, is that we have some universal
approaches, that we create common language. – Raymond,
Assistant Superintendent

I do a lot of PD for the district. The beautiful part about this
role is I've been able to create based on what my passion is.
I'm the suicide prevention coordinator, LGBTQ+ coordinator,
so I get to do all those trainings. Self-care and mindfulness are
a passion. I've created those for staff members. I do restorative
practice. – Elise, Assistant Director of Student Services

I think I’m a minority in thinking that social-emotional
learning is the key, and that I’m around and I work with a lot
of colleagues who have to focus on that… It’s trying to help
how do I navigate that system… How do I navigate that with
what I truly believe has to come first for kids? We can’t have
strong academic growth if we don’t have academic supports

241
-Creating implementation plans
for teachers and building
principals
and supports in place for kids who are going to struggle. –
Brandon, Director of Student Services

We've also established a partnership with [A] University and
their mental health and their marriage and family therapist
program as well, and we've leveraged that work to engage
partnerships at [B University]. - Samantha, Assistant
Superintendent

This is what I started out as a young person, trying to make
better for people, and looking at wellness as a part of the
whole person, and knowing that these connections in
relationships are so important for our satisfaction, and our,
just our overall quality of life. – Cheryl, Director of SEL

We haven’t run off and purchased a curriculum… As a district,
we do not have this law you will do this, you will do that, you
will do this curriculum. – Randy, Superintendent

This goes back to the [SEL strategic plan] document that says
to include adult SEL development, training practice, school
wide review of current SEL practices. Year two it includes
introduction of incorporation of common language for staff
and students. – Dennis, Director of Student Services

Structures

A strategy for enabling care and
social-emotional supports in the
school district central office
includes structures and supports in
service of care.
-Collaborative teams
-Leading SEL district teams
-Connecting initiatives within
the district in service of care
We do not work in silos. It’s very much collaboration. –
Cheryl, Director of SEL

SEL District Team committee has been working heard on
how/to what extent to adopt the CASEL (Collaborative for
Academic, Social, and Emotional Learning) core
competencies, and figuring out how they, as a district, wish to
define SEL. They are further working to connect their SEL

242
work to the state teacher evaluation model. – Dennis, Director
of Student Services

This afternoon I meet with the administrator who’s going to be
leading our social-emotional learning work. He and I are
going to break apart the strategic plan for that goal area. He’s
going to get ready to form his team in which it will be made up
of some teachers and counselors and a couple of
administrators to really look at our social-emotional
continuum of services from K to 12 and start building on that.
– Brandon, Director of Student Services

We've implemented many programs. MTSS tiered system, we
have positive behavior intervention support systems, we're a
[brand] discipline school district and it goes all the way from
the top, board approved it, worked our way down. We have a
robust mental health program that we partner with other
universities, where we have social workers, family therapists,
who are working on their clinical hours. – Ron,
Superintendent

Responsive Leadership

A practice that enables care and
social-emotional supports in the
school district central office is
based on community
responsiveness through the
cyclical use of feedback loops and
district-led communications. The
voices of, and input from,
teachers, students, staff, and
community members are honored
-Data collection with students
-Responsiveness to
data/students needs by
providing care supports (e.g.,
counseling groups)
-Connecting resources, people,
and needs
-Seeking resources to support
pressing needs, including
COVID related isolation, for
example
-Valuing and drawing on
We had a social justice question on one of our survey tools and
that's how we learned that there was a significant number of
our students who were anxious about the whole thing that was
going on with social justice. And out of that we have some
groups going on to give those students a voice and a safe place
to be able to share their concerns and to get support. Anxiety
was probably the top theme. – Theresa, Director of Student
Services

And then also educating the [District Well-Being] Team on
stress management, anxiety management, when to know when
people need to be referred to, if they needed to see a

243
and acted upon.

student voice, especially those
most marginalized
-Making changes based on
student input
-Encouraging school-level
family engagement mechanisms
professional. And ways that could be done, and how all the
different places in the community where it was being offered,
online, so that they could just have the numbers right there.
Screening questions to ask parents at home, if they detect it.
Because some kind of abusive or intense situations going on
over Zoom. – Cheryl, Director of SEL

So, this data plays an integral role in how we make decisions,
informed decisions, on how best to educate our kids. This year,
our topics are school safety, self-efficacy, sense of belonging,
teacher student relationships, rigorous expectations, and then
secondary. – Winnie, Assistant Superintendent

So that began our whole crusade on how do we make sure that
every child has an adult that they know that whatever happens
they can go to? And so that's what shifted our whole
counseling world, our whole world at that point. - Randy,
Superintendent

Two main huge things and this was K-12, was conferences
before school started, with families, even in high school and
middle school. The amount of staff that said, "Oh, my
goodness. I did not think it was going to be beneficial," but to
sit down and get to know the families and who they are as a
family, and who their child is, was huge. – Frances, Director of
Student Services

244
Appendix L: Description of Care Supports
Description of Care Supports, Details, & Number of Mentions by Research Participants
Description of Care Support Details

Mentions
Multi-Tiered Systems of Supports (MTSS)

15
Positive Behavior Intervention Supports (PBIS)

10
SEL Curricula and Tools

44

Second Step

Panorama

CASEL (competencies, lessons)

Character Strong

Integrating SEL into academics/curriculum;
creating own curriculum

Second Step

Harmony

Self-Regulation training

Leader in Me

Mindfulness

Advisory

Elementary family groups

SEL curriculum, misc. other or unnamed

Caring School Community

Facing History

Effective Classroom

Morning Meetings, Responsive Classroom

Suicide prevention

Discipline Programs

17

Restorative Practices

Conscious Discipline

Discipline data tracking system

Sound Discipline
Mental Health Supports

45

245

Social Workers

Counselors

School psychologists

Universal screening

Trauma-responsive curricula, trauma-informed practices or
teaching

Mental health specialists, agencies
Other Related Care Programs

24

Early Childhood

Parent supports

Partnerships

Home visits

Community or family resource centers

Cross peer tutoring

Calming room

Student program, extracurriculars, clubs

Partnership with police

Nurses

Therapy dogs

Alternative school

Attendance supports

Behavior interventionists

Adult Supports

30

PD for staff (self-care)

Mental health supports, services, and agencies

Employee Assistance Program

Check-ins, surveys, screenings

Cultural competency training

Teacher "care coaches"

PLC time

Wellness program for staff, teacher wellness days

ACES training
Structures, Staff, or Plans

13

Whole child goals into strategic plan

Student Services

Behavioral Health Department

School improvement teams

Community collaborative team

Mental health committee

Trauma Response Team

Well-being team

246

Whole child specialists

Appendix M: My Intellectual Contribution to This Study
In this short afterword, I discuss my intellectual contributions to this dissertation. This
study used a multi-method approach to answer my research questions, outlined in Table 13
below.
Table 13. Overview of Multi-Method Design

Chapter Title Research Questions Data Method(s)

Chapter 2:

Love and Care in Education: A
Critical Qualitative Research
Synthesis

with Jacob Alonso
1. How is love and caring in education
conceptualized and defined in
empirical research?

2. To what extent does the current
landscape of love and caring theory in
education extend to school leadership?
To education policy research?

Peer-reviewed
empirical articles,
published 1980-2018
Critical
qualitative
research
synthesis
Chapter 3:

Ensuring the Social-Emotional
Well-Being of Students and
Staff: Toward a Theory of
School District Care

with Jeff Walls

3. How do district leaders
conceptualize care and social-
emotional supports at the district
level?
Qualitative
interviews with 47
school district
leaders, document
analysis
Grounded
theory,
deductive
qualitative
analysis

Chapter 4:

“You Are One of Us, and We
Are One of You:” The “Work”
of Mobilizing, Advocating, and
Organizing for Care in The
School District Central Office

Solo-authored

4. How do central office leaders create
or maintain well-being and social-
emotional supports in a crisis?
Qualitative case
study data (28
educator interviews,
document analysis)
Case study
Chapter 5:

The Subject is Caring; The
Verb is Institutionalizing: A
Field-Level Analysis and
Implications for Equity

Solo-authored

5. What field-level patterns are found
within district-level care and social-
emotional practices and routines?

6. How, and to what extent, is caring
institutionalized?
Qualitative case
study data
(interviews with 47
school district
leaders, document
analysis)
Case study

247
To put it simply, I conceived of a project on care and love in education years ago, and
that seed of an idea turned into this dissertation. The literature review, chapter two, was my idea
and contribution. I wrote most of that paper and conducted all analyses alone. The paper sat on a
shelf for a few years while I did other things. I realized that my colleague, Jacob Alonso, also
had an interest in caring organizations, so I sent him the paper draft and asked him to review it.
He had some wonderful ideas for infusing more literature from organizational sociology and
helped flesh out the discussion and conclusion. While it was originally my paper, it became our
paper and ended up stronger for the collaboration.
Chapter 3 presents a grounded theory study that defines district care and offers theorizing
about organizational care. I originally started this project alone. I wrote the interview protocol
and conducted the interviews. I drafted the literature review and was in the early stages of
analysis when I connected with fellow care scholar, Jeff Walls. It was a delight to realize that we
had both been conducting studies on central office care during the same timeframe (and during
COVID-19 stay-home orders, no less). We compared notes on our individual studies and decided
to collaborate on a few papers. Throughout our shared project, we met regularly to discuss
similarities among our data sets, and once we combined them for analysis, we agreed on a few
different papers from our pooled data. Thus, what started as a solo project became a
collaborative one, and I believe the research presented is stronger for that collaboration. Chapters
3 and 5 both come from this pooled qualitative data.
For the paper presented in chapter 3, I led the analysis process and early paper drafting.
Jeff contributed with feedback, additions, and writing on an earlier, practitioner-oriented version
of the article (Kennedy & Walls, 2022). For the version in this dissertation, I conducted multiple,

248
additional rounds of analysis independently. Jeff’s role was to provide feedback, act as a thought
partner, and help with early analysis.
Chapter 4, a case study of one caring school district, La Subida, was led by me. Although
a second researcher joined me for the interviews—as they were part of a larger project through
Policy Analysis for California Education—the analysis and writing were my singular endeavor.
Finally, chapter 5 is a solo-authored contribution as well. While the pooled data set
described above from chapter 3was used, the analysis, framing, and writing were completed
entirely by me.
In sum, I conceived of this project, organized this project, and led data collection,
analysis, and writing. My co-authors were wonderful collaborators and thought partners. I
believe myself fortunate to have worked with talented scholars to round out several of these
papers.

Abstract (if available)

Abstract Care and social-emotional supports are critical issues in education. After years of social isolation and loss related to the COVID-19 pandemic, as well as anxiety due to social unrest, conservative backlash, and climate change, school districts are increasingly taking up the work of providing social-emotional well-being, mental health, and caring supports. Yet how school districts organize around issues of care—and to what extent district leaders think about caring leadership—are under-examined and under-theorized in education leadership and policy studies. This dissertation study seeks to fill these gaps through four empirical papers. I open with a systematic literature review on care and love in K12 education, presented in chapter 2. Then, in chapter 3, I draw on qualitative data using a grounded theory approach, resulting in a novel definition of district-level care. In a move toward theorizing organizational care, I advance a series of theoretical propositions. The next paper presents the findings of an instrumental case study conducted in a purposively chosen caring school district. I find that district-level care was multidimensional and distributed, enacted through a collective vision of care that was rooted in a love of place and focused on healing. The final paper is a case study of school district leaders, presented in chapter 5. I examine how, and to what extent, care and well-being supports are institutionalized across the meso, or field, level. Analysis revealed field-level patterns of care and social-emotional well-being supports. In this paper I put classic ideas from institutional theory into conversation with my case study findings, discussing the process of institutionalizing care. Together, these papers offer new evidence about district-level caring.

Linked assets

University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Conceptually similar

PDF

Leadership practices impacting Minnesota school principals’ employee well-being and burnout during the pandemic

PDF

Tough conversations and missed opportunities: implementing district policies for racial equity

PDF

The cultural politics of educational well-being

PDF

Preparing teachers for social emotional learning driven instruction and practice

PDF

Organizational levers for frontline health care employee well-being in long-term care

PDF

From coexistence to collaboration: understanding interschool interactions at co‐located sites

PDF

Titrating the solution: the diffusion and institutionalization of the logic of continuous improvement

PDF

Race in the class: exploring learning and the (re)production of racial meanings in doctoral coursework

PDF

Tempering transformative change: whiteness and racialized emotions in graduate leaders' implementation of equity plans

PDF

The social media dilemma in education: policy design, implementation and effects

PDF

Teacher well-being matters: an explorative study of early childhood teacher well-being, their experiences, and perspectives

PDF

Leveraging social-emotional learning to improve school climate, mental health, and student achievement in K-12 student populations

PDF

Transformative social-emotional learning: an action research study on supporting parents in a predominantly White community…

PDF

Reproducing inequity in organizations: gendered and racialized emotional labor in pubic organizations

PDF

Frontline workers serving students: a study on the well-being of student affairs professionals during the COVID-19 pandemic

PDF

Nourish to flourish: strengthening social emotional wellness of teachers to mitigate stress, enrich engagement, and increase efficacy: an evaluation study

PDF

Teachers' experiences implementing social and emotional learning in the elementary classroom

PDF

Fever dreams: the promise and limitations of Black and Latinx parent organizing during the first year of the COVID-19 pandemic

PDF

An intersectional examination of inequity in Black Bahamian men’s employment experience: a critical theory and social cognitive perspective

PDF

Teacher as nurturer: perceptions of elementary teachers integrating social and emotional learning practices

Asset Metadata

Creator Kennedy, Kate Elizabeth (author)

Core Title Care and social-emotional well-being: organizational conditions in policy and practice

School Rossier School of Education

Degree Doctor of Philosophy

Degree Program Urban Education Policy

Degree Conferral Date 2022-12

Publication Date 12/15/2022

Defense Date 12/14/2022

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

Tag Care,case study,education leadership,education policy,educational change,grounded theory,K12 education,OAI-PMH Harvest,organizational theory,qualitative research,social-emotional learning,well-being

Format theses (aat)

Language English

Contributor Electronically uploaded by the author (provenance)

Advisor Marsh, Julie (committee chair), Beckman, Christine (committee member), Burch, Patricia (committee member), Posselt, Julie (committee member)

Creator Email katek@rand.org,katekenn@usc.edu

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-oUC112621020

Unique identifier UC112621020

Identifier etd-KennedyKat-11382.pdf (filename)

Legacy Identifier etd-KennedyKat-11382

Document Type Dissertation

Format theses (aat)

Rights Kennedy, Kate Elizabeth

Internet Media Type application/pdf

Type texts

Source 20221216-usctheses-batch-998 (batch), 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 author, as the original true and official version of the work, but does not grant the reader permission to use the work if the desired use is covered by copyright. It is the author, as rights holder, who must provide use permission if such use is covered by copyright. The original signature page accompanying the original submission of the work to the USC Libraries is retained by the USC Libraries and a copy of it may be obtained by authorized requesters contacting the repository e-mail address given.

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

Repository Email cisadmin@lib.usc.edu