University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

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

(USC Thesis Other)

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

PDF

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content The Impact of the COVID-19 Pandemic on K–12 Public School Districts in Southern
California: Responses of Superintendents, Assistant Superintendents, and Principals
by
Anthony Ray Locke II
Rossier School of Education
University of Southern California
A dissertation submitted to the faculty
in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of
Doctor of Education
August 2022
© Copyright by Anthony Ray Locke II 2022
All Rights Reserved
The Committee for Anthony Ray Locke certifies the approval of this Dissertation
David Cash
John Roach
Rudy Castruita, Committee Chair
Rossier School of Education
University of Southern California
2022
Abstract
Public health recommendations and governmental measures during the COVID-19 pandemic
resulted in numerous restrictions on daily living including social distancing, masking, stay at
home orders, and remote schooling. While these measures were imperative to mitigate the
spreading of COVID-19, the impact of these restrictions on educational systems was
considerable. This research investigates the impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic on K–12 public
schools in Southern California school districts. Following a structured review of the literature,
this report presents the results of a mixed methods data analysis of superintendents, assistant
superintendents, and site principals.
4
Acknowledgements
The path toward this dissertation has been overwhelmingly inspiring. This work is the
product for great people pouring care, prayer, wisdom and kindness into me. The completion of
this dissertation is thanks in large part to my cohort of dedicated professionals in educational
leadership. For the better part of 18-months your collaborative spirit has challenged and buoyed
my soul. I am fully indebted to my respected and accomplished chair, Dr. Rudy Castruita. and
committee members Dr. David Cash and Dr. John Roach. Their understanding, wisdom,
enthusiasm, and occasional foot in my tail was a catalyst for my growth and development. These
administrators were truly inspiring agents of change.
I would also like to thank my cohort and dissertation partner Dr. Patrick Healy. Patrick
and I spent many days sitting in Waite Phillips Hall writing and collaborating on this research
dissertation.
I am a product of the proverb, it takes a village to raise a child. My village is anchored by
the family. I am extremely grateful to my parents, (Tony and Andrea) and siblings (Jennifer,
Robert and Khaila) for being with me at every moment and providing continuous moral support
and affection. To my Morehouse brothers, teammates and family who have supported my
educational and career journey, thank you. Finally, a sincere thank you to my partner Azita for
her understanding, prayers, sacrifice and love enabling me to achieve this professional milestone.
5
Preface
Some of the chapters of this dissertation were co-authored and have been identified as
such. While jointly authored dissertations are not the norm of most doctoral programs, a
collaborative effort is reflective of real-world practices. To meet their objective of developing
highly skilled practitioners equipped to take on real-world challenges, the USC Graduate School
and the USC Rossier School of Education have permitted our inquiry team to carry out this
shared venture.
This dissertation is part of a collaborative project between two doctoral candidates:
Patrick Healy and Anthony Locke. We two doctoral students met with anonymous
superintendents, assistant superintendents, and principals in Southern California K–12 School
Districts. However, the process for dissecting and acquiring a thorough constructivist perspective
from the selected participants was too large for a single dissertation. As a result, the two
dissertations produced by our inquiry team collectively examined the effective practices of
principals in continuation education.
6
Table of Contents
Abstract iv
Acknowledgements v
Preface vi
List of Tables x
List of Figures xi
Chapter One: Overview of the Study 1
Background of the Problem 2
Statement of the Problem 3
Purpose of the Study 3
Research Questions 3
Significance of the Study 4
Limitation and Delimitations 5
Definitions of Terms 5
Organization of the Study 11
Chapter Two: Review of the Literature 12
History of the COVID-19 Pandemic 13
Crisis and Preparation for the Pandemic 14
Impacts of the COVID-19 Pandemic 15
Changing Roles During the Pandemic 16
Roles of Teachers and Classified Unions 18
Social and Emotional Impacts of the Pandemic 20
Academic Learning Loss During the Pandemic 22
Inequities of Marginalized Groups During the Pandemic 25
Impacts of State and Local Governments During the Pandemic 28
7
Summary 30
Chapter Three: Methodology 31
Restatement of the Problem 31
Purpose of Study 32
Research Questions 32
Research Team 33
Research Methodology Summary 33
Sample and Population 35
Instrumentation and Conceptual Framework 38
Data Collection 39
Data Analysis 40
Survey Protocols 40
Interview Protocols 41
Instrumentation 41
Ethical Considerations 43
Summary 44
Chapter Four: Findings 45
Participants 46
Findings by Research Question 48
Summary 69
Chapter Five: Summary of Study, Implications, and Recommendations 73
Statement of the Problem 74
Purpose of the Study 74
Research Questions 74
Methodology 75
8
Key Findings 76
Comparative Analysis and Common Themes From All Participating Districts 87
Implications for Policy and Practice 89
Recommendations for Future Research 93
Conclusion 95
References 96
Appendix A: CDC Indicators and Thresholds for Community Transmission of
COVID-19 109
9
List of Tables
Table 1: Participant Selection Criteria 37
Table 2: Participating School Districts’ Student Population Demographic Information 47
Table 3: Participants’ Years in Current Position and in Position at Current District 50
Table 4: Superintendents’ Perceptions of Financial Implications of COVID-19 51
Table 5: Superintendents’ Perceptions of the Impact of Health and Safety Guidelines 56
Table 6: Superintendents’ Perceptions of the Impact of Union Negotiations 61
Table 7: Superintendents’ Perceptions of Parent Concerns 66
Appendix A: CDC Indicators and Thresholds for Community Transmission of COVID-19 109
10
List of Figures
Figure 1: Frameworks of Crisis Management 39
Figure 2: Conceptual Framework 43
11
1
Chapter One: Overview of the Study
The rapidly evolving and lingering COVID-19 pandemic has presented school systems
with an unfamiliar level of crisis as the crises more typically faced tend to be either immediate,
like an active shooter, or persistent, such as underachievement (Gainey, 2009). The pandemic
prompted schools to close on very short notice under “hold harmless” guidelines from state
agencies overseeing education and with the expectation of these closures lasting several weeks
(Fensterwald, 2021). However, the school closures, whether full or partial, caused by COVID-19
have continued to impact school districts for over a year. As the pandemic lasted, the issues
facing school leaders and their school communities became more complex (Mayer et al., 2008).
Federal and state governments assisted school districts financially to help address the
challenges of distance learning and safety. Governmental agencies also provided rules, guidance,
and protocols to assist schools in their operations under these new circumstances. While
sometimes helpful, these guidelines could also be contradictory and difficult to enforce, causing
even more problems for school districts. As these rules and regulations evolved, so too did the
roles and expectations of district employees. Unions renegotiated basic aspects of working
conditions during this time to keep members safe and to express how the pandemic impacted
their work. Families were also heavily impacted by the pandemic as students were forced to stay
home to learn. Parents rely on schools not just for education, but also for childcare and food, as
well as social, emotional, and medical care for their children. All stakeholders’ concerns
drastically changed the role of school leadership, both at the district and site levels. School
leaders became crisis managers tasked with seeing their organizations through the tumultuous
time of the COVID-19 pandemic.
2
Background of the Problem
Over the last century, schools throughout the United States have been faced with various
public health crises that have impacted education for K–12 students. One of the deadliest
pandemics in human history was the Spanish flu of 1918 (H1N1, Influenza A), which lasted 2
years, infected approximately 500 million people, and left behind a death toll of an estimated 20
to 50 million (Stern, 2009). Some 80 years later, the world saw severe acute respiratory
syndrome (SARS) circle the globe from 2002 to 2004, which infected over 8,000 people from 29
different countries and caused a death toll of 774 (Centers for Disease Control & Prevention
[CDC], 2020). In 2009, the swine flu (another H1N1 virus similar to the Spanish flu of 1918)
broke out worldwide, lasted just under 8 months, and caused an estimated 284,000 deaths
(Braunack-Mayer, 2013; Stern, 2009). COVID-19 was not the first time that American schools
closed their doors as the result of a flu pandemic. The deadly second wave of the 1918–1919
Spanish flu pandemic caused many urban K–12 public schools to close, in some cases up to 15
weeks (Stern, 2009). The difference in school closures as related to the COVID-19 pandemic is
that they occurred as a preventative public health measure for the disease, rather than as a
response to massive community spread.
The most recent and current pandemic, COVID-19, was first identified in December 2019
and had resulted in over 32 million confirmed cases and over 578,000 documented deaths in the
United States alone as of May 2021 (CDC, 2020). Worldwide, this pandemic has resulted in over
156 million confirmed cases and over 3.2 million documented deaths (World Health
Organization [WHO], 2020). While COVID-19 has yet to rival the statistics of the Spanish flu
from 100 years ago, the U.S. education system’s response to the COVID-19 crisis is historically
unparalleled (Malkus et al., 2020; Stern, 2009).
3
Statement of the Problem
The COVID-19 pandemic presented a disruption in the K–12 education system, causing
unforeseen consequences for school districts and highlighting financial implications, the impact
of agencies, negotiations with unions, and the impact on students and community. COVID-19
shifted the role and scope of schools and administrators beyond instructional leaders,
transforming them into veritable crisis managers.
Purpose of the Study
The purpose of this study was to analyze the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on K–12
Southern California school districts and understand what district and site administrators have
learned from their experiences and their decision-making responsibilities in managing the crisis.
This research brings to light the impact of the pandemic on students, families, leaders, schools,
and districts. More importantly, this study examined the responses of district and school
leadership to the COVID-19 crisis that has influenced administrative practices, student
achievement, financial responsibility, union leadership, and community/parent support.
Research Questions
The study was guided by four research questions:
1. What financial implications, if any, has the COVID-19 pandemic had on K–12 public
school districts in Southern California, and how have district superintendents,
assistant superintendents, and principals addressed these implications?
2. What impact, if any, have federal, state, and local health agencies had on K–12 public
school districts in Southern California during the COVID-19 pandemic, and what
strategies have district superintendents, assistant superintendents, and principals
implemented to address the suggested guidelines?
4
3. What role, if any, have union negotiations played in the responses of K–12 public
school districts in Southern California to the COVID-19 pandemic?
4. How, if at all, have leadership teams from K–12 public school districts in Southern
California (comprised of superintendents, assistant superintendents, and principals)
addressed concerns of the parent community regarding safety, nutrition, distance
learning, lack of technology, academic standing, and how and when to re-open
schools due to the COVID-19 pandemic?
Significance of the Study
This study is significant as it will add to the body of knowledge about the evolving roles
and responses of Southern California K–12 public school superintendents, assistant
superintendents, and principals during the COVID-19 pandemic. COVID-19 shifted the role and
scope of schools and administrators beyond that of instructional leaders by transforming them
into crisis managers. This unprecedented event forced school leaders to make quick, strategic
changes to support students and families. Educational leadership was thrust into the limelight in
California from the governor’s office to K–12 teachers and classified staff members who
prioritized student safety at the expense of academic excellence. Difficult decisions had to be
made to support a myriad of student needs throughout school closures. By analyzing the effective
and ineffective practices of leaders on the frontlines of this disaster, such as superintendents,
assistant superintendents, and principals, we hope to gain insight about prevention and
implementation as future crises occur in education. If a pandemic arises again, this study will
support management of the crises by school leaders, educators, boards of education, and
community stakeholders who are charged with reimagining and revolutionizing a new
5
educational landscape that is committed to building a culture of equity in order to repay the
educational debt.
Limitation and Delimitations
There are some boundaries of the study that are beyond the control of the research team
and may affect internal validity. Limitations of this study include the following:
● Public education continues to undergo disruptions caused by the COVID-19
pandemic.
● Participants are only from Southern California public schools.
● Self-reporting surveys are included.
● Interview questions may contain researcher bias.
● Interviews are conducted virtually.
● The sample may not accurately represent all school districts in California.
A possible next step could include using a similar process to analyze a larger representation from
different districts throughout California or the United States.
The delimitations of this study relate to generalizability of the findings and are associated
with availability of time and resources. To narrow the focus of this research, participants are
willing superintendents, assistant superintendents, and principals currently leading large urban
public school districts in Southern California.
Definitions of Terms
The following is a list of key terms and definitions used throughout this research study:
Assembly and Senate Bill 86: This bill provides $2 billion as an incentive for schools that have
not already done so to offer in-person instruction beginning April 1, 2021, starting with the
earliest grades. The legislation also allocates $4.6 billion for all school districts regardless of
6
whether they meet the timetable Governor Gavin Newsom called for in his “Safe Schools for
All” plan (Jones & Freedberg, 2021).
● Assembly and Senate Bill 129 is a landmark state budget agreement that adds a year
of school for all 4-year-olds, significantly expands Cal Grants and middle-class
scholarships for college students and provides record funding for pre-K–12 schools
anxious to use billions in one-time money to bounce back from a 15-month pandemic
(Jones & Freedberg, 2021).
● Asynchronous learning occurs without direct, simultaneous interaction of
participants, such as videos featuring direct instruction of new content that students
watch on their own time (CDE, 2020).
● California Department of Education (CDE) is a governmental body that oversees the
state’s diverse public school system and is responsible for the education of more than
6 million children and young adults in more than 10,000 schools with 300,000
teachers. Specifically, they are in charge of enforcing education law and regulations
and continuing to reform and improve public school programs (CDE, 2020).
● California Department of Public Health (CDPH) is a public agency that focuses on
infectious disease control and prevention, food safety, environmental health,
laboratory services, patient safety, emergency preparedness, chronic disease
prevention and health promotion, family health, health equity and vital records and
statistics (CDPH, 2021).
● California School Employees Association (CSEA) is the largest classified school
employees’ union in the United States, representing more than 250,000 school
support staff throughout California. CSEA members perform a wide range of
7
essential work in public schools and community colleges, including security, food
services, office and clerical work, school maintenance and operations, transportation,
academic assistance and paraeducator services, library and media assistance,
computer services and more (CSEA, 2021).
● Centers for Disease Control (CDC) is the nation’s health agency that “conducts
critical science and provides health information” (para. 6) and responds to health
crises (CDC, 2021).
● Cohort “refers to a group of individuals who have something in common” such as
same grade level, or specific student groups such as English learners” (Ed Glossary,
2013a, para. 1).
● Collective bargaining agreement (CBA) refers to the union representing teachers in
negotiating terms of employment contracts and is the primary activity of a union.
Under the Rodda Act, passed in 1975, the school board and the union must review the
terms of the existing agreement at least once every 3 years. The result of this
negotiation determines the salaries and benefits, hours, calendar, and most aspects of
teachers’ working conditions. Negotiators can also discuss problems and address new
issues that have arisen during the period of the contract. This can be especially
significant when the legislature and governor have passed new laws—for example,
about COVID-19 safety measures, school finance or teacher training and evaluation.
A district can implement these laws only after the impact has been collectively
bargained (Ed-Data, n.d.).
● Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security (CARES) Act was passed by
Congress on March 27, 2020. This bill allotted $2.2 trillion to provide fast and direct
8
economic aid to the American people negatively impacted by the COVID-19
pandemic. Of that money, approximately $14 billion was given to the Office of
Postsecondary Education as the Higher Education Emergency Relief Fund (CSEA,
2021).
● COVID-19 is a novel strain of coronaviruses that shares 79% genetic similarity with
SARS-CoV from the 2003 SARS outbreak, declared WHO (2020) as a global
pandemic (Xiong et al., 2020).
● Distance learning refers to instruction in which the pupil and instructor are in
different locations and pupils are under the general supervision of a certificated
employee of the local educational agency (CDE, 2020).
● Elementary and Secondary School Emergency Relief (ESSER) was established in the
CARES Act and was further funded under the Coronavirus Response and Relief
Supplemental Appropriations (CRRSA) Act and the American Rescue Plan (ARP)
Act. Under this stipulation, the U.S. Department of Education (2021) awarded
emergency relief funds to address the impact the COVID-19 pandemic has had, and
continues to have, on elementary and secondary schools across the nation.
● Essential workers are those who conduct a range of operations and services that are
typically essential to continue critical infrastructure operations (National Conference
of State Legislatures, 2021).
● Free and Appropriate Public Education (FAPE) that meets personalized educational
needs is guaranteed to all students ages 3 to 22 education. They have a right to fully
take part in school life, including after-school activities. What is appropriate for each
child will be different because each has unique needs (Turnbull et al., 2019).
9
● Hybrid (blended) learning refers to a type of instruction that combines in-person and
distance learning (CDE, 2020).
● In-person instruction describes students receiving in-person instruction for at least
part of the instructional day for the full instructional week (State of California, 2021).
● Learning loss “refers to any specific or general loss of knowledge and skills or to
reversals in academic progress, most commonly due to extended gaps or
discontinuities in a student’s education” (Ed Glossary, 2013b, para. 1).
● Pandemic is defined by the International Epidemiology Association’s Dictionary of
Epidemiology (Porta, 2008) as “an epidemic occurring worldwide, or over a very
wide area, crossing international boundaries and usually affecting a large number of
people” (p. 179).
● Personal protective equipment (PPE) is equipment worn to minimize exposure to
hazards that cause serious workplace injuries and illnesses. These injuries and
illnesses may result from contact with chemical, radiological, physical, electrical,
mechanical, or other workplace hazards. Personal protective equipment may include
items such as gloves, safety glasses and shoes, earplugs or muffs, hard hats,
respirators, or coveralls, vests, and full body suits (CDC, 2021).
● Social emotional learning (SEL) reflects the critical role of positive relationships and
emotional connections in the learning process and helps students develop a range of
skills they need for school and life (CDE, 2020).
● Stakeholders are all parties invested in the welfare and success of a school and its
students, including administrators, teachers, staff members, students, parents,
families, community members, local business leaders, and elected officials such as
10
school board members, city councilors, and state representatives. Stakeholders may
also be collective entities, such as local businesses, organizations, advocacy groups,
committees, media outlets, and cultural institutions, in addition to organizations that
represent specific groups, such as teachers’ unions, parent-teacher organizations, and
associations representing superintendents, principals, school boards, or teachers in
specific academic disciplines (e.g., the National Council of Teachers of English or the
Vermont Council of Teachers of Mathematics). In a word, stakeholders have a “stake”
in the school and its students, meaning that they have personal, professional, civic, or
financial interest or concern (Ed-Data, n.d).
● Synchronous learning takes place in real-time, with delivery of instruction and/or
interaction with participants such as a live whole-class, small group, or individual
meeting via an online platform or in-person when possible (CDE, 2020).
● Williams Compliance Act, originally known as the 2000 Eliezer Williams et al. vs.
State of California et al. (Williams) case, was a class action suit against the State of
California and state education agencies. The plaintiffs included nearly 100 San
Francisco County students who claimed that these agencies failed to provide public
school students with equal access to instructional materials, safe and decent school
facilities, and qualified teachers. The case was settled in 2004, resulting in the state
allocating $138 million in additional funding for standards-aligned instructional
materials for schools and another $50 million for implementation costs. Now known
as the Williams Compliance Act, the settlement was implemented through legislation
adopted in August 2004: Senate Bill (SB) 6, SB 550, Assembly Bill (AB) 1550, AB
11
2727, AB 3001. Up to 2.3 million California public school students may benefit from
funding from the Williams case settlement (CDE, 2020).
● World Health Organization (WHO) is a team of more than 8,000 professionals that
includes the world’s leading public health experts, including doctors, epidemiologists,
scientists, and managers. Together, WHO coordinates the world’s response to health
emergencies, promotes wellbeing, prevents disease, and expands access to healthcare
(WHO, n.d.).
Organization of the Study
This research study is organized into five chapters. Chapter 1 provides an introduction to
the study, statement of the problem, purpose of the study, significance of the study, the research
questions, limitations, delimitations, and the definitions of key terms. Chapter 2 reviews the
existing literature relevant to the problem. Chapter 3 presents the methodology of the research
design, sampling and data collection procedures, instruments designed for data collection, and
data analysis procedures. Chapter 4 details the findings and major themes of the research along
with an analysis of the data. Chapter 5 provides a summary of the study’s findings, a conclusion,
an examination of possible implications, and recommendations for future research.
12
Chapter Two: Review of the Literature
The purpose of this study was to understand how K–12 school leaders experienced
distance learning during the COVID-19 crisis in hopes of better supporting our school
communities now and in the future. This literature review focuses on effects of the COVID-19
pandemic on students, teachers, parents, and communities, specifically, the ways in which the
pandemic impacted K–12 school systems.
Issues facing school leaders and their school communities have become more complex
(Mayer et al., 2008). As a result, effective school leaders have been required to shift their focus
“back to basics” and become crisis managers to best see their organizations through the trials and
tribulations of the school year (Anderson, 2020). The coronavirus pandemic prompted school
closures with very little notice under hold harmless guidelines from state agencies overseeing
education with the expectation of school closures lasting several weeks (Fensterwald, 2020).
Pearson and Clair (1998) defined a crisis as a “low probability, high impact event that threatens
the viability of the organization and is characterized by ambiguity or cause, effect and means of
resolution” (p. 60). According to Coombs and Holladay (2012), due to the unpredictability of a
crisis, no organization can successfully prepare for every possibility, and the crisis created by the
COVID-19 pandemic was no exception. While state and county guidelines were implemented to
support school leaders navigating the impacts of the pandemic, K-12 leaders were overseeing
constant unpredictable, unprecedented circumstances and managing competing interests while
serving all stakeholders through a new, specialized skill set. Their priority was to lead with
clarity of goals, collective expertise, and rational and systematic thinking rather than personal
preference (Bolman & Deal, 2017). This literature review summarizes the history of health crises
13
that caused school closures and discusses impacts of the coronavirus pandemic on school leaders,
teachers, students, and their families.
History of the COVID-19 Pandemic
COVID-19, also known as coronavirus, is an illness that causes severe acute respiratory
symptoms in patients. Coronaviruses are transmitted from animals to people with this particular
strain thought to have originated from a seafood market in Wuhan, China, in late December
2019. As of March 2021, there were over 123,869,171 cases worldwide. Of those cases,
2,727,742 ended in death from COVID-19 related illnesses (WHO, 2021). The elderly and those
with preexisting chronic health conditions accounted for the majority of those deaths. The
COVID-19 pandemic resulted in closures of non-essential businesses, services, and school
systems.
In the United States, California had the highest number of COVID-19 cases as of March
2021 according to the CDC (2021). One year earlier, on March 16, 2020, the Los Angeles
Unified School District announced school closures due to the pandemic that resulted in a wave of
school districts to follow in closing schools. More than 5.7 million students in the state of
California were ordered to stay home and pivot to a distance learning model (Procter, 2021).
Students, teachers, administrators, and parents were asked to stay home, socially distance, and
teach virtually through numerous platforms such as Google Classroom, Google Meets, and
Zoom. All parties had to engage in new platforms that most were not accustomed to in their
typical methods of teaching and learning. For the 2020–2021 school year, the same model was
adapted with more of an emphasis on resources and training for teachers (CDE, 2021).
Educational impacts and consequences have emerged from these school closures. This
study focused on the impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic on K–12 educational systems. The
14
closing of schools in California due to the COVID-19 pandemic posed unique challenges for
students, families, and school staffs. Loss of educational and social skills has impacted students
and their families while constant shifts in state, county, municipal, and district priorities,
sometimes competing priorities, presented barriers for K–12 school leaders (Harrington, 2021).
Crisis and Preparation for the Pandemic
During this rare time of a global pandemic, schools have faced difficult decisions of
remaining open to serve their communities or closing their doors in order to do their part to limit
the spread. The decision to close schools involves more than just pressing pause on instruction; it
impacts many social structures within communities as well. Closing schools means that students
may not have access to basic needs (Braunack-Mayer et al., 2013). For many children, not
attending school could also mean not being provided with proper nutrition, adult supervision,
and a safe environment. Closures require consistent and clear communication between school
officials and health agencies as well as their effective collaboration beyond the initial decision to
close and into logistical planning for reopening the schools when safe (Stern, 2009; Walters,
2020).
Before the pandemic, schools provided numerous services in a physical school setting,
which were put in place with the establishment of a unified school district model. In the face of
the COVID-19 pandemic, districts were faced with balancing the needs of their students while
also protecting employees from exposure. Districts and schools with a combination of the
following preparedness indicators in place prior to the pandemic were better positioned to
successfully transition to distance learning during the pandemic (Diliberti et al., 2020). Those
indicators already in place were as follows:
● providing devices for individual students,
15
● training teachers in the delivery of online instruction,
● using a learning management systems,
● providing fully online or hybrid courses, and
● establishing plans to deliver online instruction during prolonged periods of school
closure.
Needless to say, most districts were ill-prepared regarding online instruction as the physical
classroom is the dominate model of instruction.
In preparing for online instruction, districts had to create a needs assessment for their
communities. These assessments were conducted through surveys for the purpose of identifying
families in need of technology, including devices and internet accessibility, for participation in
online instruction. Once technology needs were accessed, districts had to figure out a way to
distribute the needed equipment to their communities (Diliberti et al., 2020; Malkus et al., 2020).
According to Malkus et al. (2020), getting devices and free internet into households as quickly as
possible meant that there had to be a reprioritization of resources. Additionally, systems had to
be set-up to support families with these devices as well as those who were unable to establish
internet access even with the loaned devices. In the meantime, district personnel were also
reaching out to families who were unwilling or unable to contact the schools regarding technical
needs and issues. Generally speaking, districts were forced to quickly pivot to remote instruction,
for which they were not prepared.
Impacts of the COVID-19 Pandemic
Throughout school closures, there were educational impacts and consequences. This
study focused on the impacts the COVID-19 pandemic had on K-12 educational systems. The
closing of schools in California due to the COVID-19 pandemic posed unique challenges for
16
students, families, and school staff. The loss of educational and social skills had an even greater
impact on students and their families while ongoing shifts in state, county, city, and district
priorities, sometimes competing priorities, present an ongoing barrier for K-12 school leaders
(Harrington, 2020).
Changing Roles During the Pandemic
Educators’ roles shifted during the COVID-19 crisis, as did their mindsets and priorities.
They became caregivers first, rather than just instructional leaders, focusing on the basic needs of
their students, teachers, parents, and community members, who also found themselves
ill-prepared for such drastic changes in both their academic and everyday lives (Cipriano &
Brackett, 2020.
Roles of Educational Leaders
The quick onset of the COVID-19 pandemic in the US led district leaders into uncharted
territory as they were asked to transition to remote learning immediately and without any
preparation. This meant taking guidance from a myriad of state and local governmental agencies
simultaneously. District leaders had to translate guidance from multiple entities into policy and
practice. In California, orders were being handed down by the governor, the CDPH and the CDC
(Fotheringham et al., 2020).
The online instructional model was defined by three categories: rigorous, moderate, and
perfunctory (Malkus et al., 2020). In Malkus et al.’s (2020) survey of districts across the United
States, 20% required rigorous instruction, which was defined by the following criteria: relied
primarily on online platforms, provided a synchronous platform, expected all students to
participate, required teachers to grade on completion or performance, and expected one-one-one
contact between teachers and students. Remote instruction at the moderate level, which
17
accounted for 40% of the districts surveyed, was less ambitious than the rigorous level but more
so than perfunctory instruction. The bottom 40% of districts were identified as using perfunctory
remote learning, meaning that they relied primarily on instructional packets and explicitly stated
that student participation was not required, attendance would not be taken, and work would not
be graded. Malkus et al. 's (2020) data indicated that rigorous remote learning was rare and the
minority form of remote instruction during the pandemic.
Teaching online requires a specific skill set, and teacher readiness and preparation are
key. In the midst of the pandemic and remote learning, many instructional trainings emerged
from a variety of sources including district professional development (PD), CDE, Zoom, and
private companies (National PTA, n.d.). Public school districts worked to train their staff via
district resources, administrator experts, instructional coaches, and CDE. Private school staff
received training from commercial publishers, technology platforms such as Zoom and Google,
and PD companies. Unlike teacher credentialing programs and student-teacher experiences, there
were no opportunities to implement or practice any of the new skills that became necessary
immediately. Unless teachers had been teaching at a virtual academy, there was no reason to have
established remote teaching skills prior to the pandemic (National PTA, n.d.).
Schwartz (2021) argued that the sheer volume of resources available online overwhelmed
teachers who were already being asked to conduct instruction in ways in which they had either
never or only recently been trained. Finding support and guidance on school sites can help
mediate concerns of teachers who feel overwhelmed. Instructional coaches can provide support
to teachers by tailoring PD offerings to their staff’s specific needs and resources (Flott &
Simpson, 2020). Increasing teachers’ collective efficacy can be achieved through instructional
PD support. Flott and Simpson’s (2020) research indicated that tailored and responsive
18
professional learning can promote mastery experiences, which, in turn, increase efficacy. Such
experiences are critical, because, according to National PTA (n.d.), teachers’ senses of
self-efficacy are critical for effective online instruction.
School closures and social distancing guidelines also required districts and schools to
imagine innovative meal distribution that eliminated barriers to access (Kinsey et al., 2020;
Malkus et al., 2020; McLoughlin et al., 2020). Malkus et al. (2020) noted that districts began
offering various options for meal distribution within their communities. “Grab and go” meals
were provided for parents to pick up at school sites; “drop off” meals were delivered to homes by
busses or other district means; and “expanded service” allowed community members to pick up
meals seven days-a-week. Districts had to coordinate with local and state authorities to distribute
these meals in ways that complied with all safety precautions and regulations. The CDC also
provided training and guidance regarding ways in which school nutrition professionals should
maintain safe and healthy preparation environments and distribution procedures. The U.S.
Department of Agriculture even handed down guidelines for safe pickup practices. Adhering to
so many sets of rules and restrictions made it difficult but not impossible to distribute meals to
families during school closures. It is the hope of many that schools will continue to use the
systems implemented during the pandemic to maintain a constant supply of food to the families
and communities they serve, a task that will need to be addressed by district officials responsible
for creating and operating budgets (Malkus et al., 2020).
Roles of Teachers and Classified Unions
The roles of teachers and classified unions in education has changed dramatically over
time. The primary objective of unions during the pandemic was to make sure that all members
were safe. Once school districts decided to move to remote learning, the focus was on defining
19
academic expectations, securing network access and devices for teachers, planning and
implementation, and evaluation processes (Zaccoletti et al., 2020). In a study by Hemphill and
Marianno (2021), they unpacked ways in which urban school systems changed collective
bargaining agreements to make way for learning during the pandemic through a review
COVID-19-related contract changes in 101 urban school districts around the country. They
argued that the lessons learned in spring 2020 contract negotiations had implications for the
design and implementation of fall 2020 school planning and, further, that the reality of how that
implementation occurred in the upcoming fall would shape teacher morale and labor relations
beyond the 2020–2021 school year (Hemphill & Marianno, 2021).
Teachers have also struggled during the COVID-19 pandemic through a myriad of issues
as noted in an Education Week article authored by Will et al. (2020). Classroom teachers faced
time commitments and heightened expectations as a result of distance learning. Many schedules
were changed dramatically to accommodate remote learning, making it difficult for teachers to
have a set schedule. In some areas, teachers were even vilified for requesting safety measures be
put in place, and media outlets began criticizing teachers’ unions for wanting to continue remote
learning (Will et al., 2020).
The loss of boundaries also became more prevalent as teachers were handling social
emotional needs of their students but from a distance as both teacher and student were in their
own homes. Will et al. (2020) also discussed the idea of teacher saviorism, a concept in which
teachers feel a moral and ethical responsibility to not allow learning loss. This need to mitigate
learning loss was even more difficult for teachers encountering student disparities such as
internet and device access or lack of basic needs like food, which clearly took priority over
instruction. Finally, because of declining enrollment and budget cuts, teachers became concerned
20
about their jobs and shouldered a frightening sense of uncertainty for the upcoming school year
(Will et al., 2020).
For classified staff, many of the collective bargaining agreement issues were the same as
those of teachers, the priority being safety of their members. According to the California
Federation of Teachers (2020), new state legislation addressed unprecedented conditions and
dangers for educators presented by the COVID-19 pandemic. Issues addressed were resolving
conflicts of interest on personnel commissions; smart investment in school water, ventilation,
and electrical systems; limiting affordable housing rentals within districts; and classifying
on-the-job COVID cases as occupational injuries under workers’ compensation laws. These bills
helped define and create safe working environments for teachers and classified employees.
Recently, there have been collective bargaining agreements regarding vaccine distribution and
eligibility resulting in employers being able to require staff to be vaccinated if there is no
religious objection or disability (California Federation of Teachers, 2020).
Social and Emotional Impacts of the Pandemic
Pandemics are associated with high levels of psychological distress among the general
population. Current studies on COVID-19 reveal stress, anxiety, and depression as the major
stressors of mental health disorders (Jones, 2020). Xiong et al. (2020) asserted that students
across the world are dealing with the psychological consequences of stay-at-home orders and
distance learning. Student mental health is an increasing concern, and further research on the
matter is needed (Xiong et al., 2020). Students have seen high stress and anxiety due to
COVID-19 exposure, higher mortality, digital divide, lack of adult support in homes, and
nutrition challenges (Gaylord-Harden et al., 2020). These challenges have all resulted from the
lack of support from a physical environment and safe place of school (C. P. Gross et al., 2020).
21
Not surprisingly, parents and caregivers have also reported higher levels of stress and elevated
responses to that stress. In fact, Ananat and Gassman-Pines (2020) found that, between March
2020 and June 2020, families with young children reported a 67% increase in feeling anxious or
depressed all day, a 42% increase in their children’s externalizing behaviors, and a significant
decline in family mental health. Findings from this study also revealed that children whose
parents had to suddenly reorganize their lives to work from home could be overloaded by the
stress of their parents and environment, potentially increasing the number of children’s emotional
and behavior problems.
In a 2021 study, de Figueiredo et al. evaluated 1,036 quarantined children and adolescents
in China ranging in age from 6 to 15. Of the participants, 112 presented with depression, 196
with anxiety, and 68 with both conditions. De Figueiredo et al. (2021) also contended that
evidence is already emerging of multiple negative physical impacts of the COVID-19 crisis on
the quarantined children and adolescent populations. Persistent and enhanced stressful events
during early life, such a global pandemic, can drive responses by the immune, endocrine, and
nervous systems (de Figueiredo et al., 2021).
An editorial published in the online journal The Lancet Child and Adolescent Health
(“Pandemic School Closures,” 2020) pointed out that separation from loved ones, loss of
freedom, boredom, and uncertainty can deteriorate an individual’s mental health status. To
overcome this, measures at the individual and societal levels are required. In the current global
situation, both children and adults are experiencing a mix of emotions as they are regularly
placed in situations or environments that may be new and potentially damaging to their health
(Javed et al., 2020). The Lancet (“Pandemic School Closures,” 2020) editorial also stated that
people who have been recently released from quarantine can experience stigmatization and
22
wrestle with a full gamut of emotions. Still, each person’s experience and emotional response is
different, and they may also experience a different welcome by society once released from
quarantine. Recovering COVID-19 patients may have to exercise extended periods of social
distancing from their families and friends to ensure everyone’s safety in the face of this virus.
Finally, various age groups respond to changes in social behavior differently, which can have
both short- and long-term effects (Javed et al., 2020).
An ongoing study by Oxford University (2021) is tracking the mental health of children
in two different age groups (2 to 4 years-old and 4 to 16 years-old) throughout the COVID-19
crisis. Parents or participants (if they are 11 to 16 years-old) complete a monthly survey,
providing researchers with consistent historical data. During the first year of the pandemic,
children and young people from low-income families had higher levels of emotional difficulties,
such as feeling unhappy or worried, being clingy, and experiencing physical symptoms
associated with anxiety. Their similarly aged counterparts from higher income families did not
report these emotions with such frequency.
Academic Learning Loss During the Pandemic
Student achievement refers to the extent to which a learner has attained information in
terms of their educational goals. As a result of various outside factors, children from low
socioeconomic families have historically struggled to achieve measurably on state standards, and
with COVID-19 limiting opportunities most for this student population, their achievement has, in
turn, taken a hit as well. Horowitz et al. (2020), in a Pew Research poll, explained that low
socioeconomic parents express more concerns about their children’s potential loss of learning
opportunities and outcomes than their higher income counterparts. An Education Trust (2020)
poll involving parents from numerous districts in all 50 states led to alarming findings. Of the
23
low-income families surveyed, 38% expressed concern about access to distance learning while
50% indicated that they lacked sufficient devices at home for full access to distance learning. Of
all parents polled, 95% stated that it would be helpful to have regular contact with their student’s
teacher, but only 52% had experienced such interaction. Overall, school districts in low
socioeconomic areas have struggled to support their students’ and families’ needs during the
COVID-19 pandemic.
Borman’s (2020) research has been debated regarding students losing academic skills
during what is known as a “summer slide,” or loss of instruction due to a break from school.
What cannot be debated is that all children learn reading and math more slowly, if at all, during
summer break than they do during the school year, with some evidence showing that they
actually forget things they learned during the school year over summer break (Borman, 2020).
Similarly, remote students have been faced with the challenge of slower reading and math
learning during this time. Early findings from B. Gross and Opalka’s (2020) ongoing research
show that two-thirds of school districts are setting low expectations for student instruction.
According to Gerwertz and Schwartz (2020), nationally, teachers reported spending less time on
instruction overall, working 2 hours less each day during distance learning. To that end, they
indicated spending more time reviewing and less time on new material. Similarly, Gerwertz and
Schwartz (2020) found that teachers believe their students are spending half as much time on
learning as they were before coronavirus.
At the college and university level, the pandemic brought about a discussion regarding
testing and entrance exams. Prior to the COVID-19, the University of California’s (UC)
Standardized Testing Task Force (STTF) was researching the impact of standardized testing on
student success and diversity and was considering whether to modify, switch, or eliminate testing
24
requirements altogether; the topic has been under debate in the UC system for the better part of 2
decades. The STTF found the SAT to be a useful admissions tool leading to more diversity in
admission to UC than they would otherwise experience. Additionally, it was found that the SAT
is a consistent predictor of minority student success with far greater predictability than high
school grades. The STTF found that assessments have value, but the assessment system itself
needs a bold overhaul that addresses concerns about test design, equity, quality, and cost. The
findings were unanimously endorsed by the UC’s Academic Senate. The transition plan proposed
a 2-year test optional period followed by a 2-year test-blind period (Cai, 2020).
In March 2020, the SAT and ACT April test administrations were canceled, and when the
June dates were also called off, colleges began to respond. In May, the UC system announced the
phasing out of SAT/ACT entrance requirements over the next 4 years (Gordon, 2020). By June,
the most elite colleges and universities began announcing changes to their standardized testing
admission requirements temporarily. According to Jaschik (2021a), this adjustment drew concern
that test-optional schools, even for only 2 years, heavily favor more affluent families who can
travel to open testing sites and afford private tutors and preparation programs. Jaschik (2021b)
also discussed another result of this shift, which could be the decreased size and influence of the
College Board itself, with about 14% of its employees already let go. It is likely that students
will likely continue taking the SAT to maintain a competitive edge, despite test-optional policies.
While College Board will probably still be around, its leadership may reinvent the company by
offering products such as innovative assessments for use by schools and better ways of matching
students and colleges (Jaschik, 2021b).
25
Inequities of Marginalized Groups During the Pandemic
One of the largest gaps in opportunity that was heightened during the pandemic was for
marginalized populations is access to basic technology (Herold, 2020). In an Education Week
survey of 2,600 teachers and administrators, Herold (2020) found that two of the most notable
challenges that districts faced during the pandemic were access to devices and lack of high-speed
internet at home. During the first months of distance learning, districts attempted to distribute
devices and hotspots to students in need, and although this technology was allocated as needed, it
could not compare in quality to the devices or home internet speed of higher socioeconomic
students. Students with greater access to high-speed internet were found to be at an advantage in
distance learning programs, experiencing fewer glitches or issues during their remote instruction.
Low accessibility paired with districts setting low expectations for instruction has left a great
deal of the learning to chance during this pandemic. In fact, Herold (2020) found that just one in
three districts expect teachers to provide instruction, track student engagement, or monitor
academic progress for all students—fewer districts than initial studies suggested. Far too many
districts appear to be leaving student achievement to chance during the coronavirus pandemic.
Herold (2020) also found that higher income districts were more likely to distribute
schoolwork in person rather than online. In districts with lower income families, 69% of teachers
said they distributed work online while just 14% did so in person. This difference could be due to
areas of low income being more densely populated, thus they experienced higher infection rates
of COVID-19 (Herold, 2020). Teachers had the right to not expose themselves to dangerous
working conditions. Rural or higher income areas may have had fewer restrictions due to area
and less dense populations.
26
O’Connor (2010) argued that while education has become standards-based, traditional
grading practices, even those that may actually harm students and misrepresent their learning,
persist. Grades should meet four criteria; they must be accurate, meaningful, consistent, and
supportive of learning. Feldman (2018) argued that conflicting purposes for grading often create
“collateral consequences” (p. xxi) through which work completion is incentivized and real
learning disincentivized. Much of what impacts student achievement is beyond the teacher’s
control, yet, Feldman (2018) argued, it is grades—the teacher’s description of students’ academic
performance—that opens or closes doors in education.
This inconsistency has been highlighted during the pandemic through a surge of student
failures, or near failures, from coast-to-coast (Wong, 2020). Wong’s (2020) research revealed that
these failing grades tend to be concentrated among low-income students of color, English
language learners (ELs), and those with disabilities. Sawchuck (2021) attributed the increase in
failing or nearly failing grades to lack of reliable internet access or devices for students, sporadic
attendance, and disengagement, all of which led to missing assignments. Additionally, distance
learning hindered teachers’ abilities to build relationships with students and assess their learning.
Belsha (2020) reported that students often do not understand or know what to do so they give
up. To that end, Sawchuck (2021) argued, “The question is not, ‘How can we get these kids who
are close to failing to not fail?’ It’s, ‘What is not working for those kids? How can we do a better
job for them?’” (p. 52).
The Parent Institute for Quality Education (2020) found after surveying parents that
technology and connectivity were key issues for families during remote instruction. More than
45% of EL families were not receiving support. While many students did receive equipment
necessary to participate in online classes, 22% did not. Also, 14% did not have access to the
27
internet at home. Stavely (2020) added that approximately one-fifth of students in California are
learning English as a second language, and most of their classroom instruction is delivered in
English only. In order to learn to speak, read, and write fluently, they need additional language
classes and many opportunities to practice speaking and interacting with peers and teachers,
which can be difficult remotely. Already in a challenging situation learning to teach virtually,
teachers truly struggled to recreate language rich classrooms online for their EL students.
The shift to remote learning in March 2020 resulted in a grossly uneven response by
states and districts, and the ongoing public health crisis will likely result in the widening of
already significant opportunity and achievement gaps. As a result, ELs may face setbacks in their
English language development after 5 or more months without consistent opportunities to listen,
speak, write, and read in English, especially the level of academic English that is foundational to
educational success. While it is still too early to know the full impact, preliminary data suggest
that these students have disproportionately suffered from the shuttering of California’s public
education system. Nearly half of the families of ELs reached in a Parent Institute for Quality
Education (2020) survey reported that their children were not receiving the supports they needed
after schools closed. What’s more, while 93% of surveyed families received school
communications about how to access online learning this spring, but nearly one-third of those
families were unable to understand the instructions. Similarly, an Education Trust (2020) poll of
non-English speaking families found that 25% had received learning materials solely in English.
These gaps also paralleled existing digital divides or gaps in access to digital learning technology
and/or internet connectivity. National and California data both suggest that dual language
learners and ELs disproportionately lack access to digital learning technology and internet
connectivity
28
Impacts of State and Local Governments During the Pandemic
The governor of California, CDPH, CDE, the Association of California School
Administrators, and local departments of education have all played roles and are being utilized
by school districts across the state during the COVID-19 pandemic. Government and healthcare
agencies dedicated resources to assist schools and maintain the safety of students and staff
throughout distance learning and into school reopening (CDE, 2021).
As the CDE stated, “The Office of the Governor provided numerous resources to districts
across California and implemented mandates to protect educators and students. For example, all
staff and students were required to wear masks, and frequent COVID-19 testing was offered for
all school staff and students, including weekly testing at schools in communities with high rates
of transmission. Moving into the vaccine phase of the pandemic, school staff was prioritized in
the distribution of vaccines through the spring of 2021. The School Portal for Outbreak Tracking
online system was created to improve collaboration between school and health officials, and
members of the state contact tracing workforce were deployed to improve communication with
schools” (CDE, 2021 p.4). Governor Newsom’s original four-tiered system for reopening schools
was utilized to determine when all schools could reopen. In regard to funding in California, $1.5
billion was allocated for the safe reopening of schools beginning in February 2021 through the
Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act, also known as CARES, with priority for
districts serving students from low-income families (CDE, 2021).
The CDPH (2021) provided a blueprint for a safer California designed to reduce the
spread and effects of COVID-19. Created together with Governor Newsom and the legislature,
the Safe Schools for All Plan is currently in place to ensure careful reopening and building
confidence by supporting schools as they bring students to back campuses safely (CDE,
29
2021). The agency also offered other resources, such as COVID-19 Guidance for Schools and
School Reopening Frameworks, to assist district and campus leaders with the planning for and
process of safely reopening schools in the fall of 2020. Additionally, the CDPH provided
guidance for small cohorts/groups of children and youth, including guidance for necessary
in-person child supervision and limited instruction, targeted support services, and facilitation of
distance learning in small group environments. The health department posted Outbreak
Definition and Reporting Guidance, which outlines definitions and guidelines for the
non-healthcare congregate, as well as Guidance on Returning to Work or School Following
COVID-19 Diagnosis to communicate current CDC guidelines for quarantine/isolation and
return to work or school. Finally, Outdoor and Indoor Youth Recreational Adult Sports provided
guidance for outdoor and indoor youth sports programs and activities (CDPH, 2021). All of this
state-led guidance provided a blue print for schools to reopen safely with process and procedure
in place.
The CDE also provided key components, such as acceptable safety measures, personal
protective equipment, and assistance with outlining district plans to effectively allow schools to
reopen (Lambert, 2020). State Superintendent Tony Thurmond initiated the New Safe Schools
for All hub that consolidates key COVID-19 resources and information for school
administrators, staff, and parents. Stronger Together: A Guidebook for the Safe Reopening of
California Public Schools is a guide that provides a comprehensive checklist for reopening
schools and mental health and wellbeing for all, among other topics (Lambert, 2020).
Focusing more on specific geographical location, the Los Angeles County Department of
Public Health (LACDPH; 2021) has worked to protect and improve the health and wellbeing of
its residents. The city of Los Angeles experienced one of the highest infection rates of
30
COVID-19 in the country. The LACDPH has been instrumental in providing its residents with
resources like personal protective equipment, protocols, and testing, as well as up-to-date
information and guidelines for all stakeholders throughout the pandemic. LACDPH can and has
implemented restrictions that are more restrictive, but not less restrictive, than those of the
CDPH (Stavely, 2020). For example, LACDPH (2021) required each school site must complete
Appendix T1 before bringing students back onto campus, and in the development of reopening
protocols, the following five areas must be addressed:
● workplace policies and practices to protect employee and student health;
● measures to ensure physical distancing;
● measures to ensure infection control;
● communication with employees, students and their families, and the public; and
● measures to ensure equitable access to critical services.
Schools must implement all applicable measures and be prepared to explain why any measure
that is not implemented is not applicable to the setting (LACDPH, 2021).
Summary
The COVID-19 pandemic led to devastating consequences for students, teachers, school
district leaders and overall school process and procedure. The pandemic allowed school district
leaders to look further into inequities and their impacts on marginalized students. School district
leaders have now been forced to become crisis managers for their communities and stakeholders.
These decisions district leaders are making have a direct impact on student well-being and
achievement. Unfortunately, due to the unknown factors experienced during this pandemic, many
decisions are being made with no prior knowledge of outcomes. This study will investigate the
31
impact of the pandemic on the role and effectiveness of school leadership as there is currently a
limited body of knowledge regarding the impacts of COVID-19 on the education system.
Chapter Three: Methodology
The COVID-19 pandemic posed great challenges for unified school districts throughout
California. Whether full or partial, school closures were the reality for all districts throughout the
state. With mounting pressure of increasing cases and deaths, school district leaders had no
choice but to act to save the lives of their students and communities. As the pandemic continued,
school leadership faced issues and challenges of greater complexity. These issues will be
explored throughout the mixed methods approach to this study. Chapter 3 reviews the statement
of the problem, purpose, and the research questions along with an overview of the study design.
Moreover, this chapter includes the researcher’s role, a discussion on strategy of inquiry,
selection of participants, data collection, data analysis, and trustworthiness and transferability.
Restatement of the Problem
Throughout school closures, there have been educational impacts and consequences. This
study focuses on the impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic on K–12 educational systems. The
closing of schools in California due to the COVID-19 pandemic continues to pose unique
challenges for students, families, and school staff. Additionally, the loss of educational and social
skills is having an even greater impact on students and their families while ongoing shifts in
state, county, city, and district priorities, sometimes competing priorities, present barriers for
K–12 school leaders (Harrington, 2021). The disruption to K–12 school districts produced by the
pandemic caused unforeseen consequences within the education system and highlighted financial
implications, the impact of agencies, negotiations with unions, and the impact on students and
32
communities. COVID-19 shifted the role and scope of schools and administrators beyond
instructional leaders, transforming them into veritable crisis managers.
Purpose of Study
The purpose of this study was to analyze the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on K–12
Southern California school districts and understand what district and site administrators at
Southern California K–12 public school districts learned from their experiences and their
decision-making responsibilities in managing the crisis. This study examined the financial
implications, the impact of governmental guidelines, the role of unions, and the ability of schools
to address community concerns during the pandemic. Through an examination of the experiences
of district and school site leaders, it is possible to discover the leadership responses that were
most impactful in managing a crisis impacting schools.
Research Questions
The study was guided by four research questions:
1. What financial implications, if any, has the COVID-19 pandemic had on K–12 public
school districts in Southern California, and how have district superintendents,
assistant superintendents, and principals addressed these implications?
2. What impact, if any, have federal, state, and local health agencies had on K–12 public
school districts in Southern California during the COVID-19 pandemic, and what
strategies have district superintendents, assistant superintendents, and principals
implemented to address the suggested guidelines?
3. What role, if any, have union negotiations played in the responses of K–12 public
school districts in Southern California to the COVID-19 pandemic?
33
4. How, if at all, have leadership teams from K–12 public school districts in Southern
California (comprised of superintendents, assistant superintendents, and principals)
addressed concerns of the parent community regarding safety, nutrition, distance
learning, lack of technology, academic standing, and how and when to re-open
schools due to the COVID-19 pandemic?
Research Team
The research team was led by Dr. Rudy Castruita from the University of Southern
California Rossier School of Education. The dissertation group was composed of 22 students
with Dr. Castruita as the lead researcher and supervisor for the study. The research team, which
began meeting in the spring of 2021, contributed to the literature review bibliography, designed
the conceptual framework, and created the data collection instruments. Due to the many group
aspects of the thematic process, there may be some similarities in the dissertations.
Research Methodology Summary
This mixed method study incorporates both qualitative and quantitative research
methods to understand the experiences of school district and site leaders during the
COVID-19 pandemic. By using both surveys and interviews, the researchers can reduce
bias and triangulate data for more accurate findings (Maxwell, 2013). Pairing qualitative
open-ended narratives with quantitative closed-ended data can provide a more complete
overview to address each research question (Levitt et al., 2018). This model is completed in
two phases, which the researcher begins by collecting quantitative data and concludes by
collecting and analyzing qualitative data (Lochmiller & Lester, 2017). This research is
specifically designed as a mixed methods study in which both qualitative and quantitative
data is studied, analyzed, and synthesized to provide broader context to the work. The
34
quantitative research tool is a survey sent to superintendents, assistant superintendents, and
principals in Southern California K–12 public schools who also agreed to participate in the
qualitative portion of an interview as well. This study involved the collection of qualitative
data from open-ended interview questions with participants and quantitative surveys
completed by the interviewees.
Qualitative Methods
In qualitative research, the researcher is the primary instrument of data collection and
analysis, and the product is very descriptive. Qualitative researchers study things in their
natural settings and are often interested in comprehending how people interpret their
experiences and what meaning they attribute to their experiences. They use an inductive
process to gain understanding from the perspective of the participants of the study
(Lochmiller & Lester, 2017; Maxwell, 2013; Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). Qualitative methods
allowed for examining how school leaders made decisions and addressed challenges during
the COVID-19 pandemic.
Interviews were used in the study’s qualitative phase. The semistructured interview
protocol consisted of 25 questions and a series of follow-up probes. Separate interview
protocols with minimal vocabulary changes and very similar questions were used for
superintendents, assistant superintendents, and principals. The interviews were conducted via
Zoom and lasted approximately 35 minutes. The interview protocol was followed consistently
throughout the interviews, and additional questions were asked when necessary. The
interviews served to gather data that reflected the participants’ opinions, decisions, and
knowledge. The overall purpose of qualitative research is to interpret how individuals make
35
sense of a process and describe how they interpret what they experience (Merriam & Tisdell,
2016).
Quantitative Methods
Quantitative research describes patterns, trends, and relationships using numerical
data. Quantitative research usually collects data using instruments such as assessments,
surveys, and existing datasets. The most commonly used protocol for gathering quantitative
data is a survey.
Surveys allow the gathering of information from participants for easy conversion to
quantitative data to be analyzed (Lochmiller & Lester, 2017). For this study, quantitative data
were collected using a self-administered question survey via Qualtrics. The survey questions
were developed around the four research questions and designed to gather data that reflected
the school leaders’ experiences, views, decisions, and knowledge about the impact of the
COVID-19 pandemic on California K–12 public school districts. Separate surveys with
minimal vocabulary changes and very similar questions were created for superintendents,
assistant superintendents, and principals. The surveys consisted of 5-point Likert-scale
questions using the following responses: 1 indicated strongly disagree, 2 indicated disagree, 3
indicated neither agree nor disagree, 4 indicated agree, and 5 indicated strongly agree. The
surveys took an average of 35 minutes to complete. The survey link was emailed to all nine
California K–12 school district leaders: three superintendents, three assistant superintendents,
and three principals. The survey included a cover letter, the survey questions, and final
36
instructions. Participants completed the survey using Qualtrics, which tabulated the number of
responses returned.
Sample and Population
The population for the study was leaders of Southern California K–12 public school
districts: superintendents, assistant superintendents, and principals. Convenience sampling and
purposeful sampling was utilized in selecting the participants. Convenience sampling happens
when the researcher selects individuals based on their proximity and accessibility rather than for
specific criteria. Purposeful sampling occurs when the participants are selected on the basis of
specific criteria (Lochmiller & Lester, 2017; Merriam & Tisdell, 2016).
This study included purposeful selection to ensure that all participants worked in public
Southern California K–12, K–8, elementary, and high school districts in the roles of
superintendent, assistant superintendent, or principal. The selection criteria included the
following: (a) traditional California public K–12, K–8, elementary, and high school district
superintendent, assistant superintendent, or principal; in the current role for at least a year; (d)
having served in these positions during the 2020–2021 school year; and (e) with a district-wide
population of at least 1,000. The sample size for the interviews and surveys was set at nine.
Participants selected for this study played a role in supporting school districts and sites during
the COVID-19 pandemic. The results from the interviews and surveys will be compared to the
results collected by other research team members.
The research group is made up of two researchers; each researcher will be investigating
three school districts, which have been given a unique pseudonym to ensure each district’s
anonymity. Researcher 1 investigated District A, District B, and District C. Researcher 2
investigated District X, District Y , and District Z.
37
Researcher 1: School Districts Demographic Data
District A serves approximately 10,582 students in grades K-12. The daily attendance
averages 9,841. Around 8.6% of the student population is English learners, and 27% of the
students in District A receive free and reduced-priced meals. District B serves approximately
11,781 students with a daily attendance average of 7,803. Around 21% of the student population
is English learners, and 83.3% of the students in District B receive free and reduced-priced
meals. District C serves approximately 6,524 students in grades K-12. The daily attendance
average is 6,140. Around 11% of the student population is English learners, and 24.1% of the
students in District C receive free and reduced-priced meals (Table 1).
Table 1
Participant Selection Criteria
Superintendent Assistant
superintendent
Principal
In position at least 2
years
In position at least 2
years
In position at least 2
years
Served in position during
2019–2020 & 2020–2021
school years
Served in position during
2019–2020 & 2020–2021
school years
Served in position during
2019–2020 & 2020–2021
school years
Leader in public, K–12
district in Southern
California
Leader in public, K–12
district in Southern
California
Leader in public, K–12 district
in Southern California
Completed study survey &
interview
Completed study survey &
interview
Completed study survey &
interview
38
Researcher 2: School Districts Demographic Data
District X serves approximately 42,909 students in grades K–12 with a daily attendance
average of 40,034. Around 32.7% of the student population is English learners, and 71% of the
students in District X receive free and reduced-priced meals. District Y serves approximately
18,581 students in grades K–12 and has a daily attendance average of 17,109. Around 18.3% of
the student population is English learners, and 72.6% of the students in District Y receive free
and reduced-priced meals. District Z serves approximately 1,232 students in grades K-12. The
daily attendance average is 1,125. Around 23.5% of the student population is English learners,
and 53.1% of the students in District Z receive free and reduced-priced meals.
Instrumentation and Conceptual Framework
In this dissertation, the researchers have adapted a conceptual framework (see Figure 1)
drawn from three theoretical frameworks to develop an understanding of the theories that impact
school leadership and how it can be adapted to the current situation of managing the COVID-19
pandemic crisis. The four frames described by Bolman and Deal (2017) provide school leaders at
the site and district levels with a roadmap for navigating the different aspects of leadership and
how leader actions and habits can impact the organization. Fullan’s (2014) The Principal: Three
Keys to Maximizing Impact goes deeper into the specific role of principals when enacting change
at the site level through being a lead learner, district and system player, and a change agent.
39
Figure 1
Frameworks of Crisis Management
Westover’s (2020) framework provides the guiding principles that districts can enact to
create an organization that moves together through change and systems for continuous
improvement. These frameworks together provide California public school districts with the
steps to persist, at all levels of leadership, through a crisis like the COVID-19 pandemic.
Data Collection
Data collection will begin during the fall 2021 semester after approval from the USC
Institutional Review Board (IRB). District superintendents were contacted via a formal email
request, followed by a phone conversation to obtain permission for the study and gain access to
assistant superintendents and principals. Once permission is granted, participants will be
contacted for participation in the study via email. The email includes a summary of the study, a
request to participate, and a link for the survey. In addition, participants will be contacted by
phone to encourage responses to the surveys and to request interviews.
40
The surveys will be conducted through an online format, Qualtrics, so participants can
complete it on their own time and discretion. Participants spent an average of 35 minutes
completing the online survey. The semistructured interviews will take place via Zoom and took
an average of 40 minutes to complete. All interviews were recorded with participants’
permission. The recordings from the interviews were transcribed by a professional transcriber.
Data Analysis
This mixed-methods study will use qualitative data from interviews and quantitative data
from surveys. After the data are collected, they will be analyzed separately based on the four
research questions. The qualitative data will be organized and analyzed to identify common
themes. I will read through the interview transcripts and make notations using open coding
followed by axial coding, concluding with selective coding. Common themes and patterns will
be identified to gain an understanding of the pandemic’s impact on schools, students, and leaders
and how school leaders managed the crisis.
Survey Protocols
Surveys are instruments that can collect information to describe, compare, or explain
experiences, feelings, knowledge, behaviors, or values (Fink, 2012). The survey for this study is
a self-administered questionnaire, which, when used correctly can provide reliable and usable
data for research purposes (Creswell, 2018).
The research team constructed quantitative surveys that were completed by participating
school and district leaders including superintendents, assistant superintendents, and principals.
Survey questions were aligned with the research questions guiding this study and constructed
using a 5-point Likert scale with the following anchors: strongly agree, agree, neutral, disagree,
and strongly disagree. Each survey was slightly altered for the specific participant groups to
41
create more relevancy to the role and experience of each of the three roles included in this study.
This also allows the researcher access to the best possible responses to address the research
questions and more accurately quantify the level of support for each specific survey item
(Creswell, 2018).
Interview Protocols
The qualitative data for this study were gathered through interviews with superintendents,
assistant superintendents, and principals who served as leaders in Southern California K–12
school districts during the COVID-19 pandemic. Each of these interviews was conducted in a
synchronous online format and lasted around 35 minutes in length. The interviews served to
capture the individual thoughts, experiences, and perceptions of the leaders as they navigated the
pandemic. Together with the surveys, the interviews contributed to this mixed method study in
which quantitative and qualitative data collection and analysis allowed the researcher to
determine the common themes and experiences of the leaders during this time of
pandemic-related crisis management (Creswell, 2018).
Instrumentation
The conceptual framework of this study focuses on preparation and training, government
and health agencies, equity and access, and certificated and classified unions through the lens of
school leaders and their responses during a pandemic. Bolman and Deal’s (2017) framework
states that leaders should look at and approach organizational issues from four perspectives:
structural, human resource, political, and symbolic. The structural frame focuses on the obvious
how of change, is primarily task-orientated, and concentrates on the following: strategy; setting
measurable goals; clarifying tasks, responsibilities, and reporting lines; agreeing metrics and
deadlines; and creating systems and procedures.
42
Bolman and Deal’s (2017) human resource frame places more emphasis on people’s
needs and chiefly focuses on giving employees the power and opportunity to perform their jobs
well while, at the same time, addressing their needs for human contact, personal growth, and job
satisfaction. The political frame addresses the problem of individuals and interest groups having
sometimes conflicting, often hidden, agendas, especially at times when budgets are limited, and
the organization has to make difficult choices. This frame can be characterized by
coalition-building, conflict resolution work, and power-base building to support the leaders’
initiatives. The symbolic frame speaks to people’s needs for a sense of purpose and meaning in
their work. It focuses on inspiring people by making the organization’s direction feel significant
and distinctive through creating a motivating vision and recognizing superb performance through
company celebrations.
Fullan and Quinn’s (2016) coherence framework emphasizes focusing direction,
cultivating collaborative cultures, securing accountability, and deepening learning. Focusing
direction relates to the need to integrate what the system is doing. Cultivating collaborative
cultures manages individualism by producing strong groups and strong individuals. Deeper
learning is founded in new pedagogical partnerships and the use of technology as an accelerator.
Capacity is developing skills and competencies for accountability. As Figure 2 illustrates, these
frameworks can be used to determine which K–12 school system leaders were effective crisis
managers during the COVID-19 pandemic.
43
Figure 2
Conceptual Framework
Ethical Considerations
Throughout the design and implementation of this research study, all ethical
considerations were followed. All guidelines and procedures for the University of Southern
California Institutional Review Board were reviewed and implemented throughout the research
study. To ensure that the study was conducted in an ethical manner, all participants were
informed of the purpose of the study, and it was clearly stated that their participation in the study
was voluntary. Participants were also informed that their identities and responses would be kept
secure and confidential, and the data would be handled carefully and safely. During the
interviews, explicit permission was requested to record the sessions. The participants were made
44
aware of how the findings would be distributed as a dissertation in the doctoral program at the
University of Southern California.
Summary
The COVID-19 pandemic posed great challenges for unified school districts throughout
California. Whether full or partial, school closures were the reality for all districts throughout the
state. With the mounting pressure of increasing COVID-19 cases and deaths, school district
leaders had no choice but to act to save the lives of their students and communities. This mixed
methods study sought to understand the thought processes of superintendents, assistant
superintendents, and campus principals during this crisis. Their views and opinions were
analyzed and synthesized by the research team at the University of Southern California using a
mixed methods approach to complete the conceptual framework. Chapter 3 presents the
methodology used in this study with descriptions of the research design, population and sample,
and instrumentation used for data collection and analysis. This chapter also addresses the efforts
made to maintain credibility and validity along with a recognition of ethical considerations and
potential limitations of the study.
45
Chapter Four: Findings
Chapter 4 represents the findings from 18 Southern California K–12 education leaders in
six school districts, including six superintendents, six assistant superintendents, and six campus
principals. Each research study participant completed a survey, which provided quantitative data,
and participated in an interview, which provided qualitative data. The purpose of this study was
twofold: to understand the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on Southern California K–12
school districts and to assess what district superintendents, assistant superintendents, and site
principals have learned from their experiences, including their decision-making responsibilities,
in managing the crisis. This study sheds light on the impact of the pandemic on students,
families, school sites, and school districts. Most importantly, this study examined administrative
practices, student achievement, financial responsibility, union leadership, and community/parent
responses to the COVID-19 crisis.
A mixed-methods approach was selected to establish triangulation by comparing findings
from the different methods as a way to ensure credibility of the overall study (Maxwell, 2013).
Qualitative methods, specifically interviews, allowed for examining how school leaders made
decisions and addressed challenges during the COVID-19 pandemic. The semistructured
interview protocol consisted of 25 questions, including follow-up probes. The interviews served
to gather data that reflected the participants’ perceptions, decisions, and knowledge about the
impact of the pandemic on school systems and school leadership. This portion of the study
involved the collection of qualitative data from open-ended interview questions with participants.
The survey questions were developed around the four research questions and designed to
gather data that reflected the school leaders’ experiences, views, decisions, and knowledge about
the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on Southern California K–12 public school districts. The
46
survey consisted of 5-point Likert-scale questions. The research questions that guided this
research study are as follows:
1. What are the financial implications of the COVID-19 pandemic on K–12 public
school districts in Southern California, and how did district superintendents, assistant
superintendents, and principals address these implications?
2. What was the impact of federal, state, and local health agencies on K–12 public
school districts in Southern California, and what strategies did district
superintendents, assistant superintendents, and principals follow to address the
guidelines suggested by these agencies?
3. What was the role of union negotiations in Southern California K–12 public school
districts’ responses to the pandemic?
4. How did Southern California K–12 public school districts leadership teams composed
of superintendents, assistant superintendents, and principals address the parent
community’s concerns regarding safety, nutrition, distance learning, lack of
technology, academic standing, and how and when to reopen schools?
Participants
Six school districts located in Southern California were contacted to participate in the
study. The districts were in Los Angeles and Orange Counties. All six school districts serve
demographically diverse students in pre-kindergarten (PreK) through 12th grade. A
superintendent, assistant superintendent, and principal from each district completed a
self-administered survey and participated in a virtual one-on-one interview via Zoom.
As illustrated in Table 2, of the six districts, three were inclusive of K–12 schools, two of
the districts represented pre-school through adult education, and one district included PK–12
47
education. The average student population size of the participating districts was 17,535, with
populations ranging from 1,119 to over 40,000 students. All participating districts had a
homeless population under 1% and served a population of socioeconomically disadvantaged
students of no less than 21%.
Table 2
Participating School Districts’ Student Population Demographic Information
District Grade levels
Students
enrolled
%
low SES
%
homeless
% English
learners
A K–12 10,582 21.8 0.20 7.7
B K–12 11,781 84.7 0.08 21.2
C K–12 24,280 38.0 0.40 16.4
X PK–12 1,119 47.5 0.20 21.7
Y PK–Ad
ult
17,329 72.6 0.90 18.0
Z PK–Ad
ult
40,124 72.3 0.40 32.7
Note. SES = socioeconomic status.
48
Demographic Data
As part of the research process, 18 participants were asked the following two
demographic questions: How many years have you served in the leadership role, and how many
years have you served in your current role within the school district? Per the sampling criteria,
research participants needed to have experience leading their districts and schools during the
COVID-19 pandemic. As illustrated in Table 3, of the 18 system and school leaders who
participated in the study, six 33%) had served in their role for 1–2 years, seven (38%) had served
for 3–5 years, five (27%) have served in their role for 6–10 years, two (11%) had served in their
role for less than 1 year, four (22%) had served as leaders in their current role for 6–10 years, and
none (0%) had served in their current role over 10 years. All 18 participants (100%) experienced
leading their school communities through the COVID-19 pandemic.
Findings by Research Question
Research Question 1
The first research question asked the following: What are the financial implications of the
COVID-19 pandemic on K–12 public school districts in Southern California, and how did
district superintendents, assistant superintendents, and principals address these implications?
COVID-19 greatly exacerbated the that is, the rising costs, declining revenue due to declining
enrollment, and greater student needs—challenges that districts were contending with even
before the pandemic struck (Zhou et al., 2021). Compounded by the fluctuation of revenue
projections, unpredictable enrollment numbers, uncertainty of the ongoing costs related to
COVID-19, and greater breadth and depth of students’ needs, meeting these demands will
require a transformed vision of schooling (Mertler, 2021) and financial resources to support that
vision. The first research question was designed to assess the financial implications of the
49
COVID-19 pandemic on schools and to learn how districts used the Coronavirus Aid Relief and
Economic Security (CARES) Act for the Elementary and Secondary School Emergency Relief
Fund (ESSER) to respond to those needs. In addition, the first research question also addressed
whether additional funds were helping to mitigate the challenges school districts were currently
facing.
Six survey questions addressed Research Question 1. The survey was designed to learn
about district leaders’ perceptions of the effectiveness of the ESSER funds provided to their
districts from the CARES Act as a resource to respond to and mitigate the needs brought on by
the pandemic.
As illustrated in Table 4, there were two areas in which all six (100%) of the
superintendent respondents agreed or strongly agreed that the CARES Act met their district’s
needs; those needs were in the areas of personal protective equipment (PPE), technology facility
upgrades. Most superintendents (83.3%) indicated that the CARES Act met their funding needs
in the area of personnel. In terms of the CARES Act meeting the district’s funding needs in the
area of professional learning and/or training, each superintendent responded differently from
disagree to agree. Assistant superintendent and principal responses aligned closely to their
superintendents’ perceptions and survey responses (see Figures 1–2).
50
Table 3
Participants’ Years in Current Position and in Position at Current District
Position
Southern CA
district
Year
s in position
Years in
position
at current district
Superinten
dent A
Yes 5 3
Superinten
dent B
Yes 2 1
Superinten
dent C
Yes 8 1
Superinten
dent X
Yes 3 2
Superinten
dent Y
Yes 7 7
Superinten
dent Z
Yes 2 2
Assist.Sup
e. A
Yes 3 2
Assist.
Supe B
Yes 2 2
Assist.
Supe. C
Yes 2 2
Assist.
Supe. X
Yes 6 6
Assist.
Supe. Y
Yes 7 7
Assist.
Supe. Z
Yes 2 2
Principal
A
Yes 3 2
Principal
B
Yes 8 8
51
Principal
C
Yes 3 3
Principal
X
Yes 2 2
Principal
Y
Yes 4 4
Principal
Z
Yes 3 2
Note. Assist. supe. = Assistant superintendent.
Table 4
Superintendents’ Perceptions of Financial Implications of COVID-19
Element
%
strongly
disagree
%
disagree
% neither
agree nor
disagree
%
agree
%
strongly
agree
The CARES Act met
my district’s funding
needs in the area of
personnel.
0.00 16.7 0.00 50.0 33.3
The CARES Act met
my district’s funding
needs in the area of
PPE.
0.00 0.00 0.00 33.3 66.7
The CARES Act met
my district’s funding
needs in the area of
technology.
0.00 0.00 0.00 33.3 66.7
The CARES Act met
my district’s funding
needs in the area of
professional learning
and/or training.
0.00 16.7 33.3 33.3 16.7
The CARES Act met
my district’s funding
needs in the area of
facility upgrades.
0.00 0.00 0.00 100.0 0.00
52
Four interview questions addressed Research Question 1 and were designed to provide
respondents with an opportunity to discuss the financial implications. Responses to the four
interview questions provided the researchers with information to better understand financial
decision making and fiscal leadership during the COVID-19 pandemic. The unprecedented
challenges that K–12 school systems nationwide faced and continue to face require coordinated
action from district, state, and federal leaders, along with a sustained, multiyear effort to
transform and rebuild the nation’s schools. Federal and state education leaders must help districts
not only with financial support, but also in removing barriers and creating pathways that make it
easier to implement strategies that are sustainable for students, teachers, and districts (Zhou et
al., 2021). Findings from the interviews with district leaders reflected themes from existing
literature.
When participants were asked about spending flexibility and structure, a theme of fiscal
autonomy emerged from their responses. Districts were grateful for the additional funds to
mitigate the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on their school districts; however, they also
faced challenges associated with mandated spending timelines. It would have been helpful if
state leaders could remove funding barriers and instructional constraints, such as seat time
requirements (Zhou et al., 2021). For example, Superintendent Y expressed the benefit of
spending autonomy and structure:
Had we not had this funding, we wouldn’t have been able to start projects on changing
our systems, so in terms of the pressure that we have had, it allowed us to do some things
that we probably wouldn’t have thought of pre-pandemic. I think that the funding was
53
flexible in a way that it allowed us to do a lot of things, and so, I think there was
flexibility in a sense that you didn’t have to buy so much of whatever, and it [the first
round of funding] was very broad.
Principal C echoed a similar response regarding the benefit of spending autonomy:
We’ve received an influx of monies from the state and federal governments to provide the
safety items needed to be able to run schools. … In addition, thanks to flexible funding,
we’ve hired a lot of teachers to help bring class sizes down during this time.
Principal A also identified the challenges with spending restrictions and timeframe barriers:
Well, some of the money has been allocated for a specific purpose. For example, as part
of the initial allocation, 1.2 million of that was dedicated for peer educators. Having more
flexibility to be able to spend that money on really any of our needs, would have been
more helpful than then specifying dollars for a specific group. Some of the deadlines to
spend the money in certain timeframes can be restrictive and so having flexibility in
terms of when we’re able to spend the money. … If we had the ability to spread it out,
maybe to 4 or 5 years, we could maintain some of the programs that we’re
implementing.
Assistant Superintendent C expressed appreciation for the availability of funds without
the time restrictions attached:
Monies were made available. Pre-pandemic, fiscal access can be very constricted. … The
pandemic opened up a lot of financial pathways, I guess, or we got a lot of money to give
to the schools, for technology, for PPE equipment and even for extra sections for
academic and social emotional intervention courses … having easy, easier access, and not
having to not having to wait for that money. We were given a longer time to spend it.
54
Pots of money would be available for like a year longer, then we could maintain the
programs a little bit longer.
Superintendent B shared how unrestricted money allowed schools within the district to continue
to keep their sites safe and promptly reopen:
Guidelines weren’t so restrictive. We could use it [money] how we wanted as long as it
was to help combat COVID and/or PPE equipment. So, we received money to order a lot
of safety equipment for masks, PPE equipment, upgrading our air filtration systems, and
buying standalone units in each classroom to help with those items cleaning devices. We
did everything possible to reduce the spread of COVID. So again, I think our needs were
met.
Research Question 2
The second research question in this inquiry asked the following: What was the impact of
federal, state, and local health agencies on K–12 public school districts in Southern California,
and what strategies did district superintendents, assistant superintendents, and principals follow
to address the guidelines suggested by these agencies? In the Spring of 2020, schools faced a
complicated array of health considerations such as masking, distancing, hand washing, surface
cleaning, adequate signage, and installing air filtration systems (Jones, 2020). With guidance
from county health departments, teachers’ unions, the CDPH, and the CDC, California districts
also navigated issues such as providing households with the necessary technology to continue the
learning of each student, feeding disadvantaged students, and providing emotional support to all
students and families. Conditions were changing daily, and few districts had devised concrete
plans.
55
Through this chaos, leaders grappled with inconsistent guidance and surging community
infections (C. P. Gross et al., 2020). The school-reopening guidance offered by the CDC
naturally focused on public-health considerations, leaving it to educators to devise how to keep
students and staff safe while also meeting students’ educational needs (Bailey & Hess, 2020). All
18 participants in the study said they were overwhelmed by the logistical challenges they faced
and the politics of school-reopening decisions. As a result, all pleaded for federal and state
leadership, calling primarily for improved health guidance and pointing out that districts were
having to create their own action plans “due to none from the state and federal levels while
others pointed out that lack of state and federal guidance has exacerbated the political pressures
they faced” (Bailey & Hess, 2020, p. 3).
Research Question 2 was designed to better understand the impact of health and safety
guidelines on school districts’ abilities to reopen schools safely. Research study participants
responded to three survey questions related to health and safety guidelines. As seen in Table 5, of
the six superintendent respondents, four (66.7%) did not perceive that the federal, state, and local
health guidelines were clear in providing information to support the safe reopening of schools.
Although most (66.7%) of the superintendent respondents understood how to safely bring back
staff to work sites during the fall of 2020 based upon public health guidance, all of the
superintendents agreed or strongly agreed that the health guidelines impacted their district’s
return to school in the spring of 2021.
56
Table 5
Superintendents’ Perceptions of the Impact of Health and Safety Guidelines
Element
%
strongly
disagree
%
disagree
% neither
agree nor
disagree
%
agree
%
strongly
agree
The federal, state, and local
health guidelines were clear
in providing information to
support the safe reopening
of schools.
16.7 50.0 16.7 16.7 0.00
I understood how to safely
bring back staff during the
fall of 2020 to work sites
based on the public health
guidelines.
16.7 16.7 0.00 66.7 0.00
The health guidelines
impacted our district’s
return to school plan in the
spring of 2021.
0.00 0.00 0.00 50.0 50.0
Three interview questions addressed Research Question 2 and were designed to provide
respondents with an opportunity to discuss the impact, if any, of the health and safety guidelines
from various governmental agencies they received to reopen schools safely. Responses to the
three interview questions provided the researcher with information to better understand the
collaboration between various agencies and the strategies districts used to implement the
guidance and to reopen schools safely. Two themes emerged from the interviews.
57
Communication and Collaboration
Respondents discussed conflicting agency guidance and their district’s responses to
ensure that their students and staff remained safe. Assistant Superintendent Y shared the
inconsistencies of agency guidance:
I have no recollection of collaborating on the federal level, as far as directions that came
down, we had to follow. We were in close contact with the Los Angeles County
Department of Public health. LACOE (Los Angeles County Department of Education)
was extremely supportive, as well. I felt like the local agencies, as much as they had
capacity, did work with us. They came out to do safety checks of our schools; they were
collaborative.
Superintendent X also spoke to the inconsistency between the various agencies:
We received most of our support from local agencies. The issue was that the guidelines
were constantly changing and evolving. It felt like we were constantly pivoting and
adapting. We could never get ahead due to the back and forth from Federal and State
agencies on reopening guidelines.
Principal Y shared that guidance to reopen was challenging for a myriad of reasons:
We had to change our strategies at our school site constantly due to new health and safety
guidelines. We spent time ordering PPE and distancing desks and then guidelines would
change. It was frustrating that, as a school site, we were never able to focus on solidifying
the correct protocols because of these changes. Masks were required then recommended.
It was extremely confusing.
58
Effective Strategies for Implementing Health Guidelines
Despite the poor communication and inconsistent messages among various government
agencies, districts implemented various strategies to implement health guidelines to keep their
students and staff safe. For example, Superintendent C discussed the importance of collaboration
and communication strategies to effectively implement health and safety guidelines:
I think the strategies that we used as we developed were to over communicate and
collaborate. We had a task force composed of many different stakeholders in our district.
So, we wanted to get stakeholder input specially already on where we would give them
updates from the LA county department public health, and so we wanted to make sure
they were informed and we got their input on what we were doing, what we’re
implementing, and how we’re implementing, right, because in some cases, we did above
and beyond.
Assistant Superintendent A emphasized the importance of clear and consistent
communication in keeping students at school:
We would tune into meetings with Dr. Ferrer, the director of LA County Public Health, to
get updates and get explanations on items as protocols as things change for reopening.
And then [we would meet with] our state superintendent. He would also give us updates
and how we could help support students with mental health support, so they also allocate
a lot of resources. We want to make sure they were well informed and that we got their
input on what we were doing, what and how we’re implementing protocols.
Principal B also noted the necessity of open communication to reopening schools safely:
You’re talking about very sensitive issues and so there were delicate conversations that
we needed to have to come to an agreement so that when we did reopen. Working
59
collaboratively together and keeping parents informed through emails and phone
messages about where we are, where we were headed and the hybrid model. … We
developed a return to school blueprint, which was a document available for staff and
parents to see all the different measures we’re implementing to return. I think all of the
communicating we did in advance to share what kind of safety measures, we’re going to
have in place, we even did a video of real people at real sites and our district to show
them what they can expect from walking up to getting your temperature check, wearing
the mask to go into class, sitting, you know, behind the desk shield and being distance
and so forth. All that helped to alleviate those concerns.
Research Question 3
The third research questions asked the following: What was the role of union negotiations
in Southern California K–12 public school districts’ responses to the pandemic? After the initial
closures, districts with lengthier collective bargaining agreements were less likely to start the fall
2020 semester with in-person instruction and were less likely to open their schools for in-person
instruction during the fall semester (Marianno, 2021). Consequently, the schools with lengthier
collective bargaining agreements spent more weeks, overall, in distance learning. Additionally,
school districts in locations with stronger teachers’ unions were substantially less likely to
reopen. Political partisanship was a strong predictor of reopening decisions, but there was no
consistent evidence indicating that COVID-19 risk was correlated with reopening schools in
person (Bailey & Hess, 2020). In regard to future schooling plans amidst the COVID-19
pandemic, cooperation between districts and labor groups, including heightened transparency
moving forward, could help ensure that districts land on the most appropriate plan for their
context (Hemphill & Marianno, 2020). According to Bailey and Hess (2020), as part of
60
California’s response to COVID-19 school closures, Governor Gavin Newsom’s office facilitated
an agreement among teachers’ unions, classified employees, school boards, superintendents, and
principals to use a specific framework to “work together on matters of labor and management to
minimize any impact to students—including direction on implementation and delivery of
distance learning, special education, and meals through the end of the school year” (Bailey, 2020,
para. 4). Bailey indicated that after the spring 2019 school closures, districts and unions needed
to work together to set teacher expectations under changing circumstances by proactively
planning for multiple scenarios with labor partners involved in conversations. While school
districts will mitigate any late “surprises” from labor groups that might occur with regard to
implementation or change of learning plans in response to COVID-19, leaders should keep a
pulse on teacher morale and safety to avoid perceptions of careless working condition changes
by maintaining transparency and communication with teachers’ union leaders (Hemphill &
Marianno, 2020).
The third research question was designed to help the researchers better understand the
role of labor unions in shaping districts’ responses to the COVID-19 pandemic. Research study
participants responded to three survey items related to Research Question 3. As illustrated in
Table 6, the majority of superintendent respondents (83.3%) agreed or strongly agreed that
negotiations with certificated unions influenced the way their district responded to the
COVID-19 pandemic for students and their families. The researchers found no common theme
among superintendent respondents that negotiations with classified unions influenced the way
their district effectively responded to the COVID-19 pandemic for students and their families.
Superintendent responses varied from neither agree nor disagree to strongly agree. A common
61
perception among superintendents emerged in that 83.3% of agreed that negotiations with
teachers’ unions impacted the quality of instruction offered to students during distance learning.
Table 6
Superintendents’ Perceptions of the Impact of Union Negotiations
Element
%
strongly
disagree
%
disagree
% neither
agree nor
disagree
%
agree
%
strongly
agree
Negotiations with
certificated unions
influenced the way my
district effectively
responded to the
COVID-19 pandemic for
students and families.
0.00 16.7 0.00 50.0 33.3
Negotiations with classified
unions influenced the way
of my district effectively
responded to the
COVID-19 pandemic for
students and families.
0.00 16.7 33.3 16.7 33.3
Negotiations with the
teachers’ unions impacted
the quality of instruction
offered to students during
distance learning.
0.00 16.7 0.00 50.0 33.3
62
Four interview questions addressed Research Question 3 and were designed to provide
respondents with an opportunity to discuss the impact, if any, of union negotiations on districts’
responses to the COVID-19 pandemic. Responses to the four questions provided the researchers
with information to better understand the interaction between district leadership and labor unions
and the impact on districts as they planned their responses to the COVID-19 pandemic. Two
overarching themes that emerged during the interviews were safety and equity
Union Negotiations Focus on Safety
Assistant Superintendent Z noted unions’ focus on safety:
Health and safety was our Number 1 priority, which is why we quickly pivoted to 100%
distance learning. It took us a little time before we had most classified staff working
remotely, and this was a union issue. Another union issue at the beginning was hazard
pay for those that worked in-person at the end of the 19–20 school year (food service,
custodial, etc.).
Assistant Superintendent B confirmed the teachers’ unions’ focus on safety:
I think for the teachers’ union, what was paramount for them was safety in the classroom.
The Plexiglas items made them feel more comfortable. In addition to the barrier from
teacher to students, the union prioritized having shields in between each student. In
addition, having upgraded AC filters which we did, but even beyond that, we bought
individual standalone and each classroom, I think that helped a lot. Lastly, we purchased
portable sinks with soap water just to keep hygiene.
Principal C echoed sentiments of unions requiring safety assurances before returning to
work:
63
The association requested return to work safety assurances, because obviously the
pandemic wasn’t over at the time, and isn’t over yet, and so they wanted assurances in
terms of safety measures and working conditions issues for their members. Beyond
distancing and masking, one item that was probably most important to them was the paid
leave, because, in some cases, you are unable to work remotely. So, if you’re a ground,
man, for example, and you’re exposed to somebody with COVID, and you have to
quarantine for 10 days, are you going to be using your own days sick or personal days if
you have that available? And if not, then you’re going to be going into half paid so paid
leave for the purpose of work exposure, and safety was it was a big topic.
Union Negotiations Focus on Equity
Superintendent Y spoke about the equitable differences between certificated and
classified negotiations and pay:
I would say the number one issue critical to all associations (certificated and classified),
has been safety. We gave hero pay (to classified staff) because they were here during the
pandemic. Teachers didn’t get it because the teachers were working from home.
Principal X responded with a similar statement regarding union negotiations on equity:
Our teachers’ union did not want to return to work unless there was guaranteed safety.
Their biggest concern was returning to school with over 30 students in their class with no
vaccine. It was tough negotiations because we could not guarantee that teachers would
not be infected with COVID-19.
Principal Y elaborated on classified employees being unable to work from home:
Our classified union talks were different because we needed those people on campus for
cleaning and keeping our campuses clean. Custodians were asked to remain on campus to
64
update school sites and keep facilities running. They had no choice but to work on
campus.
Research Question 4
The fourth research question asked the following: How did Southern California K–12
public school districts leadership teams composed of superintendents, assistant superintendents,
and principals address the parent community’s concerns regarding safety, nutrition, distance
learning, lack of technology, academic standing, and how and when to reopen schools? In a
nationally representative online poll of 1,720 educators administered April 7–8, 2020, 99% of
district leaders said that they were at least doing something to address equity concerns during
school closures by offering pick-up/delivery of free or reduced-price meals, providing devices to
all students who needed them, making additional online tutoring available, and providing
online/phone therapy (Kurtz et al., 2020). Most parents of K–12 students were worried about
their children falling behind in school because of pandemic-related disruptions (Horowitz et al.,
2020). According to Sharfstein and Morphew (2020), more than 20 million children rely on
school breakfast or lunch, and since the pandemic, millions of children have lost access to health
services through school-based centers. Moreover, there are major divides based on race/ethnicity,
geography, and economic class to access computers and high-speed internet, if at all.
The COVID-19 pandemic also elicited other urgent priorities that required significant
resources such as PPE and other safety needs (Estrada-Miller et al., 2022). According to
Estrada-Miller et al. (2022), schools needed to implement both health and safety measures and
instill systematic changes when returning to the classroom. To that end, 75% of all staff and
students were mandated to wear masks, 63% of schools limited class sizes to allow desks to be at
least six feet apart, and 50% of schools made PPE available for teachers and masks for students.
65
The fourth research question was designed to help the researchers better understand the
relationship between school districts and parents during the COVID-19 pandemic. The study
participants responded to seven survey questions. As illustrated in Table 7, all superintendent
participants (100%) agreed or strongly agreed that their district maintained good communication
with families during the pandemic. Most (83.3%) superintendent participants agreed or strongly
agreed that their district met the needs of students and families in the area of nutrition. Most
superintendents (83.3%) agreed or strongly agreed that their district met the needs of students
and families in the area of technology (computers/devices) while 16.7% reported that they
neither agreed nor disagreed. Similarly, all of the superintendent participants (100%) agreed or
strongly agreed that their district met the needs of students and families in the area of technology
(internet service). All superintendent participants (100%) agreed or strongly agreed that their
district met the needs of students and families in health and safety.
As illustrated in Table 7, there was one area in which superintendents believed they could
have served their constituents better, which was meeting students’ social emotional needs. A
majority (66.7%) of the superintendents responded that they neither agreed nor disagreed that
their district had met students’ social emotional needs. Assistant Superintendent and Principal
responses mirrored their respective superintendent.
Two interview questions addressed Research Question 4 and were designed to provide
respondents with an opportunity to learn more about the relationship between the parent
community and school districts during the COVID-19 pandemic. Responses to the two questions
provided the researchers with information about parents’ perceptions of school districts meeting
their needs during the COVID-19 pandemic. Three themes emerged from the interviews: health
and safety needs, academic concerns, and social emotional concerns.
66
Table 7
Superintendents’ Perceptions of Parent Concerns
Element
%
strongly
disagree
%
disagree
% neither
agree nor
disagree
%
agree
%
strongly
agree
My district maintained good
communication with
families during the
pandemic.
0.00 0.00 0.00 66.7 33.3
My district met the needs of
students and families in the
area of nutrition.
0.00 0.00 16.7 33.3 50.0
My district met the needs of
students and families in the
area of technology
(computers/devices).
0.00 0.00 16.7 33.3 50.0
My district met the needs of
students and families in the
area of technology (internet
service).
0.00 0.00 0.00 83.3 16.7
My district met the needs of
students and families in the
area of social emotional
wellbeing.
0.00 0.00 66.7 33.3 0.00
My district met the needs of
students and families in the
area of health and safety.
0.00 0.00 0.00 50.0 50.0
My district met the academic
needs of students.
0.00 0.00 33.3 66.7 0.00
Health and Safety Needs
Principal X addressed parent concerns regarding health and safety needs:
67
With safety, parents were concerned about reopening schools. Our district was receiving
both sides of the issue. Some parents were desperate to reopen schools while others
wanted fully virtual. I would say about 70% of our parents wanted to remain closed.
Superintendent Z also spoke about parents wanting to remain virtual:
We had parents take surveys on if they wanted to return to classrooms. Almost 90% of
our parents wanted to remain virtual during the pandemic. Unfortunately, the 10% that
wanted to return were the loudest voices at our board meetings supporting reopening.
These were the same parents concerned about mask mandates.
Principal C echoed a similar focus of ensuring that families understood the ways the school was
keeping their students safe:
I remember having a parent informational session for when the students return to campus,
and they [parents] asked a lot of questions about cleanliness, around social distancing,
and the mask-wearing policy, and the air ventilation. They also asked a lot of questions
with regards to things like: What if their student is sick like the process for that kiddo?
Parents mirrored the anxieties of the teachers.
Parents’ Academic Concerns
Principal A fielded a considerable number of questions from parents regarding how the
school was meeting the instructional needs of their children:
It was all, “How can my kid get additional support? Is there tutoring available? How can
my students contact their teachers to ask them questions?” And, how to message teachers
on Schoology? And my teachers, (all of them), they all had office hours, so it was
teaching parents how to navigate an online system of schooling which is difficult.
Principal Y spoke on parent concerns of learning loss during the pandemic:
68
There were many academic concerns of student learning loss. It has been challenging
communicating the pandemic learning loss with parents and attempting to make up for
that loss. A year and a half of distance learning has created learning gaps that parents are
rightfully concerned about.
Principal C brought awareness to the challenge of delivering content on a hybrid model given the
disparity of resources of families within their school site:
Not all of our families have the internet, and so, we partnered with and received a grant to
provide wireless access points for our families in need. And then getting the actual
equipment to kids who didn’t have it so Chromebooks for our little ones, and thankfully
all of our secondary schools were already in a one-to-one program.
Parents’ Emotional Concerns
Principal A discussed parents’ concerns about their students’ social emotional needs: “We
did notice kids coming back and feeling the more anxiety; we had increasing referrals for support
for students.” Assistant Superintendent X spoke about meeting the social emotional needs of
students:
Students were away from their safe space for a year and a half. Most of our students
relied on school to be consistent in their lives. When that was taken away, there was a gap
that needed to be filled by schools upon return. Our district has prioritized providing
additional mental health resources for our students. We have hired additional counselors
and support for our students’ social and emotional needs.
Superintendent C discussed a shift in priorities and the need to increase programing and staffing
of mental health professionals:
69
We also hired employees for mental health support given the emotional needs of students.
We had to consider, “Okay, how can we get our students to have access to academia,
computers, things of that nature?” Great, but more importantly, “How can we get them
help with mental health support?” So, we hired folks for that, mental health support
specialist counselors, and they did a phenomenal job of trying to connect with students at
the same time, updating like our web system. On our homepage, we created a virtual
mental health room where people go for support.
Summary
Chapter 4 reported the findings of nine Southern California educational leaders, from the
districts that were participating, three superintendents, three assistant superintendents, and three
principals. Research study participants completed a survey and participated in an interview. The
results from this study shed light on the impact of school closure and the shift to remote learning
on students, families, leaders, schools, and districts. This study examined how district and school
leadership influenced administrative practices, student achievement, financial responsibility,
union leadership, and community/parent support as they responded to the COVID-19 crisis. Most
importantly, the study provided insights into the importance of communication and collaboration,
clear health and safety protocols, and addressing academic and emotional concerns as essential
measures to enact effective leadership during a major crisis.
This researchers in this study concluded that the need for superintendent leadership is
amplified during times of crisis. Students and communities need a leader to bring clarity to
chaos, make decisions, and respond to surprises. If superintendents do not lead district responses,
no one else can (Henig, 2013). In times of crisis, people look to leadership for hope and the way
forward (Kaiser et al., 2020). Superintendent A explained that the focus from the initial school
70
closures was returning students to safe, in-person learning. Superintendent X discussed the skill
and ability to be able to pivot during a pandemic to new health and safety guidelines.
Superintendent C expressed the importance of planning and communicating clearly. It was
stated, “Always have plans to put in place.” All superintendents in this study led with the
purpose of providing clarity and meaning during an otherwise uncertain time.
The conceptual framework for the study was drawn from three theoretical frameworks to
develop an understanding of the theories that impact school leadership and how they can be
adapted to the current situation of managing constant change brought about by the COVID-19
pandemic crisis. The four frames described by Bolman and Deal (2017) clarify that to create
organizational change, leaders must find ways to ask the right questions. To ask the right
questions, the four frames provide school and system leaders with tools for multi-frame thinking,
which offers a pathway to examine multiple perspectives to accurately assess challenges within
an organization’s context. Once the leader accurately assesses the situation, they can
intentionally select the appropriate leadership frame to draw upon to move the organization
forward.
Superintendents in this study discussed the value of participating in various collaborative
experiences through which they could network with other superintendents and public health
officials to ask the right questions as a way to ensure that their actions aligned with public health
guidelines that would keep their students and staff safe. As school leaders quickly responded to
constant change brought about by the COVID-19 pandemic, Fullan’s (2014) research The
Principal and Maximizing Impact provided insight into the interdependence of site principals and
central office leaders to maximize and improve the impact of the system as a whole. Moreover,
Fullan’s work addressed the importance of principals leading schools in ways that contribute to
71
and expand the system’s collective expertise to then increase its impact. Large-scale success will
occur only when system members begin to act from a shared, coherent mindset, and the glue of
coherence is purposeful interaction over time that people find worthwhile. The COVID-19
pandemic established a clear purpose for a coherent and collective mindset.
Similar to Fullan’s (2014) work on maximizing and sustaining a school system’s positive
impact is Westover’s (2020) work on coherence. Westover (2020) discussed the benchmarks of
capacity for school district coherence as the following: create clarity of district goals and school
priorities for student learning; establish a culture of shared leadership and systematic
collaboration; provide a coherent instructional framework for developing collective expertise;
and maintain evidence-based inquiry cycles for continuous improvement so that a system’s
impact can grow. School districts in this research study did just that. Districts were very clear
about their goals, including getting students back to in-person learning. Evidence of consistent
collaboration was present as districts met with system and site leaders frequently to develop a
common understanding of safety protocols and to establish district committees to plan for safe
reopening and to ensure student learning. As a result, these practices empowered people within
the organization to become experts and communicate their expertise to the entire organization
and its stakeholders.
The current research study’s conceptual framework makes clear that managing
organizational change, and doing so amidst a crisis like the COVID-19 pandemic, demands
skilled leaders who can act as organizational architects to design and construct productive
organizational relationships, effective systems for carrying out the organization’s work, and
stakeholder capacity. The conceptual framework of this study creates a model for K–12 school
districts to persist, at all levels of leadership, through a crisis like the COVID-19 pandemic.
72
Chapter 5 presents a summary of the findings, implications for practice, a discussion of future
research, and further conclusions.
73
Chapter Five: Summary of Study, Implications, and Recommendations
The COVID-19 pandemic was an unprecedented event that required schools throughout
the nation to close in March 2020 per state mandates. School closures and the effects of the
COVID-19 pandemic continue to impact school districts 2 years later. As the situation evolved
and state guidelines, policies, and protocols under which schools operate changed, so too did the
role and expectations of superintendents, assistant superintendents, and site principals. The
participants of this study became crisis managers, assuming responsibility for the health and
safety of all stakeholders. Parents relied on schools not only for education but also for food and
the social emotional wellbeing of their children.
Chapter 1 provided an overview of the study, described the statement of the problem,
explained the purpose of the study, identified the research questions, stated the significance of
the study, addressed limitations, defined terms, and presented the organization of the study.
Chapter 2 reviewed existing literature on the history of health crises and school closures in the
US as well as the impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic on federal and state health agencies,
teacher and classified employee unions, students, and families. Additionally, this chapter
presented an overview of the coronavirus, available aid, relief, economic implications, and the
CARES Act. Chapter 3 described the methodology of the study, instrumentation, conceptual
framework, description of the sample, data collection, analysis, survey and interview protocols,
and ethical considerations. Chapter 4 provided a summary of the purpose of the study, research
questions, design overview, and key findings. Chapter 5 summarizes the findings, makes
connections to the literature, presents a comparative analysis and common themes, states the
implications for policy and practice, and suggests recommendations for future research.
74
Statement of the Problem
The COVID-19 pandemic presented a disruption in K–12 school districts, causing
unforeseen consequences within the education system and highlighting financial implications,
the impact of agencies, negotiations with unions, and the effect on students and communities.
COVID-19 shifted the roles and scope of schools and school leaders beyond instructional
leaders, transforming them into crisis managers.
Purpose of the Study
The purpose of this study was to analyze the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on K–12
school districts and understand what district and site administrators learned from their
experiences and their decision-making responsibilities in managing the crisis. This study brings
to light the impact of the pandemic on students, families, leaders, schools, and districts. Most
importantly, this study examined how district and school leadership influenced administrative
practices, student achievement, financial responsibility, union leadership, and community/parent
support as they responded to the COVID-19 crisis.
Research Questions
The following research questions guided this study:
1. What are the financial implications of the COVID-19 pandemic on K–12 public
school districts in Southern California, and how did district superintendents, assistant
superintendents, and principals address these implications?
2. What was the impact of federal, state, and local health agencies on K–12 public
school districts in Southern California, and what strategies did district
superintendents, assistant superintendents, and principals follow to address the
guidelines suggested by these agencies?
75
3. What was the role of union negotiations in Southern California K–12 public school
districts’ responses to the pandemic?
4. How did Southern California K–12 public school districts leadership teams composed
of superintendents, assistant superintendents, and principals address the parent
community’s concerns regarding safety, nutrition, distance learning, lack of
technology, academic standing, and how and when to reopen schools?
Methodology
This research was specifically designed as a mixed-methods study in which both
qualitative and quantitative data were studied, analyzed, and synthesized to provide broader
context to the work. The most evident benefits to a mixed-method design are that it draws on the
strengths of both quantitative and qualitative designs, is appealing to those at the forefront of
research due to its sophistication, and provides a more complete understanding of research
problems (Waite et al., 2014).
The methodology of this study involved two researchers collecting and analyzing data
from interviews and surveys, which enabled triangulation between the results. Triangulation is
critical for cross-checking the data collected and supporting the findings of the study (Merriam &
Tisdell, 2016). The logic of triangulation is based on the premise that no single method
adequately solves the problem of contending explanations (Patton, 2002). Further, triangulation
facilitates validation of data through cross-verification of multiple data sources, such as
established research, surveys, interviews, and document analysis (Butina, 2015).
There were 18 total research participants in this study including six school
superintendents, six assistant superintendents, and six principals from Southern California K–12
public school districts. This study involved the collection of qualitative data from open-ended
76
interview questions answered by participants and quantitative surveys completed by the
interviewees. Researchers worked individually collecting and analyzing data from six school
districts. Additionally, the two researchers worked together to analyze the data and subsequently
identify common themes from participant responses.
Essentially, the survey and semistructured interview questions were calibrated to gain a
deeper understanding of the implications of school funding; federal, state, and local health
agencies; union negotiations; and parent/community perceptions of safety, nutrition, distance
learning, lack of technology, and academic standing on how and when to reopen schools due to
the COVID-19 pandemic.
Key Findings
Research Question 1
The first research question asked the following: What are the financial implications of the
COVID-19 pandemic on K–12 public school districts in Southern California, and how did
district superintendents, assistant superintendents, and principals address these implications?
This inquiry was designed to better understand the ways in which superintendents, assistant
superintendents, and principals responded to and addressed the financial implications of the
pandemic for their districts and school sites. To answer this question, subjects participated in
both a survey and an interview. The self-administered survey asked five questions specifically
addressing the financial implications of the CARES Act on the leaders in the areas of personnel,
PPE, technology, professional learning/training, and facilities upgrades. The interview questions
for Research Question 1 were as follows:
1. What have been the biggest financial implications of the pandemic or your
district/school?
77
2. In what ways, if any, would more spending flexibility/structure have benefitted your
district/school?
3. In what ways has COVID-19 related funding been used to meet student needs in your
district/school?
4. To what extent, if any, did financial incentives influence your district’s/school’s
reopening plan/timeline?
In analyzing the data derived from these interview questions, the following common themes
emerged: spending flexibility, structure, and staffing shortages.
When asked about spending flexibility and structure, a theme emerged among these
district professionals. Districts were grateful for the additional funds to mitigate the impact of the
COVID-19 pandemic on their school districts; however, they also discussed the challenges
associated with the mandated spending timelines. As noted by Zhou et al. (2021), “State leaders
need to remove funding barriers and instructional constraints, such as seat time requirements;
and federal policymakers should direct near-term stimulus funding to meet the most urgent needs
of school systems that have been hardest hit” (p. 5). Superintendents predominately spoke about
access to funds for updating facilities, improving HVAC (air conditioning) systems, and
purchasing PPE.
Superintendents also expressed frustration with the common practices of the state in
earmarking funds for a specific purpose with constringent and sometimes arbitrary timelines.
The common practices of the state failed to take into account that each district and every school
has different spending needs. The one-size-fits-all policy of funding restrictions did not allow
districts or schools to use the allotted funds for the individual needs of the respective school
sites. However, the flexibility in spending the $190.5 billion provided by the CARES Act for
78
ESSER led to districts having the money necessary to care for their stakeholders, remain fully
staffed, and most importantly, safe during the pandemic.
Along with spending flexibility came the ability to hire new staffing for school sites.
Staffing emerged as the third major theme for school leaders in regard to the financial
implications of the pandemic on school districts. Many districts across Southern California
discussed and provided hazard pay, gave raises, and hired additional employees to keep schools
running and continuing to provide essential services, such as distributing technology and meals
to students and disinfecting and sanitizing campuses during distance learning and when they
were back in-person. One of the challenges of this need for staff was the ability to hire.
Superintendent Y stated that “it was extremely difficult to hire new staff. It seemed as though
people did not want to work.” Due to these shortages, many districts needed to pivot to outside
instructional programs to make up for learning loss. Staffing needs for SEL also became a focal
point for districts, especially among marginalized communities (Lambert, 2020; Moore et al.,
2020). School leaders quickly mobilized funds to provide staffing of counselors and other mental
health professionals.
Research Question 2
The second research question asked the following: What was the impact of federal, state,
and local health agencies on K–12 public school districts in Southern California, and what
strategies did district superintendents, assistant superintendents, and principals follow to address
the guidelines suggested by these agencies? This question was designed to better understand the
ways in which superintendents, assistant superintendents, and principals depended on
cross-agency communication and collaborations to incorporate COVID-19 guidance during the
first year of the pandemic to support their district level decision-making processes and planning.
79
The self-administered survey included three questions, and the interview consisted of five
questions designed to better understand the guidance for safe reopening of schools. The research
team found that school administrators utilized federal, state, and local health guidelines to
determine their school district’s reopening plan.
The second research question was designed to better understand the impact of health and
safety guidelines on school districts’ abilities to reopen safely. Research study participants
responded to three survey questions related to health and safety guidelines. Half of the
superintendent respondents (50%) did not perceive that the federal, state, and local health
guidelines were clear in providing information to support the safe reopening of schools.
Although most of the superintendent respondents (66.7%) understood how to safely bring back
staff during the fall of 2020 to school sites based upon public health guidance, all of the
superintendent respondents agreed or strongly agreed that the health guidelines impacted their
district’s return to school in the spring of 2021.
The interviews for Research Question 2 contained the following four primary questions
and one probing question:
1. In what ways did your district collaborate with federal, state, and local government
agencies and community organizations to support your school district during
COVID?
a. What agencies or organizations?
2. To what degree, if any, did the various agencies align COVID-19 guidance for
schools?
3. What strategies have been effective for your district in implementing health
guidelines/policies?
80
4. Who in your district was primarily in charge of interpreting and implementing the
health guidelines/policies?
In analyzing the data derived from the four interview questions designed to answer
Research Question 2, the following common themes emerged among the participants:
inconsistent multi-agency guidance and effective strategies for implementing health guidelines.
A critical expectation for all superintendents was to “establish mechanisms of
coordination with public health authorities so that education actions are in sync and help advance
public health goals” (Reimers & Schleicher, 2020, p. 5). Superintendents had to contend with
guidance from county health departments, the CDE, teachers’ unions, the CDC, and other groups
(Jones, 2020). Half of the superintendent respondents (50%) did not perceive that the federal,
state, and local health guidelines were clear in providing information to support the safe
reopening of schools. Leaders grappled with inconsistent guidance and surging community
infections (C. P. Gross et al., 2020). The school reopening guidance offered by the CDC naturally
focused on public health considerations, leaving it to educators to devise how to keep students
and staff safe while also meeting students’ educational needs (C. P. Gross et al., 2020). All 18
participants in the study said they were overwhelmed by the logistical challenges they faced and
the politics of school reopening decisions. As a result, all pleaded for federal and state
leadership, calling primarily for improved health guidance and pointing out that districts had to
create their own action plans “due to none from the state and federal levels while others pointed
out that lack of state and federal guidance has exacerbated the political pressures they face”
(Attwell et al., 2021, p. 8).
Despite the poor communication and inconsistent messages between various government
agencies, districts implemented various strategies in accordance with health guidelines to keep
81
their students and staff safe. The theme that arose from these relevant interview questions was
effective strategies for implementing health guidelines. Many district superintendents spoke on
the significance to pivot to new guidelines and make sure stakeholders received communication
of the new guidelines. Assistant superintendent A spoke on effective communication for
stakeholders:
We would turn into meetings with Dr. Ferrer (the director of LA County Public Health) to
get updates and get explanations on items and protocols as things changed for reopening,
and then [we would meet with] our state superintendent. He [state Superintendent] would
also give us updates and how we could help support students with mental health support,
so they also allocate a lot of resources. We wanted to make sure they were well informed
and that we got their input on what we were doing, what and how we’re implementing
protocols.
When new protocols were introduced, leaders became more effective with their communication.
This, in turn, led to stronger stakeholder trust among leadership of K–12 school districts.
Research Question 3
The third research questions asked the following: What was the role of union negotiations
in Southern California K–12 public school districts’ responses to the pandemic? On the local
level, negotiations regularly occurred, resulting in CBAs and memorandum of understanding
agreements, which are legal contracts between the employer and the union on behalf of its
members (Hemphill & Marianno, 2020). This research question was designed to better
understand how negotiations with both certificated and classified employees, whose working
groups constitute the labor side of public school districts, impacted the shift to distance learning,
ongoing instructional practices throughout school closures, continued operation of school sites,
82
and eventual reopening (including hybrid reopening). It is important to note that these unions,
particularly the teachers’ unions, have become very powerful forces in shaping local and state
policy and continue to play a major role in ongoing negotiations as COVID-19 restrictions are
reassessed (Mertz, n.d.).
The self-administered survey asked three questions centered around how both certificated
and classified unions and their subsequent negotiations influenced the way Southern California
districts responded to the COVID-19 pandemic for students and families. Additionally, survey
items addressed how negotiations with teachers’ unions impacted the quality of instruction
offered to students during distance learning. For the interview, there were four questions
designed to better understand the most important issues negotiated with both certificated and
classified union members and how both instructional and safety protocols were influenced by
those negotiations.
The interviews for Research Question 3 contained the following four questions:
1. What were the most important issues negotiated with your teachers’ union and how
were they resolved?
2. What were the most important issues negotiated with your classified union and how
were they resolved?
3. In what ways, if any, were instructional programs influenced by union negotiations in
your district?
4. In what ways, if any, were safety protocols influenced by union negotiations in your
district?
83
After analysis of the data elicited from the four interview questions designed to answer Research
Question 3, the following common themes emerged among the participants with regard to union
negotiations: focus on safety and focus on equity.
Union negotiations’ focus on safety was the first common theme with regard to Research
Question 3. To decide on future schooling plans amidst the COVID-19 pandemic, cooperation
between districts and labor groups, including heightened transparency going forward, could help
ensure that districts land on the most appropriate plan for their context (Hemphill & Marianno,
2021). According to Bailey (2020), as part of California’s response to COVID-19 school
closures, Governor Gavin Newsom’s office facilitated an agreement among teachers’ unions,
classified employees, school boards, superintendents, and principals to use a specific framework
to “work together on matters of labor and management to minimize any impact to
students—including direction on implementation and delivery of distance learning, special
education, and meals through the end of the school year” (p. 1). Bailey (2020) added that after
the spring 2019 school closures, districts and unions needed to work together to set teacher
expectations under changing circumstances by proactively planning for multiple scenarios with
labor partners involved in conversations. While school districts mitigated any late “surprises”
from labor groups that might occur when it comes time to implement or change learning plans in
response to COVID-19, leaders should keep a pulse on teacher morale and safety to avoid
perceptions of careless working condition changes by maintaining transparency and
communication with teachers’ union leaders (Hemphill & Marianno, 2021). Assistant
Superintendent Z stated,
Health and safety was our Number 1 priority, which is why we quickly pivoted to 100%
distance learning. It took us a little time before we had most classified staff working
84
remotely, and this was a union issue. Another union issue at the beginning was hazard
pay for those that worked in-person at the end of the 19–20 school year: food service,
custodial, etc.
The other theme elicited dealt with equity issues in the workforce of K–12 education. All
superintendents interviewed expressed the concern for classified employees (custodial,
supervisors, nutritional services) and their inability to work remotely. This meant that classified
employees had to work on campus without students, which was challenging as teachers’ unions
negotiated being paid and staying home during the pandemic. Custodial staff used this
opportunity to update campus facilities while nutritional services were constantly working on
campus to provide meals for students and families. In the future, districts must look to more
flexibility for workers to work remotely for safety. States and districts will need to provide new
flexibilities and models that enable schools to organize people, time, technology, and community
partnerships in new ways that can be sustained with less money; districts will need to improve
the use and function of support staff (e.g., counselors, paraprofessionals, instructional coaches) in
the execution of new strategies (Kaiser et al., 2020). Additionally, in a health crisis like the
COVID-19 pandemic, leaders are urged to show empathy by attending to people’s safety,
security, and emotional needs as well as to be practical in meeting their task-related needs in
getting work done.
Research Questions 4
The fourth research question asked the following: How did Southern California K–12
public school districts leadership teams composed of superintendents, assistant superintendents,
and principals address the parent community’s concerns regarding safety, nutrition, distance
learning, lack of technology, academic standing, and how and when to reopen schools? The
85
research question was designed to explore the relationship that Southern California K–12 public
school districts and their leadership had with parent community concerns during the COVID-19
pandemic.
The fourth research question was designed to help the researcher better understand the
relationship between school districts and parents during the COVID-19 pandemic. The study
participants responded to seven survey questions. All superintendent participants (100%) agreed
or strongly agreed that their district maintained good communication with families during the
pandemic. Most superintendent research study participants (83.3%) agreed or strongly agreed
that their district met the needs of students and families in the area of nutrition. Almost all
superintendent research study participants (83.3%) agreed or strongly agreed that their district
met the needs of students and families in the area of technology (computers/devices) while
16.7% reported that they neither agreed nor disagreed. Similarly, all of the superintendent
participants (100%) agreed or strongly agreed that their district met the needs of students and
families in the area of technology (internet service). All superintendent participants (100%)
agreed or strongly agreed that their district met the needs of students and families in health and
safety.
In analyzing the date related to Research Question 4, three common themes emerged:
health and safety needs, parents’ academic concerns, and parents’ emotional concerns for their
students.
When interviewing superintendents, the majority stated that in their district, parents’
main concerns were the health and safety needs of their children. Throughout the researchers’
surveys and interviews, the common theme of parents mostly wanting to remain virtual to keep
their children safe emerged. School district leaders held community forums to address these
86
needs and keep stakeholders updated on new guidelines. These guidelines allowed for school
leaders to have greater communication for addressing health and safety needs. According to
Estrada-Miller et al. (2022), schools need to implement both health and safety measures and
instill programmatic changes when returning to the classroom. The researchers found that 75%
of all staff and students were mandated to wear masks, 63% of schools limited class sizes to
allow desks to be at least six feet apart, and 50% of schools made PPE available for teachers and
masks for students.
Another theme that emerged was parents’ academic concerns. Most parents of K–12
students were worried about their children falling behind in school because of pandemic-related
disruptions (Horowitz et al., 2020). It was difficult for students to fully transition to an online
platform that had not been previously implemented. The inequity of access to technology and
support widened the gap between lower socioeconomic students and their peers. Moreover, there
were major divides based on race/ethnicity, geography, and economic class in accessing
computers and high-speed internet, if they were able to access it all. However, teachers became
stronger users of technology in their virtual classrooms and in implementing academic
instruction. They were provided opportunities to seek training and professional development to
build upon previous learnings and grow their online and live instructional programs during an
ongoing crisis pandemic (Diliberti et al., 2020).
According to Sharfstein and Morphew (2020), millions of children lost access to health
services through school-based health centers. Additionally, almost all superintendents stressed
the need for more mental health resources for their students. Superintendents made commitments
to using additional funding to provide school-based mental health services accessible to all
87
students upon the reopening of schools. Upon return from distance learning, students’ social and
emotional needs had to be met through access to school-based mental health.
Comparative Analysis and Common Themes From All Participating Districts
This study serves to better inform the field on the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on
Southern California public school districts and site administrators, specifically superintendents,
assistant superintendents, and principals. This study brought to light four major themes that were
present in all six school districts: (a) communication and collaboration, (b) spending flexibility,
(c) focus on the physical and psychological safety of staff and students, and (d) addressing
learning loss among students.
Communication and Collaboration
All of the research participants understood the importance of consistent and continuous
communication and collaboration. As part of California’s response to COVID-19 school
closures, Governor Gavin Newsom’s office facilitated an agreement among teachers’ unions,
classified employees, school boards, superintendents, and principals to use a specific framework
to work together on matters of labor and management to minimize any impact to
students—including direction on implementation and delivery of distance learning, special
education, and meals through the end of the school year (Bailey, 2020).
Each participant agreed that ongoing communication was required to ensure all
stakeholders were informed and updated on existing protocols. Schools relied on newsletters,
emails, and website updates. Districts used new vehicles of communication like virtual town hall
meetings on Zoom and social media platforms to keep stakeholders informed. Throughout the
pandemic, district leaders facilitated biweekly virtual meetings to keep school principals
88
informed on the existing mandates and policies changes, and school principals passed on such
communication to the staff, students, and parents of their respective school communities.
Spending Flexibility
All districts were grateful for the additional funds to mitigate the impact of the
COVID-19 pandemic on their districts; however, they also discussed the challenges associated
with the mandated spending timelines. All participants discussed the need to remove funding
barriers and instructional constraints such as set time requirements and allotted funds for specific
measures. Some of the deadlines to spend the money in certain timeframes and with specificity
prevented school districts from maintaining essential programming.
Safety
As a result of the COVID-19 pandemic, all participants shouldered responsibility for the
physical safety of staff and students as well as the psychological safety of their respective
stakeholders.
Physical Safety
Protecting the community and mitigating the spread of the virus was of the utmost
importance. Districts allocated considerable resources to acquiring adequate PPE and cleaning
supplies in order to keep their communities safe. Protocols governing the wearing of masks,
social distancing, installation of plexiglass dividers, and updating air filtration systems were put
in place to ensure the safe reopening of schools. In addition, education leaders partnered with
health agencies to provide convenient testing and vaccination sites to keep their communities
safe.
Emotional Safety
89
As the pandemic progressed, a need emerged to address the growing mental health crisis,
especially among marginalized communities (Lambert, 2020; Moore et al., 2020). Throughout
the researchers’ interviews with K–12 leaders in this study, all leaders addressed the need for
SEL programs, school-based mental health, and learning loss. Districts began by either adapting
existing SEL tools in curriculum or purchasing new SEL programs from outside agencies. These
needs became a necessary part of distance learning as well as plans for the reopening of schools
(Stavely, 2020). Due to the overwhelming impact the COVID-19 pandemic on the emotional
wellbeing of students, instruction and learning were impacted significantly.
Learning Loss
While teachers were provided opportunities to seek training and professional
development to grow the online and hybrid instructional program, learning loss remained an
extreme concern for all stakeholders (Diliberti et al., 2020). The COVID-19 pandemic
highlighted preexisting inequalities, especially among the underserved. The digital divide among
students and households became more obvious as some students had readily available access to
technology while some school districts had to provide devices and internet service to ensure that
students had effective and equitable access to curriculum. The inequity of access to technology
and support widened the gap between lower socioeconomic students and their peers. All districts
shifted curriculum to provide staff and students with learning management systems such as
Google, Canvas, Zoom, Parent Square, and Schoology. All participants spoke of their belief that
learning loss would disproportionately impact students of lower socioeconomic status.
Implications for Policy and Practice
This research study brings to light the impacts that the COVID-19 pandemic had on K–12
public school districts in Southern California. Through surveys and interviews, the researchers
90
identified how Southern California superintendents, assistant superintendents, and site principals
utilized their leadership and administrative practices to respond to the crisis presented during the
first year of the COVID-19 pandemic. The examination of the relevant literature and data
collection from the study led to two implications regarding school district and site principals
becoming crisis managers in an educational setting during the COVID-19 pandemic.
This study’s implications for practice and policy are targeted toward district and site level
administrators who are responsible for leading in times of crisis, navigating change, maintaining
communication, and problem solving. As Gainey (2009) stated,
As part of the public sphere, school-district leaders must observe crisis trends and ensure
that their school systems are crisis-ready for both traditional school crises (e.g., inclement
weather, discipline issues) and crises that originate elsewhere (e.g., economic crises,
health scares). p. 267
To that end, the following sections discuss the lessons learned from this study.
Maintain Inter-Agency and Intra-Agency Collaboration
Throughout this study, the theme of collaboration was crucial for crisis management at
both the district and site levels. Participants revealed that county-based collaboration benefitted
health and safety protocol implementation while federal government agencies were not as
reliable or effective in collaboration. It is an important implication for school leaders to focus on
creating cultures of collaboration with inter- and intra-agency collaboration. In order to keep
K–12 stakeholders safe during future crises, districts must engage in collaboration and maintain a
strong focus on planning with local, state, and federal government agencies. The
recommendation is to create a positive collaboration partnership with local, state, and federal
91
agencies, and those agencies must also be stronger in connecting and collaborating with K–12
districts.
Communicate Effectively
The second implication the researchers found connects to Fullan’s (2014) The Principal:
Three Keys to Maximizing Impact, which explored the essential skills to be an effective school
leader. The author sated, “You build trust on consistent transparent communication” (p. 1). The
data from this study confirm that during the COVID-19 pandemic, health protocols were
constantly changing, necessitating the need for regular communication. Study participants
discussed strategies ranging from weekly meetings with cabinet members and principals to
impromptu meetings with district and site leaders as changes occurred in guidance that impacted
sites, staff, and students. These leaders indicated using their school districts’ websites, email, and
social media accounts to maintain consistent communication with stakeholders. They credited
the effectiveness of their information dissemination to consistent, over-communication with
standardized messaging to ensure that all stakeholders received the same information. The study
participants agreed that effective communication facilitates trust, and with trust, a community
can sustain times of uncertainty.
Focus on Needs of All Staff
The needs of both certificated and classified staff emerged as a major theme throughout
the researchers’ surveys and interviews. One of the common themes from all district leaders
surveyed and interviewed was the priority to keep all staff safe and secure during the COVID-19
pandemic. K–12 superintendents in a future crisis must be aware of concerns of both unions and
address issues with reasonable accommodations and flexibility. As Hemphill and Marianno
(2021) highlighted, if district leadership and bargaining unions proactively plan for multiple
92
scenarios with labor partners from the beginning, school districts can mitigate any late
“surprises” from labor groups that might occur when it comes time to implement or change
learning plans in response to crises. Superintendents must be ready to adapt and pivot
negotiations immediately if recommended guidelines change. The inconsistency between
certificated and classified union negotiations and abilities to work virtually led to inequitable
circumstances, which were addressed by financial incentives for classified staff to return to work.
Address Students’ Mental Health Needs and Learning Loss
Darling-Hammond and Hyler (2020) asserted that
With the advent of the pandemic, even greater efforts are called for in meeting the social
emotional needs of children and implementing trauma- and healing-informed practices,
all while making up for learning loss and preparing for the coming unpredictable
combinations of distance learning, blended learning, and in-classroom learning. (p. 457)
Throughout the researchers’ interviews with K–12 leaders, they all addressed the need for SEL
programs, school-based mental health, and interventions for learning loss. These emotional needs
resulted from students’ trauma in returning to a school setting they have been away from for at
least a year with distance learning. Districts began by either adapting existing SEL in curriculum
or purchasing SEL programs from outside agencies. K–12 leaders also discussed the need for
hiring additional counselors to help support school-based mental health. On-site counselors have
been hired to support students returning to in-person learning.
Learning has been addressed through programs such as tutoring, compassionate grading
systems, enrichment, and summer programs. These interventions must be funded through federal
and state budgets that allow teachers and tutors to receive additional pay. There will also be a
need for opening summer programs to mitigate students’ learning loss. Schools must prioritize
93
students with the largest opportunity gaps and create individualized plans to support those
students.
The recommendation is to receive continuous funding from local, state, and federal
government agencies to address both SEL needs and learning loss for students through a
continuous annual cycle of interventions. It is also incumbent on school leaders to reframe the
learning loss as a learning shift. Future research needs to be done to uncover what skills students
developed and where learning was enhanced by students impacted by the COVID-19 pandemic.
Recommendations for Future Research
Chapter 3 presented the conceptual framework (Figure 1) through which this study was
conducted. The conceptual framework consisted of three theoretical frameworks working
together as a sort of cycle of growth. If we take the challenges created by the pandemic and the
responses of the superintendents, assistant superintendents, and principals and look at them
through the lens of this conceptual framework, some lessons learned can be implemented for
future practice.
As the COVID-19 pandemic continues to influence education and the greater world, there
are many unknowns about the long-term impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on school
communities and school leaders in Southern California. There are concerns about student
learning loss, social development, and psychological safety. The professional field of education
is also of concern as record numbers of professionals are leaving the field. These concerns
present possibilities for further research.
Increase Scope of Study Participants
Due to the scarcity of available research participants and vulnerability of the educational
leadership population, research to elicit further empirical data is recommended. Adding more
94
school districts and leaders to the research base would decrease the vulnerability of potential bias
and increase potential generalizability. The findings of the present study could have been more
robust by adding more schools to the research base, as well as requesting that the principals
recommend lead teachers to also participate in the data collection. It is recommended that this
study be replicated across the entire state and specific regions, such as Northern or Central
California or rural areas.
Recollecting Data From Impacted Students and Families
This research can be enhanced by the collection of additional data in future years
centered on examining the long-term impacts on the COVID-19 pandemic on learning and the
emotional wellbeing of people who were students at the time. Golberstein et al. (2020) reported
that, according to the American Psychological Association, 81% of generation Z have
experienced increased rates of anxiety and stress as well as self-harm and suicide due to the
COVID-19 pandemic. Future research can uncover the true resilience of students and if the
efforts made by school leaders actually supported the long-term health and wellbeing of students
who experienced increase anxiety, stress, or depression. These data can also uncover the impact
of classroom content not covered due to remote learning, specifically, what new skills and
developments are embodied by students who experienced COVID-19 pandemic shutdown and
what content and skills are under-developed in students impacted by the COVID-19 pandemic.
Additional Research From Teachers’ Unions Focusing on Relationships
Further research will need to be done on the impact of union negotiations on school sites.
California Assembly Bill 86 provided an incentive for schools to reopen to in-person learning.
All six superintendent study participants indicated there was resistance from teachers’ unions
with regard to reopening schools, and incentives were needed to reach an agreement. If future
95
circumstances were to arise causing the shutdown of schools, additional data from teachers’
unions could be beneficial regarding how to build and maintain sustainable relationships. This
research could include areas such as recruitment and retention that would serve in keeping
schools adequately staffed and open.
Conclusion
This study adds to the scarce body of literature regarding the impacts of the COVID-19
pandemic. The data revealed that leaders who had established cultures of care and collaboration
and focused on relationships were able to build communities of trust and, therefore, likely led
schools effectively through the COVID-19 pandemic. Data further showed that there are
successful traits and techniques universal to all school settings. When school leaders embrace
collaboration and apply leadership traits, such as integrity and compassion, to their effective
practices, true trust in the school community can occur. Further, using innovative means to meet
the individual needs of students and families and cultivating cultures of care and collaboration at
schools are essential for the success of all educational environments.
96
References
Ananat, E. O., & Gassman-Pines, A. (2020, March 30). Snapshot of the COVID crisis impact on
working families. Econofact.
https://econofact.org/snapshot-of-the-covid-crisis-impact-on-working-families
Attwell, K., Lake, J., Sneddon, J., Gerrans, P., Blyth, C., & Lee, J. (2021). Converting the
maybes: Crucial for a successful COVID-19 vaccination strategy. PLoS One, 16(1),
e0245907. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0245907
Bailey, J. P. (2020, July 14.) Reopening resilient schools. Education Next, 20(4).
https://www.educationnext.org/reopening-resilient-schools-hybrid-learning-model-proper
-safeguards-coronavirus-covid-19/
Bailey, J. P., & Hess, F. M. (2020). A blueprint for back to school. American Enterprise Institute.
https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED606266.pdf
Belsha, K. (2020, December 7). The empty gradebook: As students struggle with remote
learning, teachers grapple with Fs. Chalkbeat.
https://www.chalkbeat.org/2020/12/7/22160183/students-struggle-with-remote-learning-t
eachers-grapple-with-failing-grades
Bolman, L. G., & Deal, T. E. (2017). Reframing organizations: Artistry, choice, and leadership.
John Wiley & Sons.
Borman, G. D. (2020). What can be done to address learning losses due to school closures?
Policy Analysis for California Education.
https://edpolicyinca.org/publications/what-can-be-done-address-learning-losses-due-scho
ol-closures
97
Braunack-Mayer, T., Tooher, R., Collins, J. E., Street, J. M., & Marshall, H. (2013).
Understanding the school community’s response to school closures during the H1N1
2009 influenza pandemic. BMC Public Health, 13(1), 344.
https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2458-13-344
Butina, M. (2015). A narrative approach to qualitative inquiry. Clinical Laboratory
Science, 28(3), 190–196. https://doi.org/10.29074/ascls.28.3.190
Cai, L. (2020). Standardized testing in college admissions: Observations and reflections.
Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice, 39(3), 34–36.
https://doi.org/10.1111/emip.12389
California Department of Public Health. (2021). About us.
https://www.cdph.ca.gov/Pages/About.aspx
California School Employees Association. (2021). COVID-19 coronavirus: Information &
updates. https://www.csea.com/coronavirus
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. (2020). Operational strategy for K–12
schools through phased prevention.
https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/community/schools-childcare/operation-stra
tegy.html
Cipriano, C., & Brackett, M. (2020, March 18). Teacher, interrupted: Leaning into
social-emotional learning amid the COVID-19 crisis. EdSurge.
https://www.edsurge.com/news/2020-03-18-teacher-interrupted-leaning-into-social-emoti
onal-learning-amid-the-covid-19-crisis
Creswell, J. W. (2018). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods
approaches (5th ed.). Sage.
98
Darling-Hammond, L., & Hyler, M. E. (2020) Preparing educators for the time of COVID … and
beyond. European Journal of Teacher Education, 43(4), 457–465.
https://doi.org/10.1080/02619768.2020.1816961
De Figueiredo, C. S., Sandre, P. C., Portugal, L. C. L., Mázala-de-Oliveira, T., da Silva Chagas,
L., Raony, Í., & Bomfim, P. O. (2021). COVID-19 pandemic impact on children and
adolescents’ mental health: Biological, environmental, and social factors. Progress in
Neuro-Psychopharmacology and Biological Psychiatry, 106, 110171.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pnpbp.2020.110171
Diliberti, M. K., Schwartz, H. L., Hamilton, L. S., & Kaufman, J. H. (2020). Prepared for a
pandemic? How schools’ preparedness related to their remote instruction during
COVID-19. RAND. https://doi.org/10.7249/RRA168-3
Ed-Data. (n.d.). 2020-21 school district financial data now available. https://www.ed-data.org/
Ed Glossary. (2013a, August 29). Cohort. In the glossary of education reform.
https://www.edglossary.org/cohort/
Ed Glossary. (2013b, August 29). Learning loss. In the glossary of education reform.
https://www.edglossary.org/learning-loss/
EdSource. (2021, August 11). Families face the demands of online and hybrid learning.
https://edsource.org/2020/families-face-the-demands-of-online-and-hybrid-learning/63922
4
The Education Trust-West. (2020). Poll: California parents very concerned about children falling
behind during school closures [Press release].
https://west.edtrust.org/press-release/poll-ca-parents-concerned-about-school-closures-caus
ed-by-COVID-19/
99
Estrada-Miller, M. P. P., Wolf, M. P. A., Armas, E. D., & Elvira, G. (2022). Uplifting the
perspectives and preferences of the families of English learners in Los Angeles Unified
School District and charter schools: Findings from a representative poll. Loyola
Marymount University Center for Equity for English Learners.
https://doi.org/10.15365/ceel.policy.11
Feldman, J. (2018). Grading for equity: What it is, why it matters and how it can transform
schools and classrooms. Sage.
Fensterwald, J. (2021, August 23). Many small districts complain California shorted their
funding during the pandemic. EdSource.
https://edsource.org/2021/many-small-districts-complain-california-shorted-their-funding
-during-the-pandemic/660083
Fink, A. G. (2012). How to conduct surveys: A step-by-step guide (5th ed.). Sage.
Flott, E., & Simpson, C. (2020, May 19). 6 ways coaches can support teachers during distance
learning. Learning Forward.
https://learningforward.org/2020/05/19/6-ways-coaches-can-support-teachers-during-dist
ance-learning/
Fotheringham, P., Harriott, T., Healy, G., Arenge, G., McGill, R., & Wilson, E. (2020, August 3).
Pressures and influences on school leaders as policy makers during COVID-19. SSRN
Electronic Journal. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3642919
Fullan, M. (2014). The principal: Three keys to maximizing impact. Josey-Bass.
Fullan, M., & Quinn, J. (2016). Coherence: The right drivers in action for schools, districts, and
systems. Corwin.
100
Gainey, B. S. (2009). Crisis management’s new role in educational settings. The Clearing House:
A Journal of Educational Strategies, Issues and Ideas, 82(6), 267–274.
https://doi.org/10.3200/TCHS.82.6.267-274
Gaylord-Harden, N., Adams-Bass, V ., Bogan, E., Francis, L., Scott, J., Seaton, E., & Williams, J.
(2020, September 9). Addressing inequities in education: Considerations for Black
children and youth. Society for Research in Child Development.
https://www.srcd.org/research/addressing-inequities-education-considerations-black-child
ren-and-youth-era-covid-19
Golberstein, E., Wen, H., & Miller, B. F. (2020, April 14). Coronavirus disease 2019
(COVID-19) and mental health for children and adolescents. Journal of the American
Medical Association Pediatrics, 174(9), 819–820.
https://doi.org/10.1001/jamapediatrics.2020.1456
Gordon, L. (2020). In historic action, UC moves to drop SAT/ACT and develop a replacement
exam for admissions. EdSource.
https://edsource.org/2020/in-historic-action-uc-moves-to-drop-sat-act-and-develop-a-repl
acement-exam-for-admissions/632174
Gross, B., & Opalka, A. (2020, June). Too many schools leave learning to chance during the
pandemic. Center on Reinventing Public Education
https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED605576.pdf
Gross, C. P., Essien, U. R., Pasha, S., Gross, J. R., Wang, S. Y ., & Nunez-Smith, M. (2020,
October). Racial and ethnic disparities in population-level COVID-19 mortality. Journal
of General Internal Medicine, 35(10), 3097–3099.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11606-020-06081-w
101
Harrington, T. (2021, February 2). Quick guide: What California’s color coded county tracking
system means for schools? EdSource.
https://edsource.org/2021/quick-guide-what-californias-color-coded-county-tracking-syst
em-means-for-schools/639357
Hemphill, A. A., & Marianno, B. D. (2021). Teachers’ unions, collective bargaining, and the
response to COVID-19. Education Finance and Policy, 16(1), 170–182.
https://doi.org/10.1162/edfp_a_00326
Henig, J. (2013). The end of exceptionalism in American education: The changing politics of
school reform. Harvard Education Press.
Herold, B. (2020, April 10). The disparities in remote learning under coronavirus (in charts).
Education Week.
https://www.edweek.org/technology/the-disparities-in-remote-learning-under-coronavirus
-in-charts/2020/04
Horowitz, J. M., Igielnik, R., & Kochhar, R. (2020). Most Americans say there is too much
economic inequality in the US, but fewer than half call it a top priority. Pew Research
Center.
Jaschik, S. (2021a, January 11). Admission haves and have-nots. Inside Higher Ed.
https://www.insidehighered.com/admissions/article/2021/01/11/admissions-cycle-favors-i
nstitutions-prestige-and-money
Jaschik, S. (2021b, January 25). Changes in SAT prompt discussion of future of the College
Board. Inside Higher
102
Ed. https://www.insidehighered.com/print/admissions/article/2021/01/25/changes-sat-pro
mpt-discussion-future-college-board
Javed, B., Sarwer, A., Soto, E. B., & Mashwani, Z. (2020). The coronavirus (COVID -19)
pandemic’s impact on mental health. The International Journal of Health Planning and
Management, 35(5), 993–996. https://doi.org/10.1002/hpm.3008
Jones, C. (2020, May 13). Student anxiety, depression increasing during school closures, survey
finds. EdSource.
https://edsource.org/2020/student-anxiety-depression-increasing-during-school-closures-s
urvey-finds/631224
Jones, C., & Freedberg, L. (2021). California Legislature approves plan to encourage schools to
reopen for in-person instruction. EdSource.
https://edsource.org/2021/california-legislature-approves-plan-to-encourage-schools-to-re
open-for-in-person-instruction/650493
Kaiser, U. B., Mirmira, R. G., & Stewart, P. M. (2020). Our response to COVID-19 as
endocrinologists and diabetologists. The Journal of Clinical Endocrinology &
Metabolism, 105(5), 1299–1301. https://doi.org/10.1210/clinem/dgaa148
Kinsey, E. W., Hecht, A. A., Dunn, C. G., Levi, R., Read, M. A., Smith, C., Niesen, P., Seligman,
H. K., & Hager, E. R. (2020, July 9). School closures during COVID-19: Opportunities
for innovation in meal service. American Journal of Public Health, 110(11), 1635–1643.
https://doi.org/10.2105/AJPH.2020.305875
Kurtz, M., Kopinsky, J., Gelashvili, R., Matveev, A., Carr, J., Goin, M., Leiserson, W., Moore,
S., Shavit, N., & Alistarh, D. (2020, November). Inducing and exploiting activation
103
sparsity for fast inference on deep neural networks. Journal of Machine Learning
Research, 119, 5533–5543. https://proceedings.mlr.press/v119/kurtz20a.html
Lambert, D. (2020, June 1). Emotional schools chief Tony Thurmond vows to address racism in
public education. EdSource.
https://edsource.org/2020/emotional-schools-chief-tony-thurmond-vows-to-address-racis
m-in-public-education/632843
Levitt, H. M., Bamberg, M., Creswell, J. W., Frost, D. M., Josselson, R., & Suárez-Orozco, C.
(2018). Journal article reporting standards for qualitative primary, qualitative
meta-analytic, and mixed methods research in psychology. American Psychologist, 73(1),
26–46. https://doi.org/10.1037/amp0000151
Lochmiller, C. R., & Lester, J. N. (2017). An introduction to educational research: Connecting
methods to practice. Sage.
Los Angeles County Department of Public Health. (2021). Reopening LA County.
http://publichealth.lacounty.gov/media/coronavirus/reopening-la.htm
Malkus, N., Christensen, C., & Shurz, J. (2020). School district responses to the COVID-19
pandemic: Round 6, districts are up and running. American Enterprise Institute for
Public Policy Research.
https://www.aei.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/06/School-district-responses-to-the-COVI
D-19-Pandemic-Round-6.pdf
Maxwell, J. A. (2013). Qualitative research design (3rd ed.). Sage.
104
Mayer, B. W., Moss, J., & Dale, K. (2008). Disaster and preparedness: Lessons from Hurricane
Rita. Wiley-Blackwell: Journal of Contingencies & Crisis Management.
McLoughlin, G. M., Fleischhacker, S., Hecht, A. A., McGuirt, J., Vega, C., Read, M.,
Colón-Ramos, U., & Dunn, C. G. (2020, December 1). Feeding students during
COVID-19—Related school closures: A nationwide assessment of initial responses.
Journal of Nutrition Education and Behavior, 52(12), 1120–1130.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jneb.2020.09.018
Merriam, S. B., & Tisdell, E. J. (2016). Designing your study and selecting a sample. Qualitative
research: A guide to design and implementation. Wiley & Sons.
Mertler, C. A. (2021). Introduction to educational research. Sage.
Mertz, A. (n.d.). A century of teacher organizing: What can we learn? The Labor and
Working-Class History Association.
https://www.lawcha.org/century-teaching-organizing/
Moore, S. A., Faulkner, G., Rhodes, R. E., Brussoni, M., Chulak-Bozzer, T., Ferguson, L. J.,
Mitra, R., O’Reilly, N., Spence, J. C., Vanderloo, L. M., & Tremblay, M. S. (2020, July
6). Impact of the COVID-19 virus outbreak on movement and play behaviours of
Canadian children and youth: A national survey. International Journal of Behavioral
Nutrition and Physical Activity, 17(85). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12966-020-00987-8
National Conference of State Legislatures. (2021, June 23). Elementary and Secondary School
Emergency Relief fund tracker.
https://www.ncsl.org/ncsl-in-dc/standing-committees/education/cares-act-elementary-and
-secondary-school-emergency-relief-fund-tracker.aspx
105
O’Connor, K. (2010). Grades: When, why, what impact and how? Education Canada, spring,
38–41. https://www.edcan.ca/wp-content/uploads/EdCan-2010-v50-n2-O'Connor.pdf
Oxford University. (2021). CoSP ACE study. http://cospaceoxford.org/
Pandemic school closures: Risks and opportunities [Editorial]. (2020, April 8). The Lancet Child
& Adolescent Health, 4(5), 341–341. https://doi.org/10.1016/S2352-4642(20)30105-X
The Parent Institute for Quality Education. (2020). Spring 2020: Community needs assessment.
https://www.piqe.org/data/
Patton. M. Q. (2002). Qualitative research and evaluation methods (3rd ed.). Sage.
Porta, M. (Ed.). (2008). A dictionary of epidemiology (5th ed.). Oxford University Press.
http://www.academia.dk/BiologiskAntropologi/Epidemiologi/PDF/Dictionary_of_Epide
miology__5th_Ed.pdf
Procter, R. (2021, March 4). Remember when? Timeline marks key events in California’s
year-long pandemic grind. CalMatters.
https://calmatters.org/health/coronavirus/2021/03/timeline-california-pandemic-year-key-
points/
Reimers, F. M., & Schleicher, A. (2020). Schooling disrupted, schooling rethought: How the
COVID-19 pandemic is changing education. Organisation for Economic Co-operation
and Development.
https://globaled.gse.harvard.edu/files/geii/files/education_continuity_v3.pdf
Sawchuck, S. (2021, December 11). Should schools be giving so many failing grades this year?
Education Week.
https://www.edweek.org/leadership/should-schools-be-giving-so-many-failing-grades-thi
s-year/2020/12
106
Schwartz, S. (2021, April 23). Learning loss, in general, is a misnomer: Study shows kids made
progress during COVID-19. Education Week.
https://www.edweek.org/leadership/learning-loss-in-general-is-a-misnomer-study-shows-
kids-made-progress-during-COVID-19/2021/04
Sharfstein, J. M., & Morphew, C. C. (2020). The urgency and challenge of opening K–12 schools
in the fall of 2020. Journal of American Medical Association, 324(2), 133–134.
https://doi:10.1001/jama.2020.10175
State of California. Safe Schools for All. (2021). https://schools.covid19.ca.gov/
107
State of California Office of Governor. (2020, April 1). Governor Newsom announces agreement
between teachers, classified employees and school system management to support student
instruction during COVID-19 outbreak [Press release].
https://www.gov.ca.gov/2020/04/01/governor-newsom-announces-agreement-between-te
achers-classified-employees-and-school-system-management-to-support-student-instructi
on-during-COVID-19-outbreak/
Stavely, Z. (2020, August 11). Why some California classrooms will reopen for child care,
though barred from in-person instruction. EdSource.
https://edsource.org/2020/why-some-california-classrooms-will-reopen-for-child-care-tho
ugh-barred-from-in-person-instruction/638010
Stern, C. (2009). Closing the schools: Lessons from the 1918–19 U.S. influenza pandemic:
Ninety-one years later, the evidence shows that there are positive and negative ways to do
it. Health Affairs, 2(1), 1066–1078. https://doi.org/10.1377/hlthaff.28.6.w1066
Turnbull, A. P., Turnbull, H. R., & Wehmeyer, M. L. (2019). Exceptional lives: Special
education in today’s schools. Merrill.
United States Department of Education. (2021). Elementary and Secondary School Emergency
Relief fund.
https://oese.ed.gov/offices/education-stabilization-fund/elementary-secondary-school-em
ergency-relief-fund/
United States Department of Health and Human Services. (2021, April 28). Coronavirus
(COVID-19). https://www.hhs.gov/coronavirus/index.html
108
Waite, P., Parkinson, M., Willetts, L., & Creswell, C. (2014). Evidence-based CBT for anxiety
and depression in children and adolescents: A competencies based approach. Wiley &
Sons.
Walters, A. (2020, August). Inequities in access to education: Lessons from the COVID-19
pandemic. The Brown University Child and Adolescent Behavior Letter, 36(8), 8.
https://doi.org/10.1002/cbl.30483
Westover, J. H. (2020). The alchemy of truly remarkable leadership: Ordinary, everyday actions
that produce extraordinary results. HCI Press.
Will, M., Gerwertz, C., & Schwartz, S. (2020, November 17). Did COVID-19 really drive
teachers to quit? Education Week.
https://www.edweek.org/teaching-learning/did-COVID-19-really-drive-teachers-to-quit/2
020/11
Wong, A. (2020, December 23). Scores of students are getting F’s: What’s the point of failing
them during COVID-19? USA Today.
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/education/2020/12/23/students-failing-grades-onli
ne-class-coronavirus/3967886001/
World Health Organization. (n.d.). International health regulations.
https://www.who.int/health-topics/international-health-regulations#tab=tab_1
World Health Organization. (2020, March 11). WHO Director-General’ s opening remarks at the
media briefing on COVID-1.
https://www.who.int/director-general/speeches/detail/who-director-general-s-opening-rem
arks-at-the-media-briefing-on-COVID-19---11-march-2020
109
Xiong, J., Lipsitz, O., Nasri, F., Lui, L., Gill, H., Phan, L., Chen-Li, D., Iacobucci, M., Ho, R.,
Majeed, A., & McIntyre, R. (2020, August 08). Impact of COVID-19 pandemic on
mental health in the general population: A systematic review. Journal of Affective
Disorders, 277, 55–64. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jad.2020.08.001
Zaccoletti, S., Camacho, A., Correia, N., Aguiar, C., Mason, L., Alves, R. A., & Daniel, J. R.
(2020, December 18). Parents’ perceptions of student academic motivation during the
COVID-19 lockdown: A cross-country comparison. Frontiers in Psychology, 11, 1–13.
https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2020.592670
Zhou, D., Dejnirattisai, W., Supasa, P., Liu, C., Mentzer, A. J., Ginn, H. M., Zhao, Y .,
Duyvesteyn, H. M. E., Tuekprakhon, A., Nutalai, R., Wang, B., Paesen, G. C.,
Lopez-Camacho, C., Slon-Campos, J., Hallis, B., Coombes, N., Bewley, K., Charlton, S.,
Walter, T. S. … Screaton, G. R. (2021). Evidence of escape of SARS-CoV-2 variant B.
1.351 from natural and vaccine-induced sera. Cell, 184(9), 2348–2361.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cell.2021.02.037
110
Appendix A: CDC Indicators and Thresholds for Community Transmission of COVID-19
Indicator
Low
transmission
(blue)
Moder
ate
transmission
(yello
w)
Substa
ntial
transmission
(orang
e)
High
transm
ission
(red)
Total new cases per
100,000 persons in the
past 7 days
0–9 10–49 50–99 ≥100
Percentage of NAATs
that are positive
during the past 7 days
<5.0% 5.0%–
7.9%
8.0%–
9.9%
≥10.0
%

Abstract (if available)

Abstract Public health recommendations and governmental measures during the COVID-19 pandemic have resulted in numerous restrictions on daily living including social distancing, masking, stay at home orders and remote schooling. While these measures are imperative to mitigate the spreading of COVID-19, the impact of these restrictions on educational systems was considerable.
This research investigates the impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic on K-12 public school districts in Southern California. Following a structured review of the literature the report presents the results of a mixed methods data analysis of the Superintendents, Assistants Superintendents and site principals. School district administrators were asked a series of survey questions and interview questions that were analyzed to adapt common themes of their responses.

Linked assets

University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Conceptually similar

PDF

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

PDF

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

PDF

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

PDF

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

PDF

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

PDF

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

PDF

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

PDF

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

PDF

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

PDF

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

PDF

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

PDF

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

PDF

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

PDF

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

PDF

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

PDF

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

PDF

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

PDF

Analyzing the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic On K-12 southern California public school districts and understanding what district and site administrators…

PDF

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

PDF

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

Asset Metadata

Creator Locke, Anthony Ray, II (author)

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

School Rossier School of Education

Degree Doctor of Education

Degree Program Education (Leadership)

Degree Conferral Date 2022-08

Publication Date 07/05/2022

Defense Date 04/11/2022

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

Tag COVID-19,Education,OAI-PMH Harvest,pandemic

Format application/pdf (imt)

Language English

Contributor Electronically uploaded by the author (provenance)

Advisor Castruita, Rudy (committee chair), Cash, David (committee member), Roach, John (committee member)

Creator Email a_rlocke@yahoo.com,arlocke@usc.edu

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-oUC111352074

Unique identifier UC111352074

Legacy Identifier etd-LockeAntho-10806

Document Type Dissertation

Format application/pdf (imt)

Rights Locke, Anthony Ray, II

Type texts

Source 20220706-usctheses-batch-950 (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