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
Jaclyn Dawn Spangler

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

May 2022

© Copyright by Jaclyn Dawn Spangler 2022
All Rights Reserved

The Committee for Jaclyn Dawn Spangler certifies the approval of this Dissertation

Gregory Franklin
John Roach
Rudy Castruita, Committee Chair

Rossier School of Education
University of Southern California
May 2022

iv
Abstract
The purpose of this study was to analyze the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on Southern
California K–12 school districts and understand what district and site administrators have learned
from their experiences and their decision-making responsibilities in managing the crisis. This
study has brought to light the impact of the pandemic on students, families, leaders, schools, and
districts. Most importantly, this study examined how district and school leaders influenced
administrative practices, student achievement, fiscal responsibility, union leadership, and
community/parent support as they responded to the COVID-19 crisis. The study implemented a
mixed methods approach to establish triangulation. This study utilized surveys and semi-
structured interviews to gather data from 9 school superintendents, 9 assistant superintendents,
and 9 principals from 9 public school districts. The study highlights unique leadership roles
administrators, superintendents, and principals assumed and the qualities they enacted. Findings
from this study have demonstrated how the COVID-19 pandemic has impacted all facets of
schooling and how Southern California K–12 public school superintendents, assistant
superintendents, and principals transitioned into crisis managers and relied on relationship-
building, clear communication, grounded decision making, and focused goal setting. As the
pandemic continues to disrupt schooling at the time of this study, there are several considerations
and areas for future study: the impact of the crisis on students, staff, and school leaders’ well-
being and education, the unknown regarding the current state of the virus and pandemic, current
school crisis plans and administrative preparedness programs.
Keywords: COVID-19 pandemic, crisis, leadership, K–12 school districts, school
administration, mixed methods, superintendent, assistant superintendent, principal, district
responses to COVID-19, pandemic, learning loss, fiscal impact, unions, COVID-19 guidance,

v
health, safety, social-emotional, technology, nutrition, academic concerns, spending flexibility,
agencies, CARES Act, ESSR Funding.

vi
Dedication
To my husband Nick, my children Jameson and Blakely, and my parents Jeannine and Mickey.
Without each of you, this would not have been possible. Thank you for supporting me
throughout this 3-year journey. Thank you for encouraging me when I needed it most and
sending me your constant prayers and unconditional love. Thank you for supporting my passion
and my love for learning. You have each reminded me in different ways that I can do all things
through Christ who strengthens me.

vii
Acknowledgement
I would like to express my sincere gratitude for my dissertation chair, Dr. Rudy Castruita
for his constant guidance, positive encouragement and expertise. Thank you for supporting and
guiding me through each step of the dissertation and defense process. Next, I would like to thank
my dissertation committee members Dr. Gregory Franklin and Dr. John Roach for offering your
time and valuable advice to my study. Without my dissertation committee, this would not be
possible. Thank you to all of the superintendents, assistant superintendents and principals that
gave up their time and offered a lot of valuable input towards my research.
To David, Kristan and Heather. Thank you for learning alongside me and making this 3-
year journey memorable and enjoyable. I value the true friendships we built from our weekly
Tustin cohort meetups. Thank you for supporting me throughout this journey and encouraging
me when times were tough.
Thank you to my entire family for your support. I want to especially thank my husband
Nick, for helping me realize I could begin this program with a newborn and toddler and for
caring for our two children on the nights I was away for class. Thank you for encouraging me to
further my education while so often fulfilling the role of both mom and dad.
Thank you to my parents Jeannine and Mickey for your everlasting support and love.
You have shown me what hard work and dedication looks like and how never giving up leads to
success. I wish to instill these life lessons in my own children. Because of you, this research and
degree was possible.
Thank you!

viii
Preface
Some of the chapters of this dissertation were co-authored. While jointly authored
dissertations are not the norm of most doctoral programs, a collaborative effort is reflective of
real-world practices. To meet their objectives 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 inquiry to conduct this shared venture. This dissertation is part of a
collaborative project between the doctoral candidates: Kristan Bruce, Arpy Cherkezian, and
Jaclyn Spangler. We three doctoral students met with district leaders with the aim of learning
about their response to the COVID-19 pandemic. 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 three dissertations produced by our inquiry team collectively
examined the topic: COVID-19 Impact on Southern California School Districts.

ix
Table of Contents
Abstract .......................................................................................................................................... iv
List of Tables ................................................................................................................................ xiv
List of Figures ............................................................................................................................... xv
Chapter One: Overview of the Study .............................................................................................. 1
Background of the Problem ................................................................................................. 2
Significance of the Study .................................................................................................... 2
Limitation and Delimitations .............................................................................................. 3
Definition of Terms ............................................................................................................. 3
Organization of Study ......................................................................................................... 9
Chapter Two: Review of the Literature ......................................................................................... 10
History of Pandemics Affecting Schools .......................................................................... 10
School Closures ................................................................................................................. 11
Access to Services and Technology .................................................................................. 13
Leadership in Crisis Situations Facing Schools ................................................................ 15
Preparation and Training of Schools Before a Pandemic ................................................. 18
Preparation and Training of Schools During a Pandemic ................................................. 19
Training ............................................................................................................................. 20
Role of Government and Healthcare Agencies Used by School Districts ........................ 21
Roles of Certificated and Classified Unions ..................................................................... 23
Impact of Pandemic on Schools and Children .................................................................. 24
Technology ........................................................................................................................ 26
Learning Loss .................................................................................................................... 26
Mental Health .................................................................................................................... 28
Nutrition ............................................................................................................................ 29

x
Marginalized Populations .................................................................................................. 30
School Leadership Facing Crises ...................................................................................... 32
Theoretical Framework ..................................................................................................... 34
Reframing Organizations: Artistry, Choice, and Leadership ............................................ 35
Structural Frame .................................................................................................... 35
Human Resource Frame ........................................................................................ 35
Political Frame ...................................................................................................... 36
Symbolic Frame .................................................................................................... 36
Districts on the Move: Leading a Coherent System of Continuous Improvement ........... 38
Clarity of District Goals and Priorities .................................................................. 39
Culture of Shared Leadership and Systematic Collaboration ............................... 39
Coherent Instructional Framework for Developing Collective Expertise ............. 39
Evidence-based Inquiry Cycles for Continuous Improvement ............................. 39
Conclusion ......................................................................................................................... 40
Chapter Three: Methodology ........................................................................................................ 42
Statement of the Problem .................................................................................................. 42
Purpose of the Study ......................................................................................................... 42
Research Questions ........................................................................................................... 42
Research Team .................................................................................................................. 43
Research Design ................................................................................................................ 44
Qualitative Methods .............................................................................................. 44
Quantitative Methods ............................................................................................ 45
Sample and Population .......................................................................................... 46
Instrumentation and Conceptual Framework ........................................................ 47
Data Analysis ........................................................................................................ 50

xi
Ethical Considerations ....................................................................................................... 51
Summary ........................................................................................................................... 51
Chapter Four: Findings .................................................................................................................. 53
Participants ........................................................................................................................ 55
Demographic Data ................................................................................................. 56
Research Question 1 Findings ........................................................................................... 60
Research Question 1 Survey Questions ................................................................ 61
Theme 1: Fiscal Priorities and Varied Spending ................................................... 64
Theme 2: Ambiguity ............................................................................................. 69
Theme 3: Sustainability over Broad Flexibility .................................................... 74
Theme 4: Safety as a Decisive Factor, Not Money ............................................... 82
Theme 5: Silver Linings and Possibilities ............................................................. 87
Research Question 2 Findings ........................................................................................... 89
Research Question 2 Survey Questions ................................................................ 90
Theme 1: Guidance from the County and Collaboration ...................................... 92
Theme 2: Guidelines Constantly Changing and Not Coherent ............................. 94
Research Question 3 Findings ........................................................................................... 96
Research Question 3 Survey Questions ................................................................ 97
Theme 1: Certificated Union Negotiations Focus on Quality Online
Instruction ............................................................................................................ 100
Theme 2: Acknowledging Classified Employees and Essential Workers .......... 101
Research Question 4 Findings ......................................................................................... 102
Research Question 4 Survey Questions .............................................................. 103
Theme 1: Communication and Transparency ..................................................... 105
Theme 2: Safety Concerns and Reopening ......................................................... 107
Summary ......................................................................................................................... 109

xii
Safety ............................................................................................................................... 110
Joint Sensemaking and Collective Decision Making ...................................................... 111
Communication ............................................................................................................... 112
Unions and Negotiations ................................................................................................. 113
Chapter Five: Summary, Implications, and Conclusion ............................................................. 115
Statement of the Problem ................................................................................................ 116
Purpose of the Study ....................................................................................................... 116
Participants ...................................................................................................................... 116
Key Findings ................................................................................................................... 117
Findings for Research Question 1 ....................................................................... 117
Findings for Research Question 2 ....................................................................... 119
Findings for Research Question 3 ....................................................................... 120
Findings for Research Question 4 ....................................................................... 122
Implications for Practice ................................................................................................. 122
Implication 1: Bolman and Deal’s Four Frames ................................................. 124
Implication 2: Collective Decision Making a Standard Practice ........................ 125
Implication 3: Enhanced Effective Communication ........................................... 126
Recommendations for Future Study ................................................................................ 127
Recommendation 1: Research the Long-term Effects of the Pandemic .............. 127
Recommendation 2: Research the Crisis-Ready State of Schools and
Administrators ..................................................................................................... 128
Conclusion ....................................................................................................................... 129
References ................................................................................................................................... 130
Appendix A: Research Participant Invitation Email .................................................................. 145
Appendix C: Assistant Superintendent Survey ........................................................................... 152
Appendix D: Superintendent Survey ........................................................................................... 157

xiii
Appendix E: Principal Interview Protocol .................................................................................. 162
Appendix F: Assistant Superintendent Interview Protocol ......................................................... 164
Appendix G: Superintendent Interview Protocol ........................................................................ 166
Appendix H: Question Alignment Matrix ................................................................................... 168

xiv
List of Tables
Table 1: Demographic Information: School District Participants 56
Table 2: Quantitative Survey: Superintendent Demographic Information 57
Table 3: Quantitative Survey: Assistant Superintendent Demographic Information 58
Table 4: Quantitative Survey: Principal Demographic Information 59
Table 5: Quantitative Survey: District and Site Leaders’ Mean Agreement Scores
Regarding Financial Implications of COVID-19 62
Table 6: Quantitative Survey: District and Site Leaders’ Mean Agreement Scores
Regarding the Impact of Health and Safety Guidelines 91
Table 7: Quantitative Survey: District and Site Leaders’ Mean Agreement Ratings
Regarding the Impact of Union Negotiations 98
Table 8: Quantitative Survey: District and Site Leaders’ Mean Agreement Ratings of
Parent Concerns 104
Table B1: Principal Survey Items 147
Table C1: Assistant Superintendent Survey Items 152
Table D1: Superintendent Survey Items 157
Appendix H: Question Alignment Matrix 168

xv
List of Figures
Figure 1: Data Collection 49

1

Chapter One: Overview of the Study
The COVID-19 pandemic has been rapidly evolving and lingering. This is unusual for the
types of crises schools more typically face, which tend to be either immediate, like an active
shooter, or persistent like underachievement (Gainey, 2009). The pandemic prompted schools to
close on short notice under “hold harmless” guidelines from state agencies overseeing education
with the exception of school 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 provided rules, guidance, and
protocols to help schools operate in these new circumstances. While these were sometimes
helpful, they could also be contradictory and difficult to enforce, which caused problems for
school districts. As these rules and regulations evolved, so 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.
Parents were also heavily impacted by the pandemic as students stayed home to learn.
Parents rely on schools not just for education but for childcare, food, and social, emotional, and
medical care for their children. These stakeholder concerns drastically changed the role of school
leadership, at the district and site levels. School leaders became crisis managers to see their
organizations through the pandemic.

2

Background of the Problem
In March 2020, the world came to a sudden halt with the outbreak of COVID-19.
COVID-19 impacted society in ways that the world was not prepared to handle. Hospitals
overflowed, businesses closed, and life in quarantine proved to be a challenge magnified the
longer it went on (Haleem et al., 2020). The education system was not immune to the effects of
the pandemic. Schools were forced to adapt in ways that had few precedents to learn from, ever-
changing guidelines that were difficult to follow, and situations that made decision-making an
extremely challenging task. The closing of schools over a long period of time not only
contributed negatively to students but unmasked further inequities to marginalized groups and
lower socioeconomic populations.
In Chapter One, I include the background of the problem, statement of the problem, the
purpose of the study, significance of the study, research questions, assumptions, limitations,
delimitations, and a definition of terms.
Significance of the Study
This study will add to the body of knowledge about the evolving roles and responses of
California public K–12 school superintendents, assistant superintendents, and principals during
the pandemic. COVID-19 shifted the roles and scope of schools and school leaders, beyond
instructional leaders by transforming them into crisis managers. This unprecedented event forced
educational leadership to quickly make changes in a strategic way to support students and
families. Educational leadership was on display in California from the Governor’s office to K–12
school educators and classified staff members who prioritized student safety at the expense of
academic excellence. Difficult decisions had to be made to support student needs during school
closures. By analyzing the effective practices and shortcomings of this crisis from the leaders on

3

the frontlines, superintendents, assistant superintendents, and principals, I hope to gain insight
into prevention and implementation as future crises occur in education. If a pandemic ever arises
again, this study will support how the crises could be addressed through the systems in place by
school leaders, educators, boards of education, and community stakeholders meant to reimagine
and revolutionize a new educational landscape committed to building a culture of equity to repay
the educational debt.
Limitation and Delimitations
The study has some boundaries beyond the control of the research team that may affect
internal validity. Limitations of this study include the ongoing disruptions caused by the
pandemic on public education; the participants are only from Southern California public schools;
self-reporting surveys are included; interview questions may contain researcher bias; interviews
conducted virtually; the sample may not accurately represent all school districts in California.
The next steps would include using a similar process to include a larger representation from
different districts throughout California or the United States.
The delimitations of the study relate to the generalizability of the findings and are
associated with the availability of time and resources. To narrow the focus of this study, the
superintendents, assistant superintendents, and principals selected are current leaders in large
urban public-school districts in Southern California willing to participate in the study.
Definition of Terms
The following is a list of key terms and definitions used in 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

4

whether they meet the timetable Gov. Gavin Newsom called for in his “Safe Schools for All”
plan (Jones & Freedberg, 2021).
Assembly and Senate Bill 129: 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 (Fensterwald et al., 2021).
Asynchronous learning: Asynchronous learning occurs without direct, simultaneous
interaction of participants such as videos featuring direct instruction of new content students
watch on their own time (CDE, 2020).
California Department of Education (CDE): A governmental body that oversees the
state’s diverse public school system, which is responsible for the education of more than six
million children and young adults in more than 10,000 schools with 300,000 teachers. CDE
enforces education laws and regulations and continues to reform and improve public school
programs (CDE, 2020).
California Department of Public Health (CDPH): 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): The California School Employees
Association 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 essential work in our public schools and community colleges, including security, food
services, office and clerical work, school maintenance and operations, transportation, academic

5

assistance and paraeducator services, library and media assistance, computer services, and more
(CSEA, 2021).
CARES Act: The Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act (CARES Act) was
passed by Congress on March 27th, 2020. This bill allotted $2.2 trillion to provide fast and direct
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).
Center for Disease Control (CDC): The nation’s health agency that “conducts critical
science and provides health information” and responds to health crises (CDC, 2021).
Cohort: “A group of individuals who have something in common,” such as the same
grade level or specific student groups, such as English Learners (EdGlossary, 2013).
Collective bargaining agreement (CBA): The primary activity of a union is to represent
the teachers in negotiating the terms of employment contracts, called collective bargaining.
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 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 (EdData, 2021).

6

COVID-19: A novel strain of coronaviruses that shares seventy-nine percent genetic
similarity with SARS-CoV from the 2003 SARS outbreak, declared in March 2020 by the World
Health Organization (WHO) as a global pandemic (WHO, 2021b; Xiong et al., 2020).
Distance learning: 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): Established in the
Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security (CARES) Act and further funded under the
Coronavirus Response and Relief Supplemental Appropriations (CRRSA) Act and the American
Rescue Plan (ARP) Act, the U.S. Department of Education awarded emergency relief funds to
address the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on elementary and secondary schools across the
Nation (United States Department of Education, 2021).
Essential workers: Essential workers conduct a range of operations and services essential
to continue critical infrastructure operations (National Conference for State Legislatures, 2021).
Free and appropriate public education (FAPE): All students ages 3–22 receive a free
public education that meets their educational needs. 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 (Exceptional Lives, 2019).
Hybrid (blended) learning: A combination of in-person and distance learning (CDE,
2020).
In-person: Students receive in-person instruction for at least part of the instructional day
for the full instructional week (CA Safe Schools for All, 2021).

7

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” (Edglossary.org, 2021).
Pandemic: The International Epidemiology Association’s Dictionary of Epidemiology
defines a pandemic as “An epidemic occurring worldwide, or over a very wide area, crossing
international boundaries and usually affecting a large number of people (Singer et al., 2021).
Personal protective equipment (PPE): Personal protective equipment, commonly referred
to as “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, shoes, earplugs, muffs, hard hats,
respirators, coveralls, vests, and full-body suits (United States Department of Labor, 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: Anyone 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 school board members, city
councilors, and state representatives. Stakeholders may 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

8

the Vermont Council of Teachers of Mathematics). Stakeholders have a “stake” in the school and
its students, meaning that they have a personal, professional, civic, or financial interest or
concern (Edglossary.org, 2021).
Synchronous learning: 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: 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 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): A team of more than 8000 professionals that
includes the world’s leading public health experts, including doctors, epidemiologists, scientists,
and managers. WHO coordinates the world’s response to health emergencies, promotes well-
being, prevents disease, and expands access to health care (WHO, 2021a).

9

Organization of Study
This research study is organized into five chapters. In Chapter One, I introduce the study,
provide a statement of the problem, purpose of the study, significance of the study, four research
questions, limitations, delimitations, and the definitions of key terms. In Chapter Two, I review
the existing literature relevant to the problem. In Chapter Three, I present the methodology of the
research design, sampling and data collection procedures, instruments designed for data
collection, and data analysis procedures. In Chapter Four, I detail the findings and major themes
of the research along with an analysis of the data. In Chapter Five, I summarize the study’s
findings, conclude, and examine implications and recommendations for further research.

10

Chapter Two: Review of the Literature
This chapter provides a review of the relevant literature in the field of school leadership
throughout crisis situations, including past pandemics and other emergencies that were a major
disruption in the education system. Chapter Two covers topics such as the history of past
pandemics, leadership in crisis situations, school preparedness, the role of outside agencies on
schools, the overall impact a pandemic has on different groups, and testing.
In 2020, the United States was faced with a pandemic that nobody saw coming. Our
world was quickly flipped upside down. Things we considered normal were no longer the norm.
Our nation was hit by the spread of the coronavirus, known as COVID19. Businesses shut down,
schools closed, people went into isolation/quarantine, hospitals were swarmed, and the morale of
our country sunk. We learned a lot from this pandemic, especially the negative effects it has had
on our students and educational system, specifically K–12 school districts (Amutha, 2020).
History of Pandemics Affecting Schools
Pandemics have had an impact on our society since the early nineteenth century. For
centuries, novel strains of influenza have emerged to produce human pandemics, causing
widespread illness, death, and disruption (Saunders-Hastings & Krewski, 2016). Four influenza
pandemics occurred in the past 100 years. The Spanish Flu Pandemic of 1918 was a deadly
influenza pandemic caused by the H1N1 influenza virus, one of the deadliest pandemics in
human history that lasted from February 1918 to April 1920. It infected about 500 million people
and the death toll is estimated between 20 and 50 million people.
In November 2002, the Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome (SARS) was first identified,
which soon turned into a pandemic. Over 8,000 people from 29 distinct countries were infected
and 774 people died worldwide. Soon after, the Swine flu hit (H1N1 influenza virus). The Swine

11

Flu was another influenza pandemic, lasting from January 2009 to August 2010. It was the
second of two pandemics involving H1N1. It is estimated to have caused about 284,000 deaths
(Ries, 2021).
The most recent and current pandemic caused by the coronavirus appeared in the United
States in December 2019. This pandemic is known as COVID-19. This contagious disease is
caused by a severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2. It has since then spread worldwide,
leading to an ongoing pandemic.
Each pandemic has harmed our nation to various degrees. Each of these pandemics has
forced schools and school districts to make difficult decisions that have had lasting negative
impacts on their students, staff, and communities. Issues such as school closures brought to light
many disparities within the educational system including effects on mental health, inequities
with schools in lower socioeconomic settings, and the potential long-term effects that these
closures would have on students and their communities (Hoffman & Miller, 2020).
School Closures
In times of a pandemic, schools face the difficult decision of whether to remain open and
serve the community or close their doors to limit the spread. Available data suggest that school
closure can be a useful intervention during influenza outbreaks, with the greatest benefits
occurring among school-aged children (Jackson et al., 2013). However, the decision to close
schools involves more than just pressing pause on instruction; it impacts many social structures
in communities as well (Turner & Kamenetz, 2020). Closing schools means that students may
not have access to basic needs, such as nutrition, adult supervision, and a safe environment.
School closures require consistent and clear communication between school officials and health
agencies. Effective collaboration is a crucial component not only in the initial decision to close

12

but also in the logistical planning of re-opening the schools when safe (Braunack-Mayer et al.,
2013).
An example of a school closure from a pandemic happened in Australia during the 2009
H1N1 influenza pandemic. The 2009 H1N1 flu forced some schools in Australia to close.
Australian public health officials closed schools as a strategy to mitigate the spread of the
infection. A study was done to better understand school communities’ understanding of, and
participation in, school closures as well as the beliefs and values which underpinned school
responses to the closures. School staff, students, and community members from schools that
were fully or partially closed were interviewed to gauge their response to the closures. Using an
ethical framework, it was discovered that while health officials and school leaders were
committed to the well-being of the community, there was variation in the amount of
communication and transparency between all stakeholders. Trust and collaboration were the
most important components in successful responses and justification to school closures. Results
from the study showed that school closures during a pandemic represent a challenge for public
health officials and a litmus test for the level of trust in public officials, government, and the
school as an institution (Braunack-Mayer et al., 2013).
School closures are known to have impacted anxiety, depression, and other mental health
conditions. Surveyed students reported feeling overwhelmed and needing mental health support.
School counselors, psychologists, and social workers have provided services to students virtually
since the schools closed. Despite the efforts of counselors, many students in California are still
not receiving mental health services (Jones, 2020).
With most of the world’s countries implementing school closures due to the pandemic,
studies show that in the UK, school closures will do little to limit the death rate of the virus. The

13

majority of children who fall ill from the virus experience mild symptoms, so we must evaluate
the larger threat: the virus or the lack of education. Sixteen studies conducted worldwide found
limited benefit of school closures limiting the spread, and that the effects on the community were
much more of a concern. Issues such as nutrition, health care, socialization, and limited physical
activity are listed as a greater risk to student health and well-being. Alternative measures must be
investigated as well as creative solutions for social connection (The Lancet Editorial Staff,
2020).
New evidence shows that shutdowns caused by COVID-19 coils exacerbate the existing
achievement gap. Dorn, Hancock et al. (2020) discussed how school shutdowns could cause
disproportionate learning loss for students and therefore compound existing gaps. This learning
loss could have long-term effects on children’s long-term economic well-being. Statistical
models were created to estimate the potential impact of school closures on learning (Dorn,
Hancock, et al., 2020).
Access to Services and Technology
The COVID 19 pandemic is affecting students and their families in K–12 education.
Some students are feeling the impact more than others. The pandemic has exacerbated
inequalities that already existed in our nation’s educational system. Disadvantaged families are
experiencing economic hardships, food insecurity, and lack of access to services and technology,
all of which hinder learning, especially remote learning. Devices and connectivity have been a
priority for school districts, but a more permanent 1:1 device ratio and reasonable, sustainable
connectivity remains an unmet need for schools and surrounding communities (Dorn, Cooney, et
al., 2020).

14

In May 2020, Parent Institute for Quality Education (PIQE), conducted a phone survey
following the closure of schools. With most resources, applications, and information as well as
academic learning tools and school updates online, families struggled to connect to resources and
understand distance learning and tools needed to support their children. PIQE needed to learn
more about the challenges and needs of our families to provide the best resources and supports
possible. PIQE Survey results indicated tech and connectivity as key issues. More than forty five
percent of EL families did not receive support. While many students received the equipment
necessary to participate in online classes, twenty two percent did not and fourteen percent did not
have the internet at home. The pandemic has brought light to the inequities in public education
worldwide. School closures, access to technology, internet access, and difficulty gaining access
to devices. English language learners have been impacted the most. School closures and the
stress created by the pandemic have had extreme consequences for our students and their
families (Walters, 2020).
The impact of the virus has also harmed vulnerable populations, such as older adults,
young children, people with chronic medical or mental health conditions, persons with
disabilities, pregnant women, immunocompromised persons, the institutionalized, and homeless
(Kuy et al., 2021).
Vulnerable populations are most vulnerable to death and lost quality of life. Vulnerable
populations include persons socially at risk such as those who experience abuse, housing
instability, substance abuse, food insecurity, and having limited access to healthcare (Baptiste et
al., 2020). More inequities include access to technology/internet, effects on students of
color/minority populations (limited access to quality healthcare), nutrition services/meal

15

distribution, expenditures per student, need for more interventions to help close the achievement
gap and reduce the inequities.
Leadership in Crisis Situations Facing Schools
According to Northouse (2019), different crisis situations demand different kinds of
leadership. From this perspective, effective leadership requires that a person adapt his or her
style to the demands of different situations (p. 95). For example, a leader must evaluate the
situation and change the degree to which they are directive or supportive to meet the changing
needs of followers.
According to Goleman (2022) effective leadership practices when responding to school
crises include leading with emotional intelligence “people first”: emotional intelligence is
needed, according to Goleman (2022) as part of a complete set of tools to lead successfully,
especially when leading in times of complexity and change. Read the room (what is needed
now?). Counseling and other mental health services were offered to help the community heal.
Flexibility: work with what you have (empty warehouses were used). Not about what “I can do,”
what can “we do” (collaboration, knowing your resources, your community). Community
resources allowed students to return to some version of a school sooner than later. Being
proactive: “For years now climate scientists have been saying that all these extreme weather
events were in store. And now we are in an era of consequences. So, the trauma on children is
just unimaginable” (Lise Van Susteren, p. 77).
Goleman (2022) outlined the critical role emotional intelligence plays in effective
leadership and positively impacting measurable business results. Goleman (2022) breaks down
each component of emotional intelligence and discusses how to recognize it, how and why it
connects to performance, and how it can be learned (p. 82). Goleman argues that successful,

16

effective leaders need strong technical skills and cognitive capabilities but should effectively
demonstrate the competencies of emotional intelligence. Goleman warns that it would be foolish
not to assert that IQ and technical ability are not also essential ingredients in leadership and is
not advocating that a leader only leads with emotional intelligence. He is stating that emotional
intelligence is at times undervalued as a soft skill.
Fein and Isaacson (2009) stated that school leaders at seven sites where school shootings
occurred engaged in emotional work, surface, and deep acting. They collected data from three
qualitative studies over 9 years. The participants included 36 leaders in seven North American
sites where high-profile school shootings occurred, including teachers, school administrators,
and superintendents. The authors found that in navigating the wake of the violence they faced,
leaders acted according to the role of a leader as they defined it as well as how they felt. The
study found that the job description of leaders changes as a result of crises, leaders paid a high
personal toll from responding to crises, and their sense of what is possibly changed (Fein &
Isaacson, 2009).
Leader responses and effective practices with school shootings were also studied. In the
early stages of a crisis, school leaders tried to gain a sense of order and control driven by their
sense of responsibility and job description. Leaders used their definition of leadership as a
compass while acting mid-crises. They used self-talk to remind themselves of their highest
priorities. They prioritized existing systems and in-the-moment actions over emotions. Following
the events, the heightened awareness that violence is possible in their settings led school leaders
to focus on more proactive measures (DeMatthews & Brown, 2019).
Leadership studies were conducted to understand how leaders responded to Hurricane
Katrina. These stories show the possession of moral authority that allows the school leaders to

17

not only lead their school districts but also their communities. School leaders took leadership
responsibilities beyond a superintendent during and after hurricane Katrina. Superintendents
formed a community among themselves and leaned on other districts that had been successful
during and after Hurricane Katrina. “Each of the superintendents has acted—decisively,
creatively, and in ways that they had never acted before—to lead their school districts through
the changes brought about by Katrina” (p. 294). They have had to shift their priorities from
student achievement to the welfare of the children, families, and communities they serve and to
the staff that they lead. They took the role of healers (Gouwens, 2008).
According to Smith and Riley (2012), the leadership attributes and skills required of
school leaders in times of crisis are fundamentally different from those generally required as part
of the normal school environment. Strong school leadership generally is about positioning the
school for the future and about supporting and empowering staff and students in the pursuit of
teaching and learning excellence. Leadership in times of crisis is about dealing with events,
emotions, and consequences in the immediate present to minimize personal and organizational
harm to the school and school community. Smith and Riley (2012) identified nine key attributes
for effective crisis leadership. The challenge that emerges is how to develop the necessary crisis
leadership attributes and skills in our present and future school leaders when crises are, by their
nature, mostly unpredictable and inherently unique events (Smith & Riley, 2012).
Attributes of crisis leadership include the following: decisive decision making, intuition
and flexibility, creativity and lateral thinking, tenacity and optimism, procedural, intuitive and
creative intelligence, ways of thinking: synthesizing, empathizing, and respectful,
Communication and media skills (Smith & Riley, 2012).

18

Preparation and Training of Schools Before a Pandemic
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): providing devices to at least those students who need
them; training teachers on delivering online instruction; using a Learning Management System
(LMS); providing fully online or blended courses; establishing plans to deliver instruction during
prolonged school closure.
In the midst of the remote learning model, many instructional trainings have come from a
variety of sources. Trainings have been included at the public and local level, the private sector,
and from non-profit associations. Public and local levels of training include trainings from school
districts, instructional coaches, and the California Department of Education. Private sectors that
offer instructional trainings include publishers like Heinemann, Corwin, Curriculum Associates,
McGraw Hill, etc. Non-profit organizations include the Association of California Schools
Administrators (ACSA), National Association of School Psychologists (NASP), California State
PTA, Common Sense Media, etc.
According to Kinsey et al. (2020), meal service is a concern of school districts since food
insecurity rates have been rising even before the pandemic. As many as thirty three percent of
households (including forty percent of Black and Latino households) experienced food insecurity
in April 2020. Federal school meal programs reduce food insecurity and contribute to students’
daily dietary needs. Even prior to pandemic-related school closures, concerns about school meal
access were on the rise due to the impact of hurricanes, political/civil unrest, school breaks, etc.
Missed meals have a marked impact on student’s health, nutrition, and overall well-being.
Households of color are disproportionately affected by missed school meals as Black and Latino

19

students are more likely to be eligible for free/reduced meals. Compounding this is the fact that
Black and Latino communities have been hit harder by higher COVID-19 infection and death
rates, which has impeded their access to meals (Kinsey et al., 2020).
Kinsey et al. (2020) found that missed meals due to school closures nationwide were
relatively low in the early weeks of March 2020. However, as more and more states closed
schools, 49 states in all, the resulting meals missed grew toward the end of March 2020. From
late March 2020 through the beginning of May 2020, an estimated 1.1 billion meals were missed
across the country. Many states, including the USDA, began to respond to the challenge. The
USDA granted waivers to school meal regulations, allowing for innovation in meal access and
distribution. Innovations broadened where meals were being offered: “grab and go” and
community-centralized in school parking lots, community centers, apartment complexes,
libraries, churches, school bus stops, and residences. Innovations also occurred in how meals
were offered: meal service seven days a week, providing bulk items, expanding food backpack
programs, pre-ordering to decrease waste, serve multiple meals a day (breakfast, lunch, dinner),
serving multiple days at once. Innovation changed who qualified for meals: children 0–18,
students with disabilities up to age 26, separate child and adult meals, allowing guardians to grab
meals for children not present (Kinsey et al., 2020).
Preparation and Training of Schools During a Pandemic
To prepare schools for what was needed during the pandemic, needs assessments were
administered in the following areas: technology surveys administered to determine device and
internet accessibility needs (Diliberti et al., 2020; Malkus, Christensen, & West, 2020);
reprioritization of resources; technology infrastructure: devices, free/discounted internet

20

(Malkus, Christensen, & West, 2020). New Role for Leaders: translating “guidance” from
multiple entities into policy and practice (CDC, 2021; CDPH, 2021; Fotheringham et al., 2020).
Meal distribution was one of the first and most urgent changes that school leaders needed
to address at the onset of school closures in March 2020. With food-insecure students nationwide
relying on meals from school, districts and schools had to quickly mobilize to mitigate meal loss
(Kinsey et al., 2020). School closures and social distancing guidelines required districts and
schools to imagine innovative meal distribution that eliminated barriers to access (Kinsey et al.,
2020; Malkus, Christensen, & Shurz, 2020; McLoughlin et al., 2020). Examples include “Grab
and Go” meals, daily/weekly meals, breakfast, lunch, dinner, and “drop-off” meals. School meals
were now offered seven days per week for students up to age eighteen and for disabled students
up to age twenty-six.
Schools were preparing during the pandemic by purchasing Personal Protective
Equipment (PPE). PPE was now considered a new category of school supplies. These supplies
include hand sanitizer, temperature scanners, Plexiglas barriers, hands-free paper towel
dispensers, masks, gloves, protective coveralls and handwashing stations.
Training
Where did professional development and training come from during the pandemic? In the
midst of our remote learning model, many instructional trainings have come from a variety of
sources. These sources included public and local sources, which include districts, instructional
coaches, and The California Department of Education (CDE). Private sources include publishers
such as Heinemann, Corwin, Curriculum Associates, McGraw Hill, etc. Professional
development provided by companies regarding technology platforms, such as Zoom and Google
Meet are also available to schools.

21

Role of Government and Healthcare Agencies Used by School Districts
Outside agencies such as government and health care agencies, as well as state and local
governments utilized by school districts during the pandemic include the Office of the Governor
of California, California Department of Public Health, California Department of Education, Los
Angeles County Department of Public Health, Los Angeles County of Education and
Association of California School Administrators (ACSA). These government and healthcare
agencies focus on the safety of staff and students, distance learning, and the reopening of
schools.
Protecting the safety of school personnel and students was one of the main priorities of
the California Governor during COVID19. Safety protocols from Governor Gavin Newsom
included frequent COVID-19 testing for all school staff and students, including weekly testing at
schools in communities with high rates of transmission. All staff and students were required to
wear masks. School staff was prioritized in the distribution of vaccines through the spring of
2021. Contact Tracing: School Portal for Outbreak Tracking (SPOT) to improve collaboration
between school and health officials, and members of the state contact tracing workforce will be
deployed to improve communication with schools (https://www.gov.ca.gov/).
The California Department of Public Health created the Blueprint for a Safer California-
designed to reduce COVID-19 in the state of California. The Safe Schools for All Plan was also
created, which was in partnership with Governor Newsom and Legislature. The Safe Schools for
All Plan focuses on ensuring careful implementation and building confidence by supporting
schools to bring students back to campuses safely. COVID-19 guidance for schools was aimed at
assisting school districts and schools with the planning process for the safe reopening of schools
for in-person instruction for the fall of 2020. The School Reopening Framework helped school

22

communities determine when and how to implement safe in-school instruction for 2020–2021
(https://www.cdph.ca.gov/).
CDPH created guidance for small cohorts/groups of children and youth. This guidance
provided the necessary in-person child supervision and limited instruction, targeted support
services, and facilitation of distance learning in small group environments. CDPH created the
outbreak definition and reporting guidance, which outlined the non-healthcare congregate setting
COVID-19 outbreak definition and guidelines. Guidance on Returning to Work or School
Following COVID-19 diagnosis followed CDC guidelines for quarantine/isolation and return to
work or school. Outdoor and Indoor Youth Recreational Adult Sports guided outdoor and indoor
youth sports programs and activities (https://www.cdph.ca.gov/).
The California Department of Education’s New Safe Schools for All Hub consolidates
key COVID-19 resources and information for school administrators, staff, and parents. The
office of Tony Thurmond, State Superintendent of Public Instruction, published news releases
and correspondence related to COVID-19. Stronger Together was also created, a guidebook for
the safe reopening of California public schools. This guide provides a comprehensive checklist
for reopening schools, mental health, and well-being for all (https://www.cde.ca.gov/).
The Los Angeles County Department of Public Health (LACDPH) works to protect and
improve the health and well-being of its residents. LACDPH has a vast amount of resources to
promote health and safety. LACDPH has been instrumental in providing information and
guidelines for all LA County stakeholders during the pandemic LACDPH can be more
restrictive, but not less restrictive than the California Department of Public Health (Stavely,
2020).

23

Information from the state and local government and agencies is constantly changing. An
example includes Governor Newsom’s lifting of the statewide “Stay at Home” order. The
government and health agencies have created a balancing act between securing the health and
safety of their staff and students while providing equity and access to quality instruction for all
students.
Roles of Certificated and Classified Unions
During the pandemic, urban school districts made over one hundred COVID-19-related
contract changes. Twenty-five urban school districts returned to the bargaining table with
teachers’ unions to negotiate short-term fixes to collective bargaining agreements (CBA) that
allowed for more flexibility to implement distance learning. These contract changes focused on
several areas of the CBA, including compensation, workload, non-teaching duties, evaluation,
leave, and technology. The lessons learned in Spring contract negotiations have implications for
the design and implementation of Fall schooling plans. How Fall schooling plays out will shape
teacher morale and labor relations beyond the 2020–2021 school year. Districts and unions will
need to work together to set teacher expectations under changing circumstances. By proactively
planning for multiple scenarios with labor partners involved in conversations 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 COVID-19 (Marianno &
Hemphill, 2020).
Per bargaining agreements, employers could require staff to be vaccinated barring
religious objections or disabilities (https://www.csea.com/coronavirus, 2020). Governor Newsom
announced an agreement between teachers, classified employees, and school system
management to support student instruction during the COVID-19 outbreak.

24

Classified employees should be aware of four new COVID laws (California Federation of
Teachers, 2020), which include the following: resolving conflicts of interest on personnel
commissions (Assembly Bill 2234, Chau, D-Arcadia), which makes improvements to school
personnel commissions and ensures their right to independent legal counsel.
Smart investment in school water, ventilation, and electrical systems will make the air
safer to breathe and water safer to drink by replacing water fixtures and appliances in K–12
public schools (Assembly Bill 841, Ting, D-San Francisco). AB 841 will boost zero-emission
transportation by installing electric charging stations and keep workers on the job while
unemployment is soaring.
School districts can limit affordable housing rentals to employees. Assembly Bill 3308
empowers school districts in California to use low-income housing tax credits to construct
affordable housing for teachers and school staff on district-owned land. The bill clarifies that
local governments and districts can work together to build affordable housing for employees and
the general public.
Workers’ Comp classifies on-the-job COVID cases as occupational injuries. SB 1159
allows school employees to automatically qualify for Workers’ Comp if their school is closed for
COVID-related issues. Employees who are sick can stay home and receive Workers’ Comp
benefits, reducing the spread of the virus at work and in the community.
Impact of Pandemic on Schools and Children
COVID-19 has negatively affected and impacted children. Some of those impacts include
disproportionate effects on students from low SES, how curriculum has had to be changed to
meet the new needs of students and schools, how the pandemic has highlighted existing
inequitable grading practices, and mental health outcomes. As the pandemic continues, we need

25

to refine equity-minded approaches regarding instructional and schoolwide leadership to
continue supporting our students towards success.
One of the many effects and impacts of the pandemic on children in schools from coast to
coast is a surge in students failing or nearly failing classes during distance learning. The F’s tend
to be concentrated among low-income students of color, data indicate, as well as those learning
to speak English or with disabilities (Wong, 2020). The reasons behind the increase in Ds and Fs
are lack of reliable Wi-Fi access or devices for students, sporadic attendance, and
disengagement, all leading to missing assignments (Sawchuk, 2021). Distance learning hindered
teachers’ ability to build relationships with students and assess student learning (Sawchuk,
2021). One school’s team of teachers analyzed the causes for the failing grades revealed: one
group consists of students not attending; a second, those logging in but not engaging; a third
consists of those trying to engage but not turning in quality work or enough work (Sawchuk,
2021).
Students report that they do not understand what to do and then give up (Belsha, 2020).
“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?” (Sawchuk, 2021). Herold
(2020) described how the pandemic caused the closure of at least 124,000 school buildings,
affecting 55 million children. Teachers utilized distance communications resources available,
such as Zoom and Instagram Live. He said that school districts have partnered with their local
PBS affiliate allowing teachers to utilize television. The use of education material delivery
platforms increased during the pandemic, with platforms such as Canvas and Google Classroom.
Technology equity became an issue, such as the lack of digital resources for ELL students.
Roughly twelve million students lack access to high-speed internet required for virtual class

26

streaming. Security issues also arose as mass users joined digital meeting software like Zoom
and Google Classroom (Herold, 2020).
Technology
Many rural and low-income communities around the world, including those in urban
areas, lack reliable, affordable internet access. These people will be further denied access to the
benefits of technology as more devices and systems reliant on internet connectivity emerge. An
open, modern 5G infrastructure, jointly built by the telecom, cloud, and IT industries can help
close this digital divide. In 2020, the world embraced digital transformation at an expedited pace,
reimagining technology’s critical role in how we work, learn, and live. The pandemic illuminated
a long-standing issue: billions of people remain without the universal human right of internet
access (Roese, 2021).
Learning Loss
Although the 2020–2021 academic year ended on a high note with rising vaccination
rates, outdoor in-person graduations, and access to some in-person learning for ninety eight
percent of students, it was one of the most challenging years for educators and students in United
States history (Dorn, Hancock, et al., 2020). The researcher’s analysis showed that the impact of
the pandemic on K–12 student learning was significant, leaving students on average five months
behind in mathematics and four months behind in reading by the end of the 2020–2021 school
year. The pandemic widened preexisting achievement gaps, hitting historically disadvantaged
students the hardest. High schoolers have become more likely to drop out of school, and high
school seniors, especially those from low-income families, are less likely to go on to
postsecondary education. The crisis the pandemic brought had an impact on not just academics

27

but also the broader health and well-being of students, with more than thirty five percent of
parents very or extremely concerned about their children’s mental health.
More than ninety seven percent of educators reported seeing some learning loss in their
students over the past year when compared with children in previous years, and a majority, fifty
seven percent, estimated their students are behind by more than three months in their social-
emotional progress. Some teachers suggested these setbacks could be addressed by adding on
summer sessions or bringing teacher’s aides into the classroom for one-on-one or small group
instruction. Still, nearly one-third expected more students will need to repeat a grade (Dickler,
2021).
Action is needed to offset the risk for educational losses among all children as well as
exacerbated educational disparities among children, especially those in poverty. Unforeseen
extended school closures have led to lower test scores, lower educational attainment, and
decreased earning potential. During closures, students need reliable access to technology, a
stable learning environment, and parents with the necessary time and skills to support remote
learning. Unfortunately, not all students had these supports. Although remote learning presents a
challenge for all families, those in poverty are at a greater disadvantage and thus at increased risk
for widening educational disparities. One in seven children lacks home Internet access, with a
twofold higher rate among low-income communities. Parents in poverty are facing their own
pandemic-related stressors (e.g., unemployment, at-risk jobs) and may lack the time or resources
to support remote learning. However, the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act
provided merely $30 billion for education emergency relief, a fraction of the $500 billion
requested by national education organizations, with less than half dedicated to elementary and
secondary schools. No funds are specifically allocated for remote learning capacity building,

28

universal technology access, or planning to address educational gaps after reopening
(Masonbrink & Hurley, 2020).
Mental Health
Psychosocial effects of homeschooling during the COVID-19 pandemic: differences
between seven European countries and between children with and without mental health
conditions. Maciejewski et al. (2018) observed that children with parents diagnosed with
psychiatric disturbance are more susceptible to developing psychopathologies. In the context of
the ongoing pandemic, most parents had to reorganize their lives to deal with working at home in
addition to child management. As a result, this sudden overload has put parents under stressful
conditions, increasing the risk of children facing emotional and behavioral problems (Crescentini
et al., 2020).
Evidence exists of the multiple and negative psychological impact of the pandemic on
children and adolescent quarantined populations (Chen et al., 2020; Fegert et al., 2020; Gunnar
& Quevedo, 2007; Saurabh & Ranjan, 2020). Persistent and enhanced stressful events during
early life (childhood and adolescence) can drive responses by the immune, endocrine, and
nervous systems (Dahmen et al., 2018; Juruena et al., 2020).
The pandemic’s impact on children and adolescents’ mental health: biological,
environmental, and social factors. Many adolescents during the pandemic were unable to attend
schools, which culminated in limited interaction with peers, imposing a gap on their social
networks (Spinelli et al., 2020). That has been somewhat alleviated by virtual interaction. Crone
and Konijn (2018) showed that the use of social media by adolescents builds not only the
connection among peers but also their brain connectivity. However, a recent study showed that
school routines are important coping mechanisms specifically for young people with mental

29

health issues. Furthermore, the researchers showed that periods without school are associated
with decreased physical activity, increased screen time, irregular sleep patterns, and less
appropriate diets in children and adolescents (Wang et al., 2020).
The chronic stress caused by social isolation conditions in mice is associated with an
increased motivation to consume palatable foods (Sumis et al., 2016). In this context, studies
using animal models suggest that intake of caloric foods can act as “comfort food” and would be
an alternative to alleviate the negative effects of stress (Pecoraro et al., 2004; Ulrich-Lai et al.,
2010). A chronic, high-fat diet is induced by social isolation stress, reduces anxiety and
depression-like behaviors in animal models (Finger et al., 2011; Ulrich-Lai et al., 2010) and
humans (Tomiyama et al., 2011). Moreover, it was rescued the memory impairment on the object
recognition test and the changes in brain-derived neurotrophic factor levels caused by social
isolation conditions in rats (Arcego et al., 2016; Cavaliere et al., 2019).
Nutrition
Regarding nutrition services, meal distribution was one of the most urgent changes that
school leaders needed to address at the onset of school closures in March 2020. With food-
insecure students nationwide relying on school meals, districts and schools had to plan and
implement food distribution systems for students to have access to meals (Kinsey et al., 2020).
Social distancing guidelines forced school districts to produce new and innovative meal
distribution systems that provided equitable access to nutrition. This included “grab and go”
pickups, drop off meal stations at school bus stops and homes, as well as “expanded services”
meals which provided food seven days per week to children up to the age of 18, as well as
disabled students up to the age of 26 (Kinsey et al., 2020; Malkus, Christensen, & Shurz, 2020;
McLoughlin et al., 2020).

30

Marginalized Populations
The impact of the COVID-19 public health crisis disproportionately affects communities
of color and other vulnerable populations. Black families were hit hard by the pandemic. The
effects on children may be lasting. Several stories are told about the negative effects on black
children and their families, built around rising unemployment levels of black women and racism
as a stressor leading to issues with physical and mental health in black children. Also, adults and
Black households typically have one-tenth of the wealth of a typical white household, according
to Federal Reserve data (Glass, 2020).
Devices and connectivity have been a priority for school districts, but a more permanent
1:1 device ratio and reasonable, sustainable connectivity remains an unmet need for schools and
their surrounding communities. In Spring surveys indicate tech and connectivity as key issues.
More than forty five percent of EL families are not receiving support. While many students are
receiving equipment necessary to participate in online classes, twenty two percent did not and
fourteen percent did not have internet access at home (https://www.piqe.org/data/).
Districts had varying degrees of responses. A study found that the education level of
parents and other adults in school neighborhoods as well as internet access predicts school
responses. Race, parent/adult income, and school spending do not predict school responses.
Teachers struggle to recreate language-rich classrooms online for English language
learners. About one-fifth of students in California are learning English as a second language, and
most of their classes are only in English. 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 (Stavely, 2020).

31

NWEA looked at summer program loss. ELs are entering this new school year with an
“Academic Slide.” The shift to remote learning in March 2020 resulted in an uneven response by
states and districts, and the ongoing public-health crisis is likely to result in the widening of
already significant opportunity and achievement gaps. As a result, ELs may face setbacks in their
English language development after five or more months without consistent opportunities to
listen, speak, write, and read in English—especially the level of academic English foundational
to educational success (citation).
It is difficult to speculate on what missing months of school may mean for student
achievement, research on seasonal learning and summer learning loss can offer some insights
that can help educators, policymakers, and families understand, plan for, and address some
potential impacts of this extended pause in classroom instruction when students return to school.
Schools are setting low expectations for student instruction and leaving learning to
chance during the pandemic. This study found just one in three districts expect teachers to
provide instruction, track student engagement, or monitor academic progress for all students—
fewer districts than our initial study suggested. Too many districts are leaving learning to chance
during the coronavirus closures (citation).
The abrupt shift to distance learning in the Spring has laid bare inequities that undermine
the achievement of students from historically under-invested communities, which will only be
exacerbated. The shift to distance learning was abrupt. School systems and community
organizations responded in support of students during the COVID-19 crisis.
According to Parent Institute for Quality Education, in a survey of 661 parents, a quarter
of the parents did not have email addresses. A total of thirty percent of parents who received
communication from school regarding distance learning did not understand the instructions.

32

While many students are receiving the equipment necessary to participate in online classes,
twenty two percent did not and fourteen percent did not have internet access at home. A total of
seventy eight percent of the parents with students with special needs did not know if their child
was meeting their distance learning requirements.
School Leadership Facing Crises
Successful school leaders are seen to be motivated and motivating visionaries, skilled
communicators who listen, reflect, learn and empower. In the context of a crisis,
however, school leadership must also be about providing certainty, engendering hope,
engaging a rallying point for effective and efficient effort (both during and after the
crisis), and ensuring open and credible communication to and for all affected members of
the school community. (Kouzes & Postner, 2007, p. 57)
Different types of crises exist. Short-term crises are sudden in arrival and swift in
conclusion. Cathartic crises build up slowly, reach a critical point, and then can be swiftly
resolved. Long-term crises develop slowly and then bubble along for a long time without clear
resolution, such as the pathway of a failing school from early warning to a major crisis. One-off
crises are unique and would not be expected to recur, such as in Whitla’s (2003) school-based
case studies. Infectious crises occur and are seemingly resolved quickly but leave behind
significant issues to address, some of which may subsequently develop into their own crises.
Whitla (2003) detailed this well with the following:
• Preparing for a crisis: Scenario construction and analysis allow a school to develop
relevant and robust contingency plans detailed steps that would be taken and by
whom if a crisis does occur. Contingency plans clearly spell out the procedures, roles,
and responsibilities for meeting and resolving each ‘scenario’ crisis. It must be

33

remembered that contingency plans do not cover all crises, only those identified
through scenarios.
• Responding to a crisis: Get the facts, implement the relevant contingency plan, or
quickly adapt one to meet the current situation. Be decisive, show concern,
communicate.
• Recovering from a crisis: The review, reflect, learn phase. “What caused the crisis?
Could it have been anticipated better than we did? When did we realize that we had a
crisis? Could we have known earlier? How? What warning signs were evident?
Which did we miss? Why? Could we have prevented the crisis from occurring? If so,
how? How did we respond to the crisis? Could we have responded better? How?
What contingency plans can we put in place to ensure we are as prepared as possible
if a similar crisis occurs at some future time? (p. 63)
Devitt and Borodzicz (2008) argued that the reason for this imbalance in scholarly
activity is that the changing contexts and causes of crises make it difficult to elicit a consistent
theory of effective crisis leadership. Each crisis is unique and requires significant flexibility in
response by the school leader. Effective school leadership in times of crisis is more about the
attributes that the leader can bring to bear on the situation than about theoretical models to guide
leadership responses. Attributes of crisis leadership include the following:
• decisive decision making
• intuition and flexibility
• creativity and lateral thinking
• tenacity and optimism
• procedural, intuitive, and creative intelligence

34

• ways of thinking: synthesizing, empathizing, and respectful
• communication and media skills
Leaders need to maintain focus and collect as much information as possible while
trusting their instinct and experience. They became crisis leaders for schools and communities
and that comes with responsibility. Leaders should share stories with other leaders so that others
can learn from their experiences. Long-term recovery efforts take time, so leaders need to focus
on what they can control, like instruction, and encourage reaching out to other leaders that have
experienced something similar for advice and encouragement (Devitt & Borodzicz, 2008).
Theoretical Framework
I used three frameworks to develop an understanding of the transformation and skill
transfer from K–12 school organization leadership to meet the needs of leading through the
pandemic. In Reframing Organizations: Artistry, Choice and Leadership, Bolman and Deal
(2017) analyzed the four frames or four significant functions of a leader, which include the
structural, political, human resource, and symbolic frames for leadership. This framework
provided an understanding of the complex nature of the leadership role within the K–12
educational system. The next framework is found in Fullan’s (2014) The Principal: Three Keys
to Maximize Impact. This framework analyzed the specific leadership skills and strategies as they
fall into three key categories of learning leader, leader as district and system player, and leader as
change agent. The final framework comes from Westover’s (2020) Districts on the Move:
Leading a Coherent System of Continuous Improvement. This work revealed how the unique
culture of each K–12 school district will present diversions along the journey of implementing
coherent systems for continuous improvement. Westover (2020) included four aspects to leading

35

a coherent path of progress: clarity of district goals, collective expertise, shared leadership and
systematic collaboration, and evidence-based inquiry cycles for continuous improvement.
Reframing Organizations: Artistry, Choice, and Leadership
Bolman and Deal’s (2017) four frames analyze the work of leaders within complex
educational organizations like K–12 school districts. This framework seeks to make the work of
school leaders more comprehensible by simplifying aspects of leadership into four categories
that can assist leaders in determining the importance of the multifaceted nature of their roles.
The four frames of leadership provide the context for the leadership work within complex
educational organizations like K–12 school districts. These frames provide leaders within K–12
school districts a comprehensible system of analysis to meet the demands of their position and to
utilize the relationships developed with stakeholders to serve the larger goals of the organization.
Structural Frame
The structural frame views an organization as an entity formed to accomplish goals. This
frame focuses on the role the leader can play to ensure an adequate environment in which
employees can fulfill their roles with a clear understanding of positions and responsibilities. The
role of the leader is to guarantee that the structure supports the specific and unique needs and
objectives of the organization. Within the leadership structural frame, the priority is to lead with
rational and systematic thinking rather than personal preference (Bolman & Deal, 2017).
Human Resource Frame
The human resource frame reveals how employees bring value to an organization and
how the organization can support and empower its employees. Bolman and Deal (2017)
emphasized the organization’s role in supporting employees and building capacity for growth.

36

Political Frame
The political frame shows the importance of leaders to manage conflict and disagreement
to build capacity within the organization. This frame emphasizes the leaders’ ability to build
coalitions to accomplish broader organizational goals. Political leaders understand that their most
vital role is to allocate scarce resources and comprehend the power balance involved with this
task, including a determination of who would be the perceived winners and losers in each
resource allocation decision. Therefore, the political leader makes decisions and creates goals
through bargaining and negotiation to engage the competing stakeholders (Bolman & Deal,
2017).
Symbolic Frame
The symbolic leadership frame appreciates that the vision and charisma of the leader to
emphasize culture is a key quality. A symbolic leader values tradition and ceremony and takes an
active role in seeking opportunities to display the culture of the organization. A symbolic leader
takes special care to create and glorify what an organization represents (Bolman & Deal, 2017).
The Principal: Three Keys to Maximizing Impact
Fullan’s (2014) The Principal: Three Keys to Maximizing Impact analyzes the three
primary elements of the work of a successful principal. Fullan’s impetus for the development of
the keys is the identified increased stress and decreased job satisfaction of school principals. A
total of fifty percent of school principals feel stress frequently. About sixty percent of principals
are satisfied with their position (a decrease of ten percent in the past decade), and seventy five
percent of principals deem the job as too complex (Fullan, 2014). As a result of these factors,
Fullan developed three keys for principals to maximize their work and increase their satisfaction
in the position.

37

The first key is called lead learner. Creating a culture of learning is the priority for a
principal. The principal must ensure that learning and instructional improvement are at the heart
of all that a school does. He or she cannot do this work alone and should develop a team of
teachers and leaders to support the work of instructional improvement. The culture created by a
principal allows for schools to maximize the impact of the school and provide a coherent
academic program. The principal’s role includes developing the professional capital of the team.
Professional capital is the human capital, social capital, and decisional capital of the team.
Human capital is the quality of the teaching force in a school and their abilities as instructors,
interventionists, and mentors to children. Social capital is the relationships formed by
administrators and their interactions with staff and community members. A strong social
relationship forms a culture of a school and encourages the development of a common cause
among the staff as well as an obligation to perform. The decisional capital of the leader is his or
her ability to engage the social and human capital of an organization and the knowledge required
to effectively utilize the human capital of the school. Decisional capital refers to the leader’s
ability to make sound professional decisions and to utilize professional judgement in his or her
work. Fullan’s (2014) first key requires a leader to develop a school-based team committed to
learning and to have the leader serve as a model for this initiative.
The second key is being a district and system player. A sound school administrator must
ensure that his or her school is functioning as a component of the district and the larger
initiatives and methods employed at the system level. In an era of increased scrutiny and
accountability, the role of the administrator as a system player is increasingly more challenging.
In contrast, the ability to engage and collaborate across districts and schools provides a structure
for continuous improvement. The work across a district, the district coherence, builds the

38

capacity of the district as an entity and the individual schools within the district. This work leads
to the long-term development of a district’s mission and capacity for change and accountability.
Fullan’s (2014) second key supports principals to understand their role within the larger context
of a school system and the benefits and challenges of developing a system-wide mission.
The third key is becoming a change agent. The third key of the principal is his or her
ability to lead passionately and with professional mastery. An effective principal must gracefully
charter a path for the staff to change and support the team members as they adopt refined
thinking regarding their instructional role and obligations. Leaders must find a balance in their
change efforts between supporting those who adapt to change quickly and nudging resistant staff
in the direction of the organization. Leading through change requires principals to have the
confidence and resilience when their efforts flounder and an understanding that their mastery of
the position and passion for excellence enables organizational gains.
Districts on the Move: Leading a Coherent System of Continuous Improvement
Every district has a unique culture, and its people and structures have an existing
capacity. When districts seek to transform themselves into creating a coherent system of
continuous improvement, there will be various diversions along the journey. Westover (2020)
discussed the key benchmarks of capacity and the leadership competencies necessary for districts
to create a system that ensures and monitors continuous improvement. Westover (2020) argued
that the culture of leadership in a school district is the most critical factor for advancing progress
and sustaining improvement efforts. The major challenges to success are developing leadership
at every level to create a collaborative culture of improvement, while the “key for long-term
success is maintaining a focus on creating coherence in spite of the daily urgent demands in
schools that constantly pull leaders away from the important work of improving teaching and

39

learning” (Westover, 2020, p. 8). The four aspects of creating coherent systems for continuous
improvement within school districts follow.
Clarity of District Goals and Priorities
School districts must first analyze the underlying causes of areas where improvement is
needed and align specific improvement strategies that specifically address these issues. School
districts should only implement high-impact strategies proven to be effective that will, in turn,
guide district actions and the support that needs to be provided (Westover, 2020).
Culture of Shared Leadership and Systematic Collaboration
School districts should create formal structures and processes so that employees can
engage in systemic collaboration and co-learning among and between colleagues at all levels of
the organization to promote a culture of leading from the middle (Westover, 2020). Everyone in
an organization can be a lead learner by gaining expertise in their area which results in more
successful navigation of any process of change.
Coherent Instructional Framework for Developing Collective Expertise
A coherent instructional framework integrates resources, strategies, and assessments
implemented within short, three- to four-week cycles (Westover, 2020). At the end of each cycle,
feedback or results are gathered to determine the level of success of the strategy and to determine
next steps.
Evidence-Based Inquiry Cycles for Continuous Improvement
School districts and district leaders should set annual growth targets, which can be
measured internally to inform the district’s progress toward goals. Through evidence-based
cycles of collaborative inquiry, educational organizations like K–12 school districts can create
feedback loops to track the continuous improvement of practice.

40

Conclusion
The United States had the largest number of COVID-19 cases and deaths of any country
by Spring of 2020, and responses to the health crisis have been fragmented and uncertain. The
same fragmentation and uncertainty have prevailed in the U.S. education system, and the policies
and outcomes of U.S. schools combating COVID-19 are not yet known. The educational
response in the United States has emphasized reliance on flexibility, adaptation, and local
decision-making. By Spring 2020, school districts were all virtually online with some districts
only opening partially in the Fall of 2020. Whether adequate evidence exists of transmission
reduction due to school closures outweighs the long-term risks of deepening social, economic,
and health inequities for children is unclear. Conflicting studies suggested that school closures do
not contribute to the control of the epidemic. While aspects of the pandemic make estimating its
impact on achievement and leadership difficult, there are parallels between the current situation
and other planned and unplanned reasons that can help quantify some of the key impact areas of
COVID-19 on California school districts.
There will be some time before the full impact of school closures on student learning is
measurable. Even so, understanding how school districts altered operations at the onset of the
pandemic and how administrators navigated the crisis is essential to future policy efforts aimed
at ensuring compensatory approaches as part of post-pandemic recovery efforts across the state.
Another important but unsolved problem related to school closures is how and when schools can
be reopened. As the pandemic continues, school districts are learning to better understand how to
construct, operate, and gather in schools safely, minimizing risks to children and their families.
The literature review does not fully capture the impact of COVID-19 on California school
districts nor the extent of crisis management in other key areas of schooling such as finance,

41

budget allocations, meeting state health requirements, and addressing instructional
accountability.

42

Chapter Three: Methodology
In the preceding chapters, I provided an overview of the study, the research questions
guiding the study, and a review of the literature relevant to the topic. In this chapter, I review the
statement of the problem, the purpose of the study, and the research questions. I also outline the
design of the research study, summarize the methodology, identify the participants, and explain
the instruments used to conduct the research. I conclude with an explanation of how the data will
be collected and analyzed and a summary of this chapter.
Statement of the Problem
The pandemic presented a disruption in Southern California K–12 school districts,
causing unforeseen consequences within the education system and highlighting financial
implications, the impact of agencies, negotiations with unions, and the impact on students and
the community. 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 is to analyze the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on
Southern California K–12 school districts and understand what district and site administrators
have 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 examines how district and school leadership
influences administrative practices, student achievement, financial responsibility, union
leadership, and community/parent support as they responded to the COVID-19 crisis.
Research Questions
The study was guided by four research questions:

43

1. What, if any, are the financial implications that the COVID-19 pandemic has had on
K–12 public school districts in Southern California, and how have district
superintendents, assistant superintendents, and principals addressed these
implications?
2. What, if any, have been the impact of federal, state, and local health agencies on K–
12 public school districts in Southern California, and what strategies have district
superintendents, assistant superintendents, and principals followed to address the
suggested guidelines?
3. How, if at all, have union negotiations played a role in K–12 Southern California
public school districts’ response to the COVID-19 pandemic?
4. How, if at all, have K–12 Southern California public school districts leadership teams
comprised of superintendents, assistant superintendents, and principals addressed the
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 (USC) Rossier School of Education. The dissertation group was composed of twenty-
two students with Dr. Castruita as the lead researcher and the supervisor for the study. The
dissertation group, which began meeting in the spring of 2021, contributed to the literature
review bibliography, statement of the problem, purpose of the study, research questions,
conceptual framework, and data collection instruments. Our research team was made up of three

44

researchers. Due to the many group aspects of the thematic process, there may be some
similarities in the dissertations.
Research Design
This study was designed as a mixed-methods study, using qualitative and quantitative
methods to collect and analyze data. We selected a mixed-methods approach to establish
triangulation for more accurate findings and make the research study more holistic (Maxwell,
2013). Lochmiller and Lester (2017) stated that triangulation establishes evidence across
multiple data points to support a study’s claims. Collecting data through interviews and surveys
enables triangulation between the results, crucial for cross-checking the collected data and
supporting the findings of the study (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). We conducted this study with
school superintendents, assistant superintendents, and principals of California K–12 public
school districts. This study involved the collection of qualitative data from open-ended interview
questions with superintendents, assistant superintendents, and school site principals and
quantitative surveys completed by the same district and school leaders that were interviewed.
Qualitative Methods
In qualitative research, the researcher is the primary instrument of data collection and
analysis, and the product is 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. Researchers use an inductive process to gain
understanding from the perspective of the participants of the study (Lochmiller & Lester, 2017;
Maxwell, 2013; Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). We used qualitative methods in this study to uncover
how school leaders made decisions and addressed challenges during the COVID-19 pandemic.
We used nine interviews to conduct this qualitative research study. The semi-structured

45

interview protocol developed by the research team consisted of 14 questions and we asked
follow-up questions. We created separate interview protocols with minimal vocabulary changes
and similar questions for superintendents, assistant superintendents, and principals (see
Appendix E). We conducted the interviews via Zoom. Interviews lasted an average of 35
minutes. The interview protocol was followed consistently throughout the interviews, and we
asked additional questions when necessary. Via the interviews, we gathered data that reflected
the participants’ opinions, decisions, and knowledge. The overall purpose of qualitative research
is to interpret how individuals make 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 involves collecting 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 researcher to obtain information from the participants and then convert
it to quantitative data to be analyzed (Lochmiller & Lester, 2017). In this study, we collected
quantitative data using a self-administered 26-question survey given on Qualtrics (see Appendix
C). We developed the survey questions around the four research questions. We designed the
survey to gather data that reflected the school leaders’ experiences, views, decisions, and
knowledge about the impact of the pandemic on California K–12 public school districts. Separate
surveys with minimal vocabulary changes and similar questions were created for
superintendents, assistant superintendents, and principals. The surveys consisted of 5-point
Likert scale questions using the following responses: 1 = strongly disagree, 2 = disagree, 3 =
neither agree nor disagree, 4 = agree, and 5 = strongly agree. The surveys took an average of 15

46

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 (see Appendix A), the survey questions, and final instructions.
Participants completed the survey using Qualtrics, which tabulated the number of responses
returned.
Sample and Population
The identified population for the study were leaders of Southern California K–12 public
school districts; superintendents, assistant superintendents, and principals. We used convenience
sampling and purposeful sampling to select the school districts, superintendents, assistant
superintendents, and principals who participated in this study. Convenience sampling happens
when the researcher selects individuals based on their proximity and accessibility rather than on
specific criteria. Purposeful sampling occurs when the participants are selected based on specific
criteria (Lochmiller & Lester, 2017; Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). This research study included
purposeful selection to ensure that all participants worked in public California K–12, K–8,
Elementary, and High School districts in the roles of the superintendent, assistant superintendent,
or principal. The selection criteria included the following: (a) traditional California K–12, K–8,
elementary, and highs school district superintendent, assistant superintendent, or principal; (b)
public schools; (c) the superintendent, assistant superintendent, or principal must have worked in
the current role for at least 1 year; (d) the superintendents, assistant superintendents, or principals
served in these positions during the 2020–2021 school year; and (e) the student population of the
district is at least one thousand. The sample size for the interviews was set at nine participants
and the minimum sample size for the survey responses was set at nine participants.
Superintendents, assistant superintendents, and principals selected for this study played a role in

47

supporting school districts and school sites during the pandemic. The results from the interviews
and surveys will be compared to the results collected by other research team members.
School district A serves 9,704 students grades kindergarten through sixth grade (EdData,
2021). The district has an average daily attendance of 9,447 (EdData, 2021). According to
EdData (2021), nearly 10.6% of the student population are English Learners, and 22.5% receive
free and reduced-price meals.
School district B serves 5,329 students in grades kindergarten through sixth grade
(EdData, 2021). The district has an average daily attendance of 5,108 (EdData, 2021). According
to EdData (2021), nearly 17.6% of the student population are English Learners, and 49.2%
receive free and reduced-price meals.
School district C serves 23,968 students in grades seventh through twelfth grade (EdData,
2021). The district has an average daily attendance of 21,275, and nearly 5.9% of the student
population are English Learners and 30.5% receive free and reduced-price meals (EdData, 2021).
The survey and interview protocols included an explanation of the purpose of the study.
The participants were informed that the process was voluntary, and that confidentiality would be
maintained throughout the entire process. The names of the school districts, schools, or
participants were not used in the study.
Instrumentation and Conceptual Framework
After analyzing the current literature and identifying research gaps, we designed an
interview protocol and a survey to address the research questions guiding this research study.
The interview questions and the survey questions were field-tested beforehand to ensure they
were concise and that the results generated addressed the research study questions. Interviews
took place virtually because of the safety protocols in place due to the pandemic and out of

48

consideration of the time constraints of the participants who were still leading school through a
pandemic. The interviews were recorded with participants’ permission and notetaking was also
used. Appendix E contains the interview protocol. We administered the survey instruments to
California K–12 public school superintendents, assistant superintendents, and principals. We
emailed the link to the survey questions to the participants. Appendix C contains the survey
questions sent to participants.
The conceptual framework (see Figure 1) utilized for this research study was based on
three theoretical frameworks. The three frameworks assist in developing an understanding of the
theories that impact school leadership and how they can be adapted to the current situation of
managing the pandemic. The four frames, political, structural, human resources, and symbolic,
described by Bolman and Deal (2017) provided school leaders at site and district levels the
roadmap to navigate the different aspects of leadership and how a leader’s 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 as enacting change at the site level through being a lead
learner, district and system player, and a change agent. Westover’s (2020) framework provides
the guiding principles that districts can enact to create an organization that can move together
through change and create systems for continuous improvement. These three frameworks
together provide K–12 school districts with the steps to persist, at all levels of leadership, even
during a crisis like the COVID-19 pandemic.

49

Figure 1
Data Collection

Each participant was given a survey and participated in an interview. Survey responses
consisted of a 5-point Likert scale. We collected the data and used Qualtrics. We conducted
interviews one-to-one with the participants.
We coordinated interview times with the participants at a time deemed most convenient
according to their schedules. Prior to interviewing, they signed an informed consent form, which
described potential risks and underscored the option for participants to opt out at any time. They
also provided permission to use an audio recording device for coding purposes.

50

The research team agreed on a time frame for the collection of participants’ information.
Once complete, the team analyzed the collective data to determine any similarities between
responses or recurring themes that arose throughout the process.
During the interview, we followed the standard interview protocol utilizing the questions
predetermined by the research team. Once the interview was completed, we coded the data using
the audio recording.
Each interview lasted approximately 45 minutes to maximize the time spent with the
participant while still respecting their time. We took notes to capture behaviors not possible to
observe through an audio recording, such as body language, facial expressions, and other sources
of nonverbal communication (Fiore, 2016). We deemed these approaches to data collection and
analysis most appropriate, as they helped to effectively answer the study’s research questions.
Data Analysis
This mixed-methods study used qualitative data from interviews and quantitative data
from surveys. After collecting data, we analyzed the qualitative and quantitative data separately
based on the study’s four research questions. We organized and analyzed the qualitative data
collected from the interviews to identify common themes. We read the interview transcripts and
made notations using open coding followed by axial coding and concluded with selective coding.
We identified common themes and patterns to gain an understanding of the impact of the
pandemic on schools, students, and leaders and how school leaders managed the crisis.
We compiled and analyzed the quantitative data collected by the survey instrument using
Qualtrics. We separated and organized each participants’ responses using the Likert-scale values
1, 2, 3, 4, and 5. We calculated the average score from each question for each participant and

51

included one overall average score across all questions for each participant. We evaluated
responses to determine commonalities and differences.
Ethical Considerations
The research process demands that researchers think cautiously about the interaction with
others and the consequences of those interactions. Likewise, ethically responsible agents place
the voice of the oppressed at the center of inquiry and use that inquiry to reveal the change and
activism needed to help people. So, an important aspect of ethical research is the focus on respect
for the individuals and the community (Glesne, 2011; Lochmiller & Lester, 2017; Merriam &
Tisdell, 2016). During the design and implementation of this research study, we followed all
ethical considerations. We reviewed and implemented all guidelines and procedures for the
University of Southern California Institutional Review Board (IRB) throughout the research
study. To ensure that the study was conducted ethically, we informed participants of the purpose
of the study and stated that participation in the study was voluntary. We informed participants
that their identities and responses would be kept secure and confidential, and the data would be
handled carefully and safely. During the interviews, we asked permission to record the sessions.
We made the participants aware of how the findings would be distributed as a dissertation in the
doctoral program at the University of Southern California.
Summary
In this chapter, I restated the statement of the problem, the purpose of the study, and the
research questions. I presented the research design, which included details of the research
methods: the sample and population, instrumentation, data collection, and data analysis. I
emphasized that data collection began after obtaining IRB approval. We used appropriate tools

52

and followed all ethical standards to ensure the validity and reliability of the study. I present the
research findings of this study and in-depth analysis in Chapter Four.

53

Chapter Four: Findings
This mixed-methods study, “The Impact of the COVID-19 Pandemic on K–12 Public
School Districts in Southern California: Responses of Superintendents, Assistant
Superintendents, and Principals,” was designed to investigate how the COVID-19 pandemic has
affected the public school system. Study findings illuminate what district and site administrators
have learned from their lived experiences and their decision-making responsibilities in managing
the crisis. The research study’s conceptual framework was based on three theoretical
frameworks: four frames, three keys to maximizing impact, and coherent systems. The three
frameworks provide an understanding of the theories that impact the leadership of district
superintendents, assistant superintendents, and principals and how this leadership can be adapted
to manage the COVID-19 pandemic crisis.
The 27 research participants in this study consisted of nine superintendents, nine assistant
superintendents, and nine principals across nine unique K–12 public school districts in Southern
California. These research participants qualified because they held their current position for at
least 1 year, they served in their position during the 2019–2020 school year, and the student
population of their district was at least 1000.
This study was designed as a mixed-methods study, utilizing both qualitative and
quantitative methods to collect and analyze data. A total of 27 Southern California K–12 district
and school leaders—nine superintendents, nine assistant superintendents, and nine principals -
participated in the study. A mixed-methods approach was selected to establish triangulation for
more accurate findings and make the study more holistic (Maxwell, 2013). 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 semi-structured

54

interview protocol consisted of 14 questions and a series of follow-up probes. The interviews
served to gather data that reflected the participants’ opinions, decisions, and knowledge. Thus,
this study yielded qualitative data from open-ended interview questions and quantitative data
from surveys completed by the interviewees.
Quantitative data were captured utilizing three variations of the same survey (one version
for superintendents, one version for assistant superintendents, and one version for principals),
which were distributed to all 27 participants. The three survey versions each contained a total of
26 closed-ended questions addressing the study’s four research questions by gathering data that
reflected the participating school and district leaders’ experiences, views, decisions, and
knowledge about the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on Southern California K–12 public
school districts. The survey was created using the Qualtrics online software and incorporated a
five-point Likert scale for responses to all questions. The following descriptors were used for
each of the 26 survey items: 1 = strongly disagree, 2 = disagree, 3 = neither agree nor disagree,
4 = agree, and 5 = strongly agree. The survey instrument was web-accessible to all participants
and was designed to capture district- and site-level administrators’ perceptions regarding district-
and site-level challenges related to the COVID-19 pandemic.
In Chapter Four, I present the findings gathered through the online surveys and
interviews. The quantitative findings, shown in Tables 5 to 8, show the average participant score
for each survey question. The following four research questions guided the study:
1. What, if any, are the financial implications of the COVID-19 pandemic on K–12
public school districts in Southern California, and how have district superintendents,
assistant superintendents, and principals addressed these implications?

55

2. What impact, if any, have federal, state, and local health agencies had on K–12 public
school districts in Southern California, and what strategies have district
superintendents, assistant superintendents, and principals used to address the
suggested guidelines?
3. How, if at all, have union negotiations played a role in Southern California K–12
public school districts’ responses to the COVID-19 pandemic?
4. How, if at all, have Southern California K–12 public school districts’ leadership
teams comprised of superintendents, assistant superintendents, and principals
addressed the parent community’s concerns regarding safety, nutrition, distance
learning, lack of technology, academic standing, and how and when to re-open
schools due to the COVID-19 pandemic?
Participants
For this study, 27 Southern California K–12 public school district superintendents,
assistant superintendents, and principals across nine districts were chosen because they met the
following selection criteria: (a) employed as a superintendent, assistant superintendent, or
principal at a traditional Southern California K–12 district; (b) employed at a public school; (c)
worked in their current roles for at least 1 year; (d) served in their positions during the 2019–
2020 school year; and (e) the district’s student population was approximately 1000. All 27
school and district leaders who were selected for meeting the criteria agreed to respond to the
survey and participated in the interview. In an effort to protect the identities of the school and
district leaders involved and ensure anonymity, school districts and participants were assigned
pseudonyms.

56

Demographic Data
As shown in Table 1, 27 participants were chosen from nine different K–12 public school
districts in Southern California. The nine participating school districts served a combined total of
132,946 students, with the smallest school district (District E) serving 998 students and the
largest school district (District I) serving 46,501 students. An average of 54.19% of all enrolled
students across all nine districts were identified as socioeconomically disadvantaged (SES), with
the smallest percentage of SES students (17.6%) in District G and the largest percentage of SES
students (87.8%) in District D. Of the total student enrollments in all nine school districts, an
average of 14.48% of students were identified as English learners (EL), with the smallest
percentage of EL students (1.4%) in District E and the largest percentage of EL students (37.6%)
in District D.

Table 1
Demographic Information: School District Participants
District
Grade
levels
Student
population
Average daily
attendance
Socioeconomically
disadvantaged
English
Learners
Foster
youth
A P–12 11,713 95.4% 69.6% 9% 0.6%
B P–12 25,789 95.7% 51.9% 23% 0.1%
C P–8 6,072 95.8% 78.2% 15.6% 0.9%
D P–adult 45, 215 96.5% 87.8% 37.6% 0.5%
E K–12 998 93.1% 76.7% 1.4% 1.2%
F K–adult 7,106 96.6% 31.2% 9.7% 0.3%
G K–12 9,697 97.3% 17.6% 2.4% 0.1%
H P–adult 25,070 95.1% 48.1% 21.8% 0.5%
I K–12 46,501 95.9% 26.6% 9.8% 0.2%

Note. Data reflect the 2019–2020 school year (EdData, 2021).

57

As part of the research process, two demographic questions were asked of all 27
participants:
1. How many years have you served in the leadership role?
2. How many years have you served in your current role within the school district?
It was critical to the study that all research participants had actual experience leading
their districts and schools during the COVID-19 pandemic.
As shown in Table 2, two out of the nine participating superintendents (22%), had served
in their role for only 1 to 2 years. The majority of participating superintendents (66%) had served
in their role for over 6 years. Additionally, as shown in Table 2, four out of nine participating
superintendents (44%) had served in their position in their current, respective districts for over 3
years. All nine superintendent participants (100%) had experience in their leadership roles during
the COVID-19 pandemic.

Table 2
Quantitative Survey: Superintendent Demographic Information
Position Years in position Years in position at current district
Superintendent A 1 to 2 years 1 to 2 years
Superintendent B 3 to 5 years 3 to 5 years
Superintendent C 6 to 10 years Less than 1 year
Superintendent D 6 to 10 years 6 to 10 years
Superintendent E Over 10 years 1 to 2 years
Superintendent F 6 to 10 years 6 to 10 years
Superintendent G Less than 1 year Less than 1 year
Superintendent H 1 to 2 years 1 to 2 years
Superintendent I Over 10 years Over 10 years

58

As shown in Table 3, six of the nine participating assistant superintendents (66%) had
served in their position for over 3 years. Two of the nine assistant superintendents (22%) were
new to the position and had served for less than 2 years. Only one assistant superintendent had
served in his or her current role for less than 1 year (11%). All participating assistant
superintendents had served in their current position exclusively in their current, respective
districts. All nine assistant superintendent participants (100%) had experience leading during the
COVID-19 pandemic.

Table 3
Quantitative Survey: Assistant Superintendent Demographic Information
Position Years in position Years in position at current district
Assistant Superintendent A 1 to 2 years 1 to 2 years
Assistant Superintendent B 6 to 10 years 6 to 10 years
Assistant Superintendent C 1 to 2 years 1 to 2 years
Assistant Superintendent D 3 to 5 years 3 to 5 years
Assistant Superintendent E 1 to 2 years 1 to 2 years
Assistant Superintendent F 3 to 5 years 3 to 5 years
Assistant Superintendent G Over 10 years Over 10 years
Assistant Superintendent H Over 10 years 3 to 5 years
Assistant Superintendent I Over 10 years Over 10 years

59

As indicated in Table 4, one out of the nine participating principals (11%) had served in
their roles for less than 1 to 2 years. In contrast, the majority of principals who participated
(66%) had served in their roles for over 6 years. Seven of the nine participating principals (77%)
had held the position of principal exclusively in their current, respective districts. Two principals
(22%) were new to their current school district, having served less than 1 year. All principal
participants (100%) had experience leading through the COVID-19 pandemic.

Table 4
Quantitative Survey: Principal Demographic Information
Position Years in position Years in position at current district
Principal A 1 to 2 years Less than 1 year
Principal B 6 to 10 years 3 to 5 years
Principal C Over 10 years Less than 1 year
Principal D 6 to 10 years 6 to 10 years
Principal E Over 10 years 6 to 10 years
Principal F 3 to 5 years 3 to 5 years
Principal G 6 to 10 years 3 to 5 years
Principal H Over 10 years 6 to 10 years
Principal I 3 to 5 years 3 to 5 years

60

Research Question 1 Findings
The first research question was, “What, if any, 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?”
The literature exploring COVID-19 finances on K–12 school districts has identified a variety of
funding streams that school districts received during turbulent contexts such as COVID-19. The
literature has also highlighted that education leadership is undergoing significant changes
(Fullan, 2020) and that key leadership attributes are necessitated at this time. School leadership
requires that effective school administrators should engage in collaborative goal setting and
include all relevant stakeholders, including central office staff, building level administrators, and
board members in establishing goals for their district (Waters & Marzano, 2006). Boin and
Renaud (2013) articulated that joint sensemaking is “particularly important to effective crisis
management: if decision makers do not have a shared and accurate picture of the situation, they
cannot make informed decisions and communicate effectively with partners, politicians, and the
public” (p. 41).
The literature has indicated that varying forms of relief funds and grants were distributed
to schools. In response to the 2019 Novel Coronavirus (COVID-19), the U.S. Congress passed
the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security (CARES) Act, which was signed into law
on Friday, March 27, 2020. This relief package provided states with both funding and
streamlined waivers to give state educational agencies (SEAs) necessary flexibility to respond to
the pandemic. The relief package included $30.75 billion in emergency education funding.
Various other funds, such as the Elementary and Secondary School Emergency Relief Fund
(ESSER I Fund) and the Governor’s Emergency Education Relief Fund (GEER I Fund),

61

provided local educational agencies with emergency relief funds to address the impact COVID-
19 has had, and continues to have, on elementary and secondary schools across the nation.
The California Legislature provided $6.6 billion in the Assembly Bill 86 COVID-19
relief package, including $2 billion for In-Person Instruction (IPI) Grants and $4.6 billion for
Expanded Learning Opportunities (ELO) Grants. To be eligible for full funding for the in-person
instruction grants, LEAs must have offered in-person instruction, as defined in Education Code
(EC) Section 43520.5, including hybrid models, by April 1, 2021 for specified student groups.
IPI Grants were reduced by one percent for each calendared instructional day that an LEA did
not offer in-person instruction for all required groups. IPI Grants were forfeited if an LEA did
not offer in-person instruction for all required groups by May 15, 2021.
Research Question 1 Survey Questions
The research participants answered five survey questions related to Research Question 1,
which are shown in Table 5. These five survey questions were designed to lend insight into
leaders’ perceptions regarding the COVID-19 funding provided through the CARES Act, with
higher mean scores indicating stronger agreement that the funding was effective in meeting a
specific need. Two questions garnered the highest agreement ratings among superintendents,
assistant superintendents, and principals and revealed that the CARES funds were impactful in
meeting the needs for personal protective equipment (PPE) and technology. Survey responses
also revealed two areas where participants’ ratings were relatively low, reflecting that
superintendents, assistant superintendents and principles did not agree that COVID funding was
adequate in meeting their district and/or site needs: personnel and facility upgrades. It is also
interesting to note that the smallest discrepancy in participants’ mean agreement ratings was in
the area of professional learning or training. Although superintendent participants had higher

62

agreement scores on average than principles, all participants tended to feel neutral (neither agree
nor disagree) that CARES funding met district needs in the area of professional learning and/or
training.

Table 5
Quantitative Survey: District and Site Leaders’ Mean Agreement Scores Regarding Financial
Implications of COVID-19
Survey Question Superintendent
Assistant
Superintendent
Principal
The CARES Act met my district’s/school’s
funding needs in the area of personnel.
3.33 3.89 4.67
The CARES Act met my district’s/school’s
funding needs in the area of personal
protective equipment (PPE).
4.33 4.11 4.78
The CARES Act met my district’s/school’s
funding needs in the area of technology.
4.00 3.67 4.11
The CARES Act met my district’s/school’s
funding needs in the area of
professional learning and/or training.
3.67 3.44 3.33
The CARES Act met my district’s/school’s
funding needs in the area of facility
upgrades.
3.00 2.89 3.56

Note. The online Qualtrics survey incorporated a 5-point Likert scale response, where 1 =
strongly disagree, 2 = disagree, 3 = neither agree nor disagree, 4 = agree, and 5 = strongly
agree.

63

Four interview questions addressed Research Question 1:
1. What have been the biggest financial implications of the pandemic on your district?
2. In what ways, if any, would more spending flexibility/structure have benefitted your
district?
3. In what ways has COVID-19-related funding been used to meet student needs in your
district?
4. To what extent, if any, did financial incentive influence your district’s reopening
plan/timeline?
The questions were designed to provide researchers with an opportunity to gain an
understanding of the financial implications school districts faced during the COVID-19
Pandemic. According to the superintendents, assistant superintendents, and principals who
participated in this research, financial implications were uncovered across five major themes.
A wide range of funding priorities existed among school districts. Spending plans and
financial implications encompassed everything from summer school programs and expanded
staffing to HVAC upgrades and technology purchases, as well as some scattered items, like
furniture that may test the federal government’s intentions to help schools recover from the
effects of the pandemic. Some districts were investing big money in initiatives that do not appear
at first glance to be strictly COVID-related. Other districts spent nearly all funds on technology
upgrades and purchases. Varying districts held on to the sums for future use.
Uncertainty reigned, and there was a lack of clarity regarding the scope of funding
available. District leaders and school business officials scrambled to allocate significant, and in
some cases unprecedented, sums of money during these uncertain times. An influx of expiring

64

emergency funds, dips in average daily attendance, and reimbursement uncertainty created
chaos.
Sustainability was preferred over flexibility of CARES funds. Timelines, accountability,
personnel shortages, COVID outbreaks, political disputes over masking and vaccination, and the
academic emotional upheaval wrought by many months of pandemic-era schooling are among
the issues that truly weighed on districts’ wallets. Districts had to navigate complex bureaucratic
hurdles and a public health crisis to better understand and potentially use these funds. Leaders
mentioned they had broad flexibility with the use of the relief funds, but meeting spending
deadlines and accountability measures was a burden. A common theme among district leaders
was the overall desire for effective use of funds.
Financial incentives were not the primary drivers to reopen schools in the spring of 2021;
rather, it was the students, teachers, and overall well-being and safety of the constituents.
Despite the many uncertain financial implications of the COVID funds, the funding
created some “silver linings” and positive outcomes, including advanced technology, much
needed facilities upgrades, and creation of new roles and communication methods.
Theme 1: Fiscal Priorities and Varied Spending
Districts responded to the influx of funds in varying ways, but mainly as a means to
mitigate the impact of the virus. Decision-makers and leaders had to weigh competing priorities
that included the pressures of different constituent groups, the need to reopen schools to facilitate
parents’ full-time return to the workforce, beliefs and perceptions around the importance of
school for student’s social-emotional and academic well-being, the labor demands from staff
members working in schools, looming fiscal constraints, and parents’ health and safety concerns.
Beyond this complex set of priorities, district leaders had to make sense of how to use COVID

65

relief funds for everything from expanded instructional programming and curriculum materials
to increased salaries and recruitment bonuses for educators. Decisions also needed to be made
regarding financing new Chromebook computers and WIFI hotspots for students, as well as
masks and other PPE to prevent the spread of COVID-19. The findings highlighted that there
were some commonly cited categories of spending and investments. However, most looked very
different from one district to the next.
In District A, the superintendent noted how every area of schooling was financially
impacted:
So, it has had a significant fiscal impact, in pretty much every area that we have, whether
it be staffing facilities, personal protective equipment, educational services curriculum
software, structures of schools. We are replacing air conditioning units, installed water
fountains, water bottle fillers and every school. Hand sanitizer, Plexiglas. We have almost
doubled our substitute teacher rate just so that we can have substitutes available. So, it’s a
challenge, and a blessing in the sense that we have received some federal funds to help
out.
In District B, the assistant superintendent’s priority was creating an environment where
teachers and students felt comfortable and secure. Hence, the schools were “swamped” with
PPE:
Financially, there are a few different pockets of work that we had to do. There are
definitely some facilities upgrades that were very necessary in order to return our
students safely. That was upgrading our filters for HVAC systems. Making sure windows
that weren’t opening were able to open. You know, changing out drinking fountains to
make them hand washing stations. So really looking at what had to happen physically to

66

our schools and our classrooms to increase safety. And that doesn’t happen cheaply. But
thankfully we did get COVID relief funds from the state and federal government.
Another pocket of money was just the equipment, supplies and equipment that we needed
to purchase and purchase at levels we never anticipated. The sheer number of how many
masks, how many gloves, how many HEPA filter units. How many hand-sanitizing
stations or bottles of hand sanitizer? And really, financially, making sure that there was
never a point in time where students or staff felt that they had to do without. Because
confidence in safety goes a long way. If there’s any sense of not having access to
something, that really can diminish their confidence or their belief in how safe they are at
school. So really swamping our schools in our system with all of those supplies and
equipment that we needed to purchase.
In District G, the assistant superintendent highlighted the main priority was “closing the
digital gap” and procuring testing kits to mitigate the risk of exposure:
It also goes to closing the digital gap with laptop hotspots. What can we buy as fast as we
could get them to make sure that our students had access when we were distance
learning? And now continuing to have access, because at a moment’s notice they may
have to go out on quarantine. To have some continuity and instruction. You know, we
had to overnight get Chromebooks into the hands of every kid and close the digital divide
for our families that didn’t have internet access by getting them hotspots and paying for
those hotspots for them. Testing has been a huge financial commitment, and commitment
and providing access to testing for our employees and for our families, to make sure that
the mandatory testing that we have to do, as well as the voluntary testing that we have to
do, so that people feel confident that cases are being identified and responded to. Testing

67

capacity has been an issue across schools, but we’ve had a commitment where we have
increased nursing staff at every campus, testing at every campus, and processing those
tests.
Echoing similar sentiments on technology, testing, food services, necessary childcare
services, and unemployment insurance as a major expense, Superintendent G stated the
following:
Other major expenses, obviously the food services aspects, serving lunches to everyone.
Our childcare. And the reason I talk about childcare is also that both food services and
childcare probably took negative hits to their budgets. Our preschool as well. And yet that
was something important to us. We tried to reduce the rates for our families because in
the hybrid setting now, they need more, they need childcare for longer periods of the day.
So, while the cost is still higher to families, we tried to reduce the rates and so we operate
at a loss there but wanted to be able to provide that as a service. Even just the uninsured,
unemployment insurance was a significant increase that has hit the districts. The COVID
time, the additional leave time that people must be sick to be out for personnel necessity
if they could cover it, if they were supporting a family member, etc. Obviously, all of the
employee testing we’re self-insured and so for our medical benefits, which is a little bit
different than some districts where all of those tests were a direct cost to our plan or cost
us resources. The shade structures, water drinking fountains, water bottle filling stations,
all that kind of stuff were probably the biggest amplifications and then trying to do what
we can do with ventilation. We’ve done a lot of spending in that area of social emotional
learning. We have a contract with Sports for Learning, which are coaches coming on
weekly that work with all our elementary kids with sports and social emotional lessons

68

and that was a big expense. We spent money on facilities, drinking or going to bottle
filling stations, shade structures so we can do outdoor education, keeping kids out of the
classroom. We’ve done HEPA filters in all rooms and spent a lot on facilities. We’ve
done a lot of professional development in the area of technology and the technology itself
buying because of the pandemic. Last year, we went one-to-one with all our students, and
I’m sure every district was in the same kind of space where we’re just buying any laptop
we could to get out to our kids. Technology spending, televisions in the classroom for
projection and sound systems.
In District H, the superintendent spent “millions of dollars” to hire paraprofessionals to
address learning loss and make facilities upgrades as necessary expenditures:
We’ve hired instructional assistants for our group instruction to deal with some of the
issues for learning loss, mainly for the K through three or TK. And we’ve used the
money, of course, for facilities upgrades, things like water filling stations, things that
would help in distribution, and air filters. We bought HEPA filters. We’ve done a lot of
facility upgrades on one-time purchase, like flexible furniture, just a lot of one-time
technology. We just spent millions of dollars on 80-inch flat screens with amplification
systems, maps and everything. It’s really good for them to have these amplification
systems. We’re a one-to-one district now as a result of the pandemic. I think there’s been
some good outcomes with the money that we spent on, of course, all the personal
protective equipment, all the hand sanitizer, all the cleaning protocols, and everything
that goes along with the pandemic that we have to open safely. We bought all those
things.

69

Theme 2: Ambiguity
Participants consistently noted in this study that uncertainty reigned, both in funding
sources, timelines, declining enrollments, and the parameters of funding resources available.
Boin and Renaud (2013) stipulated that joint sensemaking is “particularly important to effective
crisis management: if decision makers do not have a shared and accurate picture of the situation,
they cannot make informed decisions and communicate effectively with partners, politicians, and
the public” (p. 41). For many school leaders, policymakers often lacked an accurate picture of
what was occurring or failed to share what they knew with others in ways that enabled effective
leadership responses and partnerships (McLeod & Dulsky, 2021).
The findings from this question revealed ways district leaders needed to make sense of
the changing landscape and thrived on uncertainty. The interviews highlighted that many district
leaders dithered about what to do, either making huge purchasing decisions right away or
keeping money for a later time. Some districts committed to investing in salaries for people that
would only be fully paid out by the end of the school year. Others mixed federal funds with other
sources to piece together investments and hoped for reimbursement and credits. Overall, the
majority of district leaders expressed feeling wary of using federal funds for ongoing initiatives
or positions, which they might have to cut or downsize when the funds run out.
Another common response highlighted the uncertainty and potential financial
implications of a loss in average daily attendance (ADA). Nearly all district leaders confessed
they are projecting major declines in both enrollment and ADA and fear that the reductions could
result in significant funding costs for the new school year. California school districts had some
early awareness of declining enrollment and forthcoming fiscal challenges prior to the COVID-

70

19 pandemic; however, the COVID-19 crisis has exacerbated some of these fiscal challenges
(Warren & Lafortune, 2020).
District leaders expressed varying concerns about the financial implications of the
COVID-19 pandemic timelines, deficits, declining enrollments, and overall sustainability of one-
time jobs and roles. Superintendent A remarked how funds have been a blessing, but the
timelines posed a challenge:
It’s a challenge and a blessing in the sense that we have received some federal funds to
help out. The problem with that is that they have timelines to be spent there for certain
things. And then when you’re negotiating, it looks like you have more money. That’s up
for teacher salary raises off the table, with declining enrollment and structural deficits.
We are underfunded as a state. We don’t really have that luxury. So, it made it really
challenging.
Assistant Superintendent H insinuated that the delay in information and not knowing the
“limitations or restrictions” of funds were stifling:
The problem that we have is that there’s a delay in information to us about what these
funds are intended for. I’ve been doing this for 33 years. This past couple of years, I have
seen the greatest level of support for education than in the last 30 years. And I think
there’s true interest from our legislature, from our governor, from our administration
about supporting education. But the problem is that the details of how that works or the
fact that we don’t know for several months about the implementation, about the
limitations, about the restrictions. … And I think part of that is just because we were
caught unexpectedly with the situation, so they didn’t have plans of how to deal with this
because no one dealt with this before. So, I think some of that is just natural, but I think

71

looking forward there needs to be some support for them because we can’t wait 3 or 4
months to decide, can we spend the money or not? And that’s what we’ve been dealing
with continuously and still continue with even to this day.
Assistant Superintendent H held similar sentiments about uncertainty and fears on how to
“sustain current operations” when “we’ve never gone through this”:
We’re developing a committee to look at how we can sustain our current operations
based on our given priorities and then how we are going to sustain those services as we
look in the future with the revenues that we’re anticipating receiving. How we could
continuously run these programs within the funding sources that we had without tapping
our other resources or our reserves. So, just the uncertainty of what we have right now,
which in some cases is because we may not know for a year or two the full impact to our
students’ … issues with our students that are going to be ongoing beyond our current
temporary funding. The other factor is that no one anticipated the impact to our decline in
attendance percentages, like what we’ve experienced, because all the other emergencies
that we’ve experienced, you have a temporary reduction of ADA that’s more than ten
percent, but then it gets back to normal after a certain period of time. That’s not the case
in this situation. … So, it’s been quite a different experience because we’ve never gone
through this. And anything that you have in legislative action, like with the exclusions
that you can get from the state for temporary support, like if there’s an earthquake, fire,
or any emergency action, those are all temporary. Those are things that happen. They
may be in effect for a few days a week, but none of them are intended to be in place for 2
years as we’ve experienced this pandemic.

72

Superintendent H worried over the ambiguity with funding coming from ADA and how
the governor had yet to decide on whether the district will be impacted by declining enrollment
and attendance:
The biggest issue for our district is that we’re funded through ADA and it’s just the sheer
number of absences that we’ve been unable to address through independent study or
other means. Most districts are down about five percent their usual. We usually have
about ninety seven percent attendance and we have about ninety two percent. And so
that’s 1 year. And that’s ongoing money we’re losing. That’s a problem. It’s the
attendance impact of the COVID illnesses. Both quarantine isolation workers have to go
home. And the reality is, last year we had a whole army, but this year we don’t. And the
legislation, they haven’t made a decision. The governor hasn’t made a determination if
he’s going to refund us again. The biggest issue is ADA.
The leaders of Districts A, B, C, and G noted confusion with spending and fund
accounting. For example, Superintendent G stated the following:
The implications have been significant, and even initially before we were able to know if
we were going to receive any funding, but something as large as, obviously, the low
hanging fruits, all the PPE, the masks. If you think about last year, how we invested in
things we’d never heard of before, these fogger machines of having to spray down the
desks every night. I think for a while there was over $20,000 a month just on alcohol on
the sanitation pads because we were wiping the desks down every period in the second
area. And then in between lunches at the elementary level, just all the overtime for staff
having to be able to create the outdoor learning environments. I mean, something as
simple as air purifiers, that wasn’t simple. Sound amplification systems, all the

73

thermometers that we had to buy for each classroom teacher, the outdoor learning
structures, additional tables. And then last year, really, the overhead cost for all the
technology as well. And, so, when I talk about technology, I’m talking, obviously about
Chromebooks, about hot spots for families that are in need, video cameras. We ran a
separate program, so that was another big investment to our master schedule. It gets very
confusing. There are now multiple different pots of money, both from the federal agency
and the state agency. And they all have slightly different in-person learning grants, etc.
These are all obviously all the different funding grants. They all have different criteria for
what you can and cannot use them for. In fact, many of them require plans as well … I
think, has been extremely burdensome to try to keep track and monitor. You can spend
the expense here on this, but you can’t spend it on this, etc.
Superintendent C expressed concern over declining enrollment and “voids” and fears
schools will be “left holding the bag” and unaccounted for:
However, I think the most lasting impact of COVID is not going to be what we did in the
immediate, it’s going to be the impacts on declining enrollment throughout the state and
people’s reticence to come back and I don’t know that I see the same impetus from the
state and federal government to help us longitudinally looking forward. And that story is
yet to be written. I think the largest impacts are going to be on the back end when kids are
gone. Money returns to kind of normal, and we’ve got declining enrollments and there
was this sense that we need to spend more money to educate kids during COVID. The
learning loss and those voids that are created are going to stay with our kids for years to
come and we’re going to have fewer kids with much greater needs and less money to
continue to kind of carry out education moving forward, and I think that at some point,

74

the state and federal government is going to move on. They’re going to be tired of
spending money on this. Their attention will be turned to something else, and schools will
be left kind of holding the bag.
Theme 3: Sustainability Over Broad Flexibility
Leaders faced pressures to address the ripple effects of the unprecedented crisis. They
had to simultaneously make smart investments with short-term funds and broad spending
flexibility while contending with other challenges, such as product unavailability, labor
shortages, and declining ADA enrollments. When asked about spending flexibility and structure,
a theme emerged among the school district leaders: it is a labor-intensive process and not
sustainable. District leaders unanimously agreed they had broad discretion with the CARES
funds, as long as they indicated spending was geared toward recovering from the pandemic.
District leaders overall made use of COVID funds to mitigate the pandemic’s impact on their
schools. However, they brought to light the challenges associated with state monitoring of
districts’ spending, mandated spending timelines, lack of clarity, and overall effective use and
distribution of funds. The theme of broad flexibility is in line with the literature:
Districts are scrambling to make hasty spending decisions on goods and services that fall
outside their usual scope. Those are all piling atop the usual challenges of providing
adequate services for disadvantaged students, working through a backlog of building
maintenance needs, hiring and retaining qualified employees, and expanding services to
meet society’s increasing expectations for K–12 schools. (Lieberman, 2021)
Assistant Superintendent C described making purchasing decisions based on
“competition,” “limited information,” and having to plan “6 months out”:

75

The biggest financial crunch and the biggest hurdle being that we were competing with
everybody to buy technology at the same moment. And in that planning, it required us to
think far ahead and make decisions on purchases, without fully getting each product and
just having to go on recommendations because the information available was limited and
you are out 5 or 6 months on your purchasing deadline so you’d order things down and
they wouldn’t be available for a really long time. We’re still waiting on some things that
we ordered a year ago.
Leaders expressed concern that funding plans were constantly changing because they
could not find enough job candidates to realize their ambitions for current expenditures on
social-emotional support or tutoring, for example. Superintendent G found that positions may no
longer be sustainable and that this poses a real challenge:
The difficulty lies in having to have those positions laid off down the road if we can’t
sustain those positions. But it’s been difficult to fill those positions. So, we’ve tried a
number of different ways and still have not been able to really add to that.
Assistant Superintendent H also admitted widespread angst about the temporary use of
funds:
The biggest challenge is that we have temporary funding, and we have challenges that we
need for our students that it’s not going to be temporary, it’s going to be long lasting. So
how do we align our resources with the funding augmented with other program funding
that we must provide the adequate level of support? We have a problem with the
workforce and being able to fill all our vacancies so there are challenges that we’re
having about how are we meeting the kids needs today, but more so how are we going to
meet the needs of the kids in the future when there’s no sustainable ongoing funding and

76

as long as the funding model is tied to the number of kids we serve, not the needs of the
students, then what’s happening? And we’re all experiencing this throughout the county
and throughout the state. We must reprioritize what monies we have to meet the students’
needs, which means that we’re going to have to look at some serious changes in our
budget to help cover those ongoing costs for which there is no ongoing funding. We have
been having those discussions.
Superintendent H shared frustration that the money is quite limiting in the sense that it
does not provide for the required staff:
We got a lot of CARE money. We got a lot of money. We have all this categorical
funding for the pandemic, but that doesn’t really help us long term because we have
social-emotional mental health issues and we really need to hire additional counselors,
psychologists, and we need more staff. And with one-time money, we can’t do that. So,
we can still provide services, contracts. But now we’re looking at the impact on children
for many years to come. And the one-time money doesn’t address that. I mean, we have
technology, we work with our facilities, but hopefully we get more staff to meet the
needs of our students.
District leaders across the study confessed that the funds to a degree were flexible.
Superintendent G discussed the accountability measures:
So, I think the flexibility would have been key when really talking as I was kind of
sharing, they just become cumbersome and burdensome trying to figure out where you
can and can’t spend money. And, so, we’re spinning our wheels when we’re already
spending so much of our time trying to address the pandemic, trying to enforce contact
tracing, trying to support staff, etc. And then it’s all these other burdensome things. And,

77

so, I think it would have just made it much easier because the funds are clearly there. And
I get that there has to be some level of accountability.
Assistant Superintendent A called for more flexibility and compared the funding overall
to a “puzzle”:
The biggest challenge is the puzzle piece of the budget during COVID and what we see is
that, you know, putting all these pieces together and these different funds that come
through that are restricted in nature. Spending flexibility will give us the ability to really
plan long term and really know what we’re going to be year in, year out, and it would
also help us determine our needs as a school district to then have the ability to meet our
needs as we see them. We’re also seeing that even though we’re getting along a lot of
one-time funds we’re not really getting any addition to the base funding.
Principal A expressed there was an “unbelievable strap on resources and more time and
manpower would have been appreciated”:
So probably the biggest implication is the requirements placed upon us for testing, for
providing PPE to staff and students, even for that matter, having available masks, all of
that cost is a huge cost, even though there was the COVID money that was given to us as
a district. It still eats into a lot of time on that end. Like we were given money for the
supplies, but not necessarily for the manpower that it takes. On a given day of my 12 to
14 hours on campus, eight to ten of them are dedicated to COVID. And that’s not
uncommon across my other two administrators on campus. My secretary, my AP
secretary, everybody’s spending eight percent plus of their day dealing with COVID,
especially right now more than anything. And earlier in the pandemic, when the students
were not on campus, it was more manageable. But now that students are back on campus

78

and trying to keep the campus as safe as possible, I’m doing all of the contact tracing and
the testing that’s required. It’s just an unbelievable strap on resources, which means now
things need to be done outside of work hours just to do what our normal job is. So, our
day-to-day work gets pushed into the night. What we really need is more staff to be able
to still do our jobs and do all what’s required of us due to COVID and we don’t have that.
So, it’s a strap financially, and then it’s a strap just from a staffing standpoint.
Superintendent A revealed how they were bogged down in paperwork and accountability:
We’re all accountable for the work that we do. When there’s a lot of paperwork that we
do, it takes time and energy away from serving our community to compliance. For
example, compliance around independent study. At the height of the surge, we had 900
students on independent study and all that is required to be accounted for and completed.
Superintendent C compared the funds to a “worthless gift card.”
The other thing is if you give me a gift card for the grocery store and there’s no food on
the shelves, the gift card is worthless. You give me money to buy a bunch of additional
stuff to do things and you can’t find the people to do the work, it’s kind of a worthless
gift card. And there is a little bit of that reality that if you give us money, then we’re
required to go find the people, and we’re competing against a society that’s struggling
getting some people back to work. And we’re dealing with just a scarcity of counselors,
additional teachers, bus drivers, more instructional paraprofessionals and so yes, the cash
was great, I would have preferred you to send me people, but they didn’t have access to
people and sometimes we struggled on that same front.
Assistant Superintendent C mentioned that the funds were flexible but were like “putting
together pieces of a puzzle … creating stumbling blocks” for administrators:

79

There was a great deal of flexibility in how some of the subsets of money could be used,
although that became a bit of a changing landscape as information continued to be
delivered and as we planned forward with ever-changing deadlines of when those funds
expired. So it’s a bit of a puzzle game when you are receiving funds on an ongoing basis
because, you know, similarly when you’re at a school site, you’re trying to fund things
with money that’s going to be most restrictive and expires first in order to maintain that
flexibility because while there was a lot of money and a lot of opportunity, there were
certain distinguishing factors for each funding source that were either committed to a
certain percentage must be sent spent in this manner, or that they had a scaffolded
timeline of when it needed to be spent. So, I think that there was both an urgency because
at first glance, some of the money expired really quickly. And there were doubts whether
we be able to take delivery of product in advance of that deadline which is when you can
actually take it off your accounts; you can’t simply charge it because you have made the
request for the funds. It’s upon delivery of that item that you can actually remove it and
pay for it out of the budget and encumber that funds and show fiscally that you have used
those funds. So, it’s that interchange that became difficult in receiving additional money
and that many times that additional money came with additional accountability to account
for that so then it became the issue of how do you accurately communicate to your
teachers, to your labor partners, to your board of trustees and come to a common
understanding amongst your leadership on why we are in a bit of a changing landscape,
what it seems like constantly. So that I think is the barrier when it comes to flexibility,
how it is advantageous to us and how it also, you know, works to create stumbling blocks
for us.

80

Assistant Superintendent G agreed that flexibility is key but that using the current
accountability structure of the CARES funds relied on both the LCFF model for spending and
categorical spending. He lamented, “The pendulum swung backwards on this … and your hands
get tied … and you’re not able to address the needs”:
Flexibility is key there. I feel like when we went to this LCFF model for spending, the
whole idea behind that would take away some of those categorical costs. We get into
where we can only spend money on certain things, but then suddenly, with all of the
COVID money, it feels like not only are we doing that LCFF spending with the LCAP,
now we’re going back to categorical spending, which is what the LCAP was kind of …
the reason for that was to reduce that categorical spending. So, I feel like the pendulum
swung backwards on this and it’s becoming challenging to spend some of the money that
they’re giving us because you have to spend it in such a way that your hands get tied
sometimes where you’re not able to maybe address the need that is there with the money
that you have a lot of because of the way they want it.
The leaders of Districts A, B, C, F, and G stated that the funds just were not sustainable
given the lack of personnel and cited staffing shortages as limiting the use of the CARES funds.
Assistant Superintendent A
I mean, from a pure finance standpoint we had to increase our substitute rate of pay.
We’re having difficulty hiring and finding people to do the work, which again impacts us
overall. We’re seeing people leaving the profession and leaving the district and not
coming back to work and so I think there are negative implications for that when we have
people not working when we have some costs that we have. We are seeing people out on
extended leave of absence and sick days so that’s happening a lot now the point the state

81

and the federal government provide additional lead, that’s gone. So, during the surge a lot
of people are out. I don’t know if that’s the bottom-line issue for us.
Assistant Superintendent B
And then the other pieces are really personal. So fiscally, how do we cover gaps and
staffing. You know, if someone is out sick or if someone is taking a leave. You know,
there’s not as many bodies of people willing to come in and work. So, you know,
working with different agencies, contracting out, also working with our labor partners on
incentives to cover the gap, you know, to acknowledge their hard work and really how
they’ve put themselves out there and how we can give stipends or give opportunities
financially to recognize really what they’ve done from the beginning of the crisis. But all
of that again comes at an extremely high cost.
Superintendent C
We kind of have the flexibility we need. There just aren’t the people to spend the money
on. I don’t know if it’s even more flexibility, it’s money to be flexible, but what you
really need are more nurses. You need more instructional paraprofessionals. You need
more teachers. You need to build an online school program. You need to do all these
things, but there was an assumption if we give them the money, that people will be there
and that just hasn’t been the reality. So, there are some districts, they’ve got unspent
dollars and they’ve got great plans that they’ve written. They haven’t been able to
execute them because they haven’t been able to manifest the workers to carry out the
work.

82

Principal C
If we just had additional staffing for the short term, we could have addressed a lot of the
needs of our students and our staff for that matter.
Superintendent F
Either way, the structural weak point is personnel. We just can’t find enough teachers and
staff and on top of that, existing teachers are exhausted. We can’t just keep asking for
people to give when they themselves are starving.
Superintendent G
Because we’re having difficulties staffing, we’ve created new paraprofessional positions.
It’s always difficult to use one-time dollars on ongoing costs with personnel. And so also
the difficulty of having to have those positions laid off down the road if we can’t sustain
those positions. But it’s been difficult to fill those positions. We’ve tried a number of
different ways and still have not been able to really add to that.
Theme 4: Safety as a Decisive Factor, Not Money
In February 2021, California Governor Newsom signed SB 86, which tackled one of the
most contentious issues in schooling: reopening (Jones & Freedberg, 2021). It provided $2
billion as incentive for schools that had not already done so to offer in-person instruction
beginning April, 2021, starting with the earliest grades. The legislation also allocated $4.6 billion
to all school districts, regardless of whether they met the timetable Governor Newsom called for
in his “Safe for All” plan. To get the extra funding, districts were expected to offer in-person
instruction to a range of students with special needs—such as those in special education or others
in “prioritized groups,” such as English learners, homeless students, those in foster care, and
even “disengaged” students. For those districts that did not open on April 1, the amount of

83

incentive funding they would receive would be reduced byone percent each day through May 15,
which was viewed as a penalty (Fensterwald et al., 2021).
The participants in this study made collective decisions not entirely influenced by the
economic incentives or penalties to reopen schools in the spring of 2021. Leaders noted that
financial decisions were first guided by overall perceived “safety” rather than incentives or
penalties. Leaders’ desire to have students back on campus learning in a safe environment
ultimately impacted reopening timeline plans, not the passing of SB 86. Several superintendents
disclosed that getting students back in school was a priority and doing so safely directed their
decision-making processes. In the present findings, most school district leaders interviewed and
those who were based primarily outside of Los Angeles County had opened earlier than the
aforementioned deadlines, making the financial incentives irrelevant.
Superintendents C, I, and G did not see a financial motive for SB 86, as it did not apply to
their districts. They all mentioned safety.
Superintendent C
Yes, we did receive something, but we’d already committed and we were already open
anyway. We opened up in October and needed to return by March … we’d already
checked the box necessary to qualify for those additional funds before they were even
offered so it was not … yes thank you we’ll take the money but it was not a motivator at
all because we’d already moved in that direction.
Superintendent I
The state was trying to incentivize all districts, get back to safe in-person learning as soon
as possible. And we were one of the few that did it very early so that to the extent the
state had that kind of in their mind to incentivize and we had the money available and we

84

could do it, we were ready to do it. We did it very well and safely. We have no
transmission.
Superintendent A
We didn’t necessarily look at financial incentives in order to reopen. We reopened the
first school in November with elementary because they met the criteria and had the
support of their community and their teachers. Then we followed public health guidelines
for facilitated learning centers and being able to bring in the students who needed it the
most. We didn’t necessarily follow a specific guideline to create or to bring more funds,
but it just so happened that we were ready for it. We’ve had to use a significant amount
of funds to keep our students and staff safe. We have purchased masks, air purifiers,
hand-washing stations, tents. The list is incredibly long of ways in which we’ve had to
adjust to what COVID requirements are for us to be able to keep our students safe on
campus. And of course, we’ve had to look at compensating our employees differently,
particularly during the surge and now to make sure that they are appreciated for the
human work that they’re doing under the most difficult of circumstances.
Superintendent F did not see a systemic “structural benefit from monetary incentives”
and compared the incentive funds to “chasing mice in your head”:
Not many districts manage to create a safe environment, convincing enough for parents to
bring children back, as well as the teachers willing to risk their own health and safety to
come back. So, it didn’t hit the right note. And we ended up doing a whole lot in between
and I’m sad to say but I have yet to see a systemic structural benefit from monetary
incentive for in-person education. It didn’t happen the way the state produced but they
could happen … agreed upon, teachers and children feel unsafe, parents feel unsafe to

85

send the kids back so it doesn’t matter how much money you have there. If not, everyone
is agreeing about a uniform way of protecting ourselves with a mask that will stop. And
on top of that, if everyone is not sure about testing every week whether vaccinated or not,
that will stop. And on top of that, the vaccine is available but not many people are willing
to say, I wouldn’t vaccinate my child, and everyone else agrees it creates an unsafe
condition or a perception that it is unsafe. It doesn’t matter how much money we have,
people will not send the children back and if the children will not come back, teachers
have no reason to come back. And in some cases, teachers feel unsafe, and they say,
we’re not coming back. All the students have been tested, all the parents vaccinated their
children, and everyone’s wearing masks. So, it’s a chasing the mice around in your head
kind of thing. It doesn’t stop and there’s no way out so the funding is just sitting there
waiting for some bold steps to be taken, so that at least the safety is a sure thing, or the
perception that safety will continuously improve as we bring children back.
Assistant Superintendent C found a net benefit from the incentive programs:
I will not say that we had a focus on the incentives which would have been the in-person
instruction grants while we did open shortly after the onset of availability, and we did
ultimately procure some funds through that process. Those funds didn’t create a net
benefit that would not have existed without the costs associated with opening, so there
wasn’t a financial incentive for us to open it was the moral imperative within our
organization that in-person instruction was critical to student success, and that we were
going to band together to support teachers to make that happen. And in turn, ensure our
classifieds are also supported, so that we could all come together and provide additional
resources.

86

The leaders in Districts A, F, and H highlighted serving the best interests of students and
employees and safety as true motivating factors.
Assistant Superintendent H
Because we did not know what we were going to receive and when we were going to
receive it, our decisions were not based on funding. Our decisions were based on what
was in the best interest of our students and our employees. And we dedicated our reserves
to make that happen. And then when funding became available, we reimbursed ourselves
for those necessary costs. We identified things that we could take credit for that we were
doing to fund some of those activities.
Superintendent F
We went on our own to purchase PPE, and they are expensive. Just because on the first
day of school the masks will be available for teachers and staff and students. So, a lot of
the expenses are provided for us. But usually, it comes to a quick decision to be made. Do
we have to number one, wait for the state and the federal government to come in to
rescue us, and send us the masks, or do we run up the money and purchase now and
compete with hundreds and thousands of other sources of parents and institutions trying
to buy those masks or home testing kits or whatever it is. And the decision, most of the
time for myself, is that we will go ahead and purchase them, whether we will get the
reimbursement down the line or not. It’s just something we have to deal with down the
line. So, the upfront, is to restore the faith and the safety concern for our parents that send
a kid to school. We do the best we can. We are not going to wait for two or three weeks.

87

Assistant Superintendent A
I think you have to say if it all ties back to those students. The students at all the money
would have been spent on what’s good for kids we have. I don’t know that any of the
money would be put aside for anything but that. We had access to the reopening funds
and we planned to reopen. We did work with our labor partners on how we would go
about a safe reopening. We felt from the beginning of the pandemic that if it’s safe to do
so and the science and the Department of Health tell us that we have the ability to open,
we want to reopen. I think it was a benefit to have the financial incentive to do so. But it
wasn’t the primary driving factor for us to reopen schools. The benefit was to get kids
back on campus as soon and as safely as we can. We do have a high incidence of low,
low income and poverty in our school district. And we did see that there were
socioeconomic divides when it came to what happened during distance learning and
students’ level of affluence or level of poverty definitely impacted their ability to engage
within distance learning so for us our goal was to get all of our kids, especially our high
needs high risk students back on campus as soon as possible.
Theme 5: Silver Linings and Possibilities
The ability of business owners and managers to think strategically in the midst of a crisis
is a key factor in an organization’s long-term survival, and, in the midst of crisis, it is possible to
“find the silver lining” and chart a better future, not just simply “survive” disaster (Vargo &
Seville, 2011).
Despite the enormity of challenges that COVID-19 has thrust upon K–12 educational
systems, many of our interviewees felt that there were some unexpected positive outcomes that
had begun to emerge and could lead to future opportunities for students and staff. Some of these

88

“silver linings” included rapid technology improvements, one-to-one devices for students, new
roles for students’ social and emotional well-being, and overall facilities upgrades:
Superintendent I
With COVID relief funds we eventually went to a one-to-one district. We were planning
to be a one-to-one Chromebook district in 3 to 4 years and implemented over a year and a
half period. And we had to do it within a couple of months.
Superintendent G
The money received was significant and had a significant impact. There’s no way that
our budget could have sustained and been able to do everything that we did to provide the
ongoing resources, the testing, the technology investments, Zoom licenses, which we’ve
never done before. The Google classroom for every single teacher, etc.
Principal B
The other component that we realized we were going to really need is helping students
transition back to the school setting, where they need that structure and need that social-
emotional support. I was able to hire a social-emotional support counselor. So, I could
hire an academic counselor or someone who’s trained like a psychologist to come by and
support our kids. I got someone that’s kind of in between those two things. And what we
did is we made a plan to really focus on creating opportunities for our students to have
that sense of belonging and connection to school. Now how do we manufacture that and
put it on like fast-forward, high speed, and try to maintain that?
Assistant Superintendent H
We use the COVID funds. And then we looked at okay, instead of saying we would have
bought this over 3 years, we’re going to buy it now. We’re going to store it and be

89

prepared because as we look at the next few years, we’ll make decisions as it comes
when it’s more certain what the environment is and what resources we have available.
But we really were guided on what’s in the best interest of our students.
Superintendent D
Lately it’s been having a positive impact because the code of COVID in the federal
government has provided us with probably more money than we could have ever hoped
for. Prior to that we were looking at a $42M deficit so in a really weird way it helped
sustain the district for another 2 more years. The potential impact has been positive for us
and we’ll do our best to navigate to pandemic the best we can.
Research Question 2 Findings
The second research question was, “What impact, if any, have federal, state and local
health agencies had on K–12 school districts, and what strategies have districts followed to
address the suggested guidelines?” While school safety is always a priority, COVID-19 created
an entirely new category of student and staff safety. The California Department of Public Health
(CDPH) created the Blueprint for Safer California, aimed at reducing COVID-19 cases through
local partnerships. This blueprint was a model for all Californians to take part in safe practices
and foster a mindset that each citizen can do his or her part by wearing masks, social distancing,
and staying at home when possible. The CDPH, along with the governor’s office, created a Safe
Schools for All Plan to specifically focus on the conditions in which schools could safely reopen
(CDPH, 2020). This plan also gave valuable guidance for schools to take steps toward
opportunities for in-person learning at school with small cohorts of students. The plan also
included guidance and protocols for schools to manage, report, and mitigate outbreaks, along
with instructions on how staff members can return to work after a positive test or an exposure.

90

Regulations imposed by health and safety organizations, such as Cal/OSHA, had the
force of law behind them, with potential fines and penalties. These regulations trumped
voluntary and county guidelines. All of these were crucial for schools trying to navigate this new
terrain, and the expert health guidance helped schools provide in-person services in a safe way
(Freedburg, 2021). As the pandemic waged on, schools continued to look for assistance from
agencies to help create a pathway to safely navigate reopening schools. While this support and
guidance was very necessary, the agencies also created layers of confusion and bureaucracy that
often added to uncertainty.
Research Question 2 Survey Questions
Research Question 2 was designed to better understand the impact of health and safety
guidelines on school districts’ ability to reopen schools safely. Participants responded to three
survey questions related to health and safety guidelines, as seen in Table 6. Participating
superintendents, assistant superintendents, and principals were aligned in their agreement that
health guidelines impacted their district’s/school’s return to school plan in the spring of 2021.
Similarly, superintendents and assistant superintendents were in alignment with their
disagreement that COVID-19 guidelines given to schools were clear. In contrast, principals were
more neutral; principals’ mean agreement scores indicated that principals neither agreed nor
disagreed that agency guidelines were clear. Interviews with all 27 participants revealed, in more
detail, the extent of multi-agency collaboration and the degree of alignment that either did or did
not exist between agencies.

91

Table 6
Quantitative Survey: District and Site Leaders’ Mean Agreement Scores Regarding the Impact of
Health and Safety Guidelines
Survey question Superintendent
Assistant
superintendent
Principal
The federal, state, and local health
guidelines were clear in providing
information to support the safe
reopening of schools.
2.78 2.56 3.67
I understood how to safely bring back
staff during the fall of 2020 to work
sites based on the public health
guidelines.
3.44 3.67 3.78
The health guidelines impacted our
district’s/school’s return to school
plan in the spring of 2021.
4.44 4.33 4.56

Note. The online Qualtrics survey incorporated a 5-point Likert scale response, with 1 = strongly
disagree, 2 = disagree, 3 = neither agree nor disagree, 4 = agree; 5 = strongly agree.

Three interview questions guided Research Question 2:
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?
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? Who in your district was primarily in charge of interpreting and
implementing the health guidelines/policies?

92

The questions were designed to provide researchers with an opportunity to gain insight
into the impact of federal, state, and local health agencies on K–12 school districts and what
strategies districts implemented to address the suggested guidelines. The superintendents,
assistant superintendents, and principals who participated in this research study described the
challenges of continually navigating guidance from county health departments, the California
Department of Education, the Centers for Disease Control (CDC), and other organizations. As
conditions evolved over time, developing concrete, lasting plans was a constant challenge as
leaders dealt with inconsistent and ever-changing guidance from health agencies. The majority of
district and site leaders conveyed feelings of being overwhelmed by the logistical challenges.
They also pointed out that the lack of state and federal guidance exacerbated the political
pressures they faced. Two key themes emerged from Research Question 2:
County departments of public health issued the guidance that was most crucial to leaders,
and there were varying degrees of collaboration between district leaders and county departments
of public health.
The lack of alignment between the various organizations issuing COVID-19-related
guidance was very frustrating for leaders.
Theme 1: Guidance from the County and Collaboration
Superintendent A reiterated how districts were bound to the guidelines and health orders
put in place by health agencies:
There’s so many things we don’t have a choice in and if we don’t follow what’s required
in those health orders, we face the loss of potential insurance on fair labor practices. You
know, lawsuits, fines from those health agencies, loss of funding from other agencies. So,

93

we don’t really have a choice about not following those orders and that has put us in a
really precarious position. We have lost students because of it.
Principal H talked about how top-down guidelines made it easier for school leaders to
refer the community to those guidelines, since these large decisions were not made at the local
school level:
All along, our district has followed the Orange County Healthcare Agency guidelines.
That was something our superintendent just said. We are going to follow these
guidelines, which come down from the CDC and then the California Department of
Health. I think that was a really smart thing to do, because then there’s no guessing. Well,
maybe we should lift that, or maybe let’s not go that far. We didn’t overreact. We didn’t
underreact. As far as I know, I felt like following those guidelines, no matter what parents
say. And I was listening to a board meeting last night, and they’re still complaining about
stuff, even though this is the last game. They’re still complaining about everything. But
we can always just say we are following these guidelines. Here it is. Here’s the link. We
don’t have to explain anything. We don’t have to say, well, we made that decision
because it’s just here it is. And I think that was a really smart decision. I think it was a
way that we were able to just refer parents to science. This is what the scientists are
saying. This is what medical professionals are saying. It’s all about keeping kids safe.
Assistant Superintendent H continued to talk about the collaborative approaches taken by
district leaders and the local health agencies:
Our superintendent participated in all the superintendent meetings. When he is involved
and gives updates to the superintendents, we have updates from our attorneys that our HR
participates in that are weekly meetings. We also have two administrators in Ed services

94

that do all the contact tracing for staff and students who have been engaging with
different agencies. And we have our risk manager who works with OCHCA and our
insurance companies on a regular basis. Each of these different staff members reaches
out, participates in meetings, and then we meet as a team based off of everything that
we’re hearing from the collective agencies. There’s been a lot of collaboration with those
agencies, and sometimes the questions that are being posted to these agencies, they don’t
have specific answers to. So, it takes some time to follow up with us. So, again, there’s a
lapse of time in communication. In LA County you have three different health directors.
You have a health director in Pasadena, one in Long Beach, and then one for the rest of
the county. So, you have different dynamics there in their approach.
Theme 2: Guidelines Constantly Changing and Not Coherent
Superintendent A emphasized how frustrating it was for school leaders to adjust to the
constantly changing guidelines:
The orders change constantly. There’s been times where they’ve changed like five times
in a day. It’s just been insane. So, even in January, you know, we were on vacation, and it
changed. If it was January 1, and we came back on January 3. So, looking at that and then
it changed again on January 3, I think it changed again on January 5 and so we’re
constantly responding to those orders.
Superintendent B reiterated that the guidelines were incoherent and everchanging, which
caused confusion for families:
It’s been helpful what guidelines have regarding reopening. It has not been helpful that
they haven’t been coherent. The state guidelines and the LA county guidelines have not
always been consistent. And that has caused confusion for parents and the community on

95

masking on a variety of factors that have made it more difficult for school districts to
function and be a credible because as guidelines continuously change, the minute we
communicate, what has to happen next, something else comes forward and our families
have difficulty adjusting to new information as it come lots of different things within a
very short period of time changed the way we ask them to protect themselves.
Superintendent C elaborated on the confusion that was caused by the misalignment of
guidelines:
It just created this swirl of confusion and misinformation and it just made it very difficult
because OCHCA wasn’t aligned with anything else other than what OCHCA wanted and
they were typically more strict than the CDC. It didn’t line up with every state. Every
state didn’t line up with every county. And so, the fun begins. And oh, by the way, we get
to make sure we’re following whatever the rules are on any given day, and the governor
quite frankly didn’t do a very good job communicating in a timely manner. Oftentimes,
he would just drop a bomb and one of his daily professors and everybody would scramble
and parents would want to know, thinking that we’re a public agency, because he said
something and the CDC said something and somehow we’re at the table and we would
know and we spent so much time backpedaling, scrambling, and trying to catch up with
what does this mean for school on Monday.
Assistant Superintendent D discussed how the various healthcare agencies had guidelines
that did not match, which caused conflict:
Our local healthcare agency, sometimes our state and federal guidelines, they all didn’t
match in the health and safety area. So, there was conflict. So, then we would go with the
health care agency because that’s our local authority.

96

Research Question 3 Findings
The third research question was, “How, if at all, have union negotiations played a role in
Southern California K–12 districts’ responses to the COVID-19 pandemic?” After the initial
closures, districts with lengthier collective bargaining agreements were less likely to start the fall
2020 semester with in-person instruction, were less likely to ever open for in-person instruction
during the fall semester and spent more weeks overall in distance learning (Marianno, 2021).
School districts in locations with stronger teachers’ unions were substantially less likely to
reopen, and, while political partisanship was a strong predictor of reopening decisions, there was
not consistent evidence that measures of COVID-19 risk were correlated with reopening schools
in person. To decide on future schooling plans under COVID-19, 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 (Marianno et al., 2022). 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.
However, what became clear after the spring school closures was the need for districts and
unions to work together to set teacher expectations under ever-changing circumstances by
proactively planning for multiple scenarios with labor partners involved in conversations. 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 COVID-19, and leaders can keep a pulse
on teacher morale and safety to avoid perceptions of careless working condition changes by

97

maintaining transparency and communication with teachers’ union leaders (Marianno et al.,
2022).
Research Question 3 Survey Questions
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 questions related to the research question. As seen in
Table 7, the majority of respondents believed that negotiations with certificated unions
influenced the way their district responded to the COVID-19 pandemic for students and families.
All of the respondents also agreed that negotiations with classified unions influenced the way
their district effectively responded to the COVID-19 pandemic for students and families.
Participants did not appear to have a common perception about negotiations with the teachers’
unions impacting the quality of instruction offered to students during distance learning.
Participant responses ranged from “disagree” to “strongly agree.”

98

Table 7
Quantitative Survey: District and Site Leaders’ Mean Agreement Ratings Regarding the Impact
of Union Negotiations
Survey question Superintendent
Assistant
superintendent
Principal
Negotiations with certificated unions
influenced the way my district effectively
responded to the COVID-19 pandemic for
students and families.
3.33 4.25 4.33
Negotiations with classified unions influenced
the way of my district effectively responding
to the COVID-19 pandemic for students and
families.
3.33 4.00 4.22
Negotiations with the teacher’s union impacted
the quality of instruction offered to students
during distance learning.
3.33 3.50 4.22

Note. The online Qualtrics survey incorporated a 5-point Likert scale response, where 1 =
strongly disagree, 2 = disagree, 3 = neither agree nor disagree, 4 = agree, and 5 = strongly
agree.

Four interview questions directly addressed the research question 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 response to the COVID-19
pandemic. The four questions were as follows:
1. What were the most important issues negotiated with your teachers union, and how
were they resolved?

99

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?
Throughout the pandemic there were adults on sites continuing to maintain facilities,
offer meals to students, and assist in the logistics of distance learning. As schools began to
reopen, classified employees were the first to be called back into work to prepare schools to meet
new health and safety guidelines. New procedures for health screening, cleaning, movement,
personal safety, food preparation and distribution, isolation, and transportation had to be
developed and implemented by members of the classified staff (Marianno et al., 2022). 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
(CDE, 2020). However, it became clear after the spring school closures that districts and unions
needed to work together. There was a need to set teacher expectations under changing
circumstances by proactively planning for multiple scenarios with labor partners involved in
conversations. Given these demands, there were two themes that emerged during the interviews:
concerns about the quality of online instruction and the importance of acknowledging the
classified employees as essential workers.

100

Theme 1: Certificated Union Negotiations Focus on Quality Online Instruction
Assistant Superintendent D spoke about the importance of maintaining quality instruction
when schools went online:
I would say the latest one is quarantine learning. Because technically, you could just give
a packet to a kid, but as a teacher you know, a packet does not even compare to the direct
instruction that you receive by a teacher and that guidance. So, for us, that continuity of
learning was critical. I think the tutoring hours also are critical as far as tailoring them to
students that really need the additional support. The days before for professional
development, I feel like I wish we had more days for teachers. And how do we better use
our days.
Assistant Superintendent I reiterated the school district’s focus on quality online
instruction:
There was a significant impact, and I’m not going to say that it wasn’t negative, but part
of the MOU (memorandum of understanding) was about how virtual learning would be
addressed. I remember the discussion was, do the teachers have just online kids? And
then there’s teachers who have just in-person kids, or could a teacher have both online
and in-person at the same time? And the ramifications of that. So, it was more about
everybody kind of coming to an understanding of how we were going to make sure that
the kids weren’t missing out on instruction. So, most of the discussion was around the use
of virtual learning and how the teacher would interact with that versus how the kids
would, and so it was kind of primarily to try to keep the teachers focused. The idea was
that they become more of an online teacher and then an in-person teacher.

101

The superintendent for District H also spoke of the importance of maintaining quality
online instruction:
We had live streaming in the classroom. Kids that were important. They were in and out
and still able to participate. So, we had that as an option, depending on the instructional
program. We have a virtual Academy. But some did live streaming with their own
teachers so they can stay in their class, and that created a better community. I think it was
very positive. And I think that instructional piece, just all the blended options that we
allow people to choose from really made the instructor. Everybody could find something
that they were comfortable with. Each family could choose what was best for their child.
Theme 2: Acknowledging Classified Employees and Essential Workers
Assistant Superintendent I discussed the importance of keeping classified employees
safe:
So, they were the ones on the front-line handing food out to parents to keep their kids fed.
And this was during the uncertain time where no one knew how contagious the virus was
or how deadly it could be. And we made sure they had the right equipment to stay safe, as
safe as we could keep them, but they never went. They never left. They were working.
The custodians came in, and then it was an opportunity for us to make sure that all the
filters were good. That time when everybody went home was a time when classified staff
could get the sites ready for in-person learning. So, the work they did was critical for
supporting extended learning and getting the spaces ready to go deep clean everything.
Principal F echoed a similar sentiment:
Thanks to them they were really the first people that were back on campus. I think they
were bargaining for safety protocols to be put into place. So, they wanted to make sure

102

that the district purchased handwashing stations around campus and make sure that kids
are keeping their distance and masking. That’s really what they were bargaining for.
Assistant Superintendent B was another participant who discussed the importance of the
classified staff:
Our food services and our custodians and our facility department, they never got to work
from home. So really working with them on the immediate safety concerns that they had
about being on campus and providing their services, when we were still trying to figure
out what it was. And we had food services distributing thousands of meals, every day,
across the district. We were providing childcare for over 1000 students every day at our
elementary schools. And that was all classified staff and some substitutes. So that group
of classified staff really negotiated what they needed at the moment; tools, training,
safety equipment, supplies, so that they could confidently be at work.
Research Question 4 Findings
Research Question 4 was, “How, if at all, has your district addressed the concerns of the
parent community regarding safety, nutrition, distance learning, lack of technology, academic
standing, and how and when to open schools due to the COVID-19 pandemic?” In polls
conducted in all 50 states, EdTrust (2021) found sweeping similarities among parents across the
nation, including the troubling reports of significant gaps in the access to vital resources and
increased stress levels, particularly among lower income families of color. While parents
reported overall general satisfaction with how school districts and schools have responded during
the pandemic, there was still a gap between what parents would have liked and what was actually
available, particularly at the beginning of the pandemic. Among parents in all states, there was a
deep concern that their children were falling academically behind with almost ninety percent of

103

parents reporting this as a worry (EdTrust, 2021). Aside from learning loss, parent concerns
included student well-being and safety.
Research Question 4 Survey Questions
Research Question 4 was designed to help the researchers better understand the
relationship between school districts and parents during the COVID-19 pandemic. Research
study participants responded to seven survey questions. As seen in Table 8, superintendents,
assistant superintendents, and principals tended to strongly agree that they were able to meet
many of the needs of students and families, especially in the areas of communication, nutrition,
technology devices, and health and safety. However, survey responses revealed that participants
felt their district/school did not meet students’ academic and social-emotional well-being needs.

104

Table 8
Quantitative Survey: District and Site Leaders’ Mean Agreement Ratings of Parent Concerns
Superintendent
Assistant
superintendent
Principal
My district/school maintained good
communication with families during the
pandemic.
4.11 4.50 4.44
My district/school met the needs of students and
families in the area of nutrition.
4.56 4.88 4.33
My district/school met the needs of students and
families in the area of technology
(computers/devices).
4.44 4.75 4.67
My district/school met the needs of students and
families in the area of technology (internet
service).
4.22 4.50 4.44
My district/school met the needs of students and
families in the area of social emotional well-
being.
3.56 3.75 3.11
My district/school met the needs of students and
families in the area of health and safety.
4.11 4.25 4.00
My district/school met the academic needs of
students.
3.11 3.75 3.44

Note. The online Qualtrics survey incorporated a 5-point Likert scale response, where 1 =
strongly disagree, 2 = disagree, 3 = neither agree nor disagree, 4 = agree, and 5 = strongly
agree.

Two interview questions directly addressed Research Question Four:
1. In what ways did your district gather input from and communicate with the
community?
2. What were the biggest concerns from your district’s community, and how were they
addressed?

105

The first question was designed to provide the researchers with an opportunity to learn
more about the relationship between the parent community and school districts during the
COVID-19 pandemic. The second question allowed researchers to understand the breadth of
parent concerns district and school leaders needed to address. Responses to the two questions
provided the researchers with information about district and school leaders’ perceptions of the
types of community concerns leaders were addressing during the COVID-19 pandemic and how
leaders were communicating with their respective communities. Two themes emerged during the
interviews:
1. Leaders discussed how open communication, over communicating, and transparency
helped ease the concerns of their parent community during the pandemic.
2. Parents across the three districts all shared concerns about student safety as schools
moved back to in-person learning opportunities.
Theme 1: Communication and Transparency
Superintendent A spoke about the importance of open communication with families
during the pandemic:
From the beginning we’ve had parents on our COVID Task Force and I also did town
halls. Prior to the pandemic I would get maybe 35 parents at the most for district wide
meetings. Now we get 700 or above parents at a Zoom parent town hall meeting. We
allow parents to ask questions, they have to type them in via Zoom, we post all of our
presentations on that. We have been creative. I think we over communicated. You can
never over communicate but we really made a huge effort to communicate with our
parents.

106

Principal G discussed different opportunities offered at the school, which allowed parents
an opportunity to listen, learn, and ask questions:
We did a fair amount of surveys. We still ran our School Site Council, our operations
steering committee and our district advisory committee, all of which allowed parents an
opportunity to give input on a variety of things. And then communication always came in
the form of emails, newsletters, and then for me personally, I felt like my most effective
form of communication is the virtual coffee connections, just like open question and
answer times. I prepare a slide deck for the most frequently asked questions and what my
answers and responses are. And during those periods of reopening and transitions, there
would be hundreds of parents that would log on for that and I would have members of my
admin team answering questions in the chat while I did my presentation. The more that
we were able to communicate and be transparent, the more trust we built in the
community and the fewer issues we had overall.
Principal B reiterated the importance of allowing members of the school community to
share their concerns with the school board and district leaders:
Our superintendent does a really great job of opening up and communicating with the
schools and with families, with all stakeholders and giving them an opportunity like a
forum besides just board meetings. We would have our traditional board meeting, we
would have public comment, tons of parents and teachers sharing what their concerns
were. So, we would have 10 folks talk about how we should not open schools, we had
another 10 that said we should open school. So, it was just tons and tons of
communication.

107

Principal B continued about how varying means of consistent communication was
imperative to addressing the concerns of the school community:
Every Sunday night I send out a call and an email to my family. It was consistent. Every
Sunday at 6:00 PM, they would get a call from me. They would also get an email and
that’s where I would communicate everything with them. I sent a survey out multiple
weeks because I wanted to know if anyone wanted to send their kids on campus to do
those after school activities. So, folks gotta sign up for that, through that. Every Sunday
was my communication method. I know our district sends out communication regularly
as well, via email, and then they also have different forms that they have that folks can
join in to be a part of that discussion.
Theme 2: Safety Concerns and Reopening
Superintendent A stated that, due to differing levels of concern about in-person learning,
the school tried to create the opportunities for choice in how students returned: “Some people are
not comfortable coming back to school but what we did is we actually started an online school.
That’s a permanent school now and people can stay in that if they so choose.” Superintendent A
asserted that students and parents need to be heard and that surveying is a useful means for
gathering their views:
We did a lot of surveying. We surveyed them throughout the pandemic on how
comfortable they were coming back to school, whether it was hybrid, whether we’re a
small group. We surveyed students, we surveyed staff, and we surveyed parents, and we
disaggregated that data by grade level, and we used that data to help drive our target dates
for returning because we were able to see their comfort level coming back.

108

Superintendent A also demonstrated the creativity required for leaders to address the
community’s concerns and ensure students would be safe returning to in-person learning:
There were overall reopening concerns and like the town halls, we also did videos. We
did a lot of video messages that showed what the classrooms looked like. We painted dots
six feet apart on the elementary playground so that students could line up. We really kind
of took them on a tour of the classrooms and we had some of our children and some of
our staff’s children pretend to be students at the school walking in and showing how
everything was going to work.
Principal G stated how important transparency and open communication was for his
school community’s concerns:
We had to be super clear and transparent that the guidance that we followed came
directly from the county and not from the state and was not decided at a local level. We
also had reopening meetings at every school site. Mine were virtual with our families and
it was a 58-slide deck presentation of all of the different ways that we were going to
accommodate students and make sure that they were able to safely be in the classroom
with the shared responsibility between district and students. Again, it just was about open
communication. And when parents made a request, we did our best to accommodate it.
It’s just difficult because a lot of parent requests, as we know, were conflicting.
Principal G indicated that the varying concerns led to choices on how students would
return to the classroom:
The parents have been a huge voice. I think that there’s been a shift, obviously, with
parent support based on what side of the coin you fell on. Last year, we offered a
completely virtual option, as many districts did, which was a completely independent

109

online school for families that weren’t comfortable coming back on the campus. And then
we also opened our campuses, essentially for families that wanted to come to campus
right away.
Assistant Superintendent C expanded on the many different ways leaders collected
feedback from the school community regarding concerns and reopening schools:
We had opportunities for both survey feedback, as well as forums for them to be able to
give us information and inform us of our reopening. We also held meetings with family
groups in order to be able to share our best current thinking, and then how that could look
and be successful for their families to help us provide that insight. We were fortunate to
be able to leverage Zoom in this situation to be able to gather that information.
Summary
Chapter Four reported the findings from 27 K–12 educational leaders in nine Southern
California school districts, including nine superintendents, nine assistant superintendents, and
nine principals. Each research study participant completed a survey that provided quantitative
data and participated in an interview that provided further qualitative evidence. The results from
this study bring to light the pandemic’s impact on students, families, leaders, schools, and
districts. This study examined how district and school leadership responded to the COVID-19
crisis by examining the financial implications of the pandemic, the impact of governmental
agency guidelines, as well as what issues were most important to both union members and
parents within each district. Most importantly, the study provides insight into superintendent,
assistant superintendent, and principal leadership practices during a crisis.
The COVID-19 pandemic impacted public school districts on an extraordinary scale.
District and school leaders were responding to a health crisis that seemingly would have been

110

dealt with by health professionals, but with its impact on public school districts and students,
leaders were left with no choice but to respond swiftly and accordingly. Analyses of the survey
and interview responses identified several common themes in the leadership of participating
superintendents, assistant superintendents, and principals across all nine districts: safety,
collaboration, communication, and union negotiations.
Safety
While the benefits of reopening for students, families, and communities were clear,
leaders had to consider the health risks of the school personnel and families that were needed to
operate safely. Educational leaders had to make consequential and complex decisions based on
safety. Throughout the research process, district and school leaders consistently discussed the
challenges of interpreting how different stakeholders considered safety protocols and redefining
working and learning environments that were deemed “safe.” These decisions were made more
difficult by the lack of definitive evidence about transmission in children, ever-changing
guidelines, relative health risks, and what practical mitigation measures were most effective for
limiting the spread of the virus in schools and classrooms. Every participant touched upon the
work of collaborating and negotiating with both classified and certificated unions to come to an
agreement that accounts for safety concerns in respect to roles and environments. There was a
common response of leaders to remain consistent with respect to following the required yet ever-
evolving public health guidelines and implementing local district and school safety plans.
The findings indicated a concerted effort on the part of district and school leaders to
address the wide range of community concerns with the reopening of schools and topics such as
PPEs, facility upgrades, physical distancing, sanitation measures, and masking. Recognizing
these challenges and the difficult choices faced by education leaders, nearly all responses

111

indicated “safety” as a core driver for decision making. Responses from all nine districts
indicated that leaders worked tirelessly to address guidelines and requirements while also
respecting the opinions, fears, and concerns of their respective communities. Throughout this
entire crisis, student safety was at the forefront of leaders’ decision-making processes.
Joint Sensemaking and Collective Decision Making
Joint sensemaking was another common theme across the respondents of all nine
districts. From initial school closures to the reopening of schools, superintendents, assistant
superintendents, and principals had to make informed decisions based on a complex set of risks
and tradeoffs. These decisions involved deliberate sensemaking based on the collective expertise
of various stakeholders.
As the COVID-19 crisis was primarily an issue of health and safety, a partnership of state
and local health agencies with public school districts naturally emerged, However, leaders’
responses indicated that the process was not as organic. Overall, district and school leaders
shared familiar challenges and frustrations with not being able to provide input into the guidance
for schools issued by their local health agencies. In order to approach reopening of schools in
ways that were reflective of a community’s collective values, the findings demonstrated that
leaders relied on collaboration. State and local decision makers had to engage a range of different
constituencies in the process of creating and delineating plans to reopen and later monitor their
ongoing safety.
The findings indicated a lack of collaboration between school districts and public health
agencies, with district leaders receiving and implementing guidelines put forth by public health
agencies without opportunities to offer input. A common frustration reported among the study
participants was the incoherence of the contradictory directives which led to confusion,

112

ambiguity, and difficulty interpreting the health and safety guidance. Throughout this process,
leaders struggled to collaborate effectively with their stakeholder groups and disseminate
information accordingly. The public-school leaders’ responsibility to make decisions regarding
the safety and health of all employees and students was made more difficult due to the constantly
changing directives and the conflicting stakeholder input.
Communication
A third recurring theme among the nine districts was deepened communication. All
participants were tasked with the crucial role of establishing a multifaceted communication plan
for their schools and districts and relaying information to multiple stakeholders in their
communities. The findings suggested it was extremely challenging for education stakeholders to
navigate the plethora of guidance documents to reopen safely. School leaders were tasked with
the extremely challenging work of understanding and weighing risks of the COVID-19 pandemic
while trying to redesign and reimagine what schools would look like during these turbulent
times. The findings demonstrated that communication was “one-directional” from local health
agencies to public school districts and school sites. The language used in health agencies was not
clearly articulated for schools as well as the recommendations. District and site leaders had to
interpret, clarify, simplify, and communicate complex health and safety guidelines to their
different stakeholders by determining what was best for their schools and districts. Leaders
grappled with what to recommend to education stakeholders and how to communicate to families
that every effort is being made to keep their children safe in schools.
Based on the interview and survey responses, district and site leaders were the primary
sources of information, charged with communicating with their students, staff, and community
partners about safety protocols, guidelines, and procedures. All participants reported having

113

utilized a myriad of new communication channels and platforms to gather input, disseminate
information, and engage with their local school community. Additionally, participants largely
indicated an increased frequency of communication with not only their family communities but
also internally with their union groups and between district office departments and school sites.
The findings also indicated the pandemic created many opportunities for reciprocal and
transparent communication between stakeholders. To make information accessible to diverse
families for instance, leaders indicated they utilized communication strategies such as live-
streamed meetings, town halls, and task force sessions. The proliferation of guidance documents
created confusion at all levels. Making sense of the varying perspectives on whether and how to
reopen schools for in-person learning required robust communication. While messaging during
COVID-19 were at times contradictory, complex, and ever-changing, the findings suggested
these associated challenges led to opportunities for school leaders to strengthen, diversify, and
effectively communicate with collaborators and stakeholders.
Unions and Negotiations
Lastly, the COVID-19 pandemic impacted on-campus learning and greatly affected both
the classified and certificated staff. The findings revealed a theme regarding the roles that unions
played and the negotiations that took place during the initial school closures and reopening.
While all stakeholders did not necessarily agree with final decisions about when and how to
reopen schools, an inclusive process helped build trust in school leadership so that decisions
could be implemented quickly and effectively.
Participants were largely in agreement on issues such as the financial impact of the
pandemic on school districts. District and school leaders’ responses referenced MOUs on safe
working conditions, supply and distribution of PPE equipment, the quality of online instruction,

114

and shifts in roles and responsibilities as a few of the major negotiation points. Additionally, the
negotiations were driven by the allocation of extra state funding and the implications that would
have for the schools’ reopening timelines, as well as the impact on both certificated and
classified work locations and job responsibilities. Generally speaking, the findings indicated the
importance of maintaining a strong relationship between district and school leadership with all
bargaining units, including viewing the classified staff as essential workers, as this partnership
would assist with the rapidly changing impact of COVID-19 on districts and schools. Through
the responses, it was evident union negotiations were critical to district and school operations,
protocols, and overall coordination.
Chapter Five presents a summary of the findings, implications for practice, a discussion
of future research, and further conclusions.

115

Chapter Five: Summary, Implications, and Conclusion
There is no doubt that the COVID-19 crisis has created enormous challenges for our
nation’s public-school systems. Overnight, schools moved their entire operation online,
including not only teaching and learning, but also the varied physical and social supports that
families access through their school system. For over 2 years, the COVID-19 pandemic crisis has
continued to evolve and upend school districts. In the past, school crises have revolved around
short-term incidents, such as natural disasters or active shootings, and have called for crisis
planning as an integrated part of effective school district leadership (Gainey, 2009). However,
the COVID-19 pandemic is unprecedented. As the COVID-19 pandemic spread rapidly across
the globe, schools struggled to react both quickly and adequately. Leadership in times of crisis is
about dealing with events, emotions, and consequences in the immediate present in ways that
minimize personal and organizational harm to the school and school community (Smith & Riley,
2012). In a crisis, immediate and complex decisions need to be made quickly, and they were.
The literature and data gathered in this study have highlighted varying sectors of K–12
public education that were impacted by the pandemic and how leaders had to face intense new
challenges. Analyzing the study data shed light on the unique leadership roles administrators,
superintendents, and principals assumed and the qualities they enacted. Their responses to the
pandemic indicate that their roles as school leaders were reconceptualized as crisis managers. As
they transformed into crisis managers, school leaders engaged in joint sensemaking and
collaboration to mitigate the pandemic effectively and efficiently. The present study’s data
revealed that the COVID-19 crisis created an unprecedented impact on all areas of public
education. The superintendents, assistant superintendents, and principals who participated in this
study enacted a broad range of leadership qualities and actions. This chapter provides a summary

116

of the key findings for each research question, along a discussion of the study’s implications,
recommendations for future research, and a conclusion.
Statement of the Problem
The COVID-19 pandemic presented a disruption in Southern California K–12 school
districts. It caused unforeseen consequences within the education system and highlighted the
financial implications, the impact of outside agencies and union negotiations, and the resulting
impact on students and community. COVID-19 shifted the roles and scope of schools and school
leaders, transforming them from instructional leaders into crisis managers.
Purpose of the Study
The purpose of this study was to analyze the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on
Southern California K–12 school districts and understand what district and site administrators
have learned from their experiences and their decision-making responsibilities in managing the
crisis. This study has brought to light the impact of the pandemic on students, families, leaders,
schools, and districts. Most importantly, this study examined how district and school leaders
influenced administrative practices, student achievement, fiscal responsibility, union leadership,
and community/parent support as they responded to the COVID-19 crisis.
Participants
The 27 research participants in this study consisted of nine superintendents, nine assistant
superintendents, and nine principals across nine unique K–12 public school districts in Southern
California. These research participants qualified if they held their current position for at least 1
year, served in their position during the 2019–2020 school year, and if the minimum student
population of their district was approximately 1,000.

117

Key Findings
The following section presents the key themes that emerged across all nine participating
school districts based on the four research questions that guided this study.
Findings for Research Question 1
Research Question 1 asked, “What, if any, are the financial implications that the COVID-
19 pandemic has had on K–12 public school districts in Southern California, and how have
district superintendents, assistant superintendents, and principals addressed these implications?”
This research question was designed to provide insight into participants’ perceptions regarding
the COVID-19 funding provided through the CARES Act. Responses to this research question
provided researchers with information about how school districts and sites met their financial
needs and obligations during the COVID-19 pandemic. Based on participants’ responses, five
themes emerged related to financial implications.
Theme 1
A wide range of funding priorities and spending took place among the school districts.
Spending plans and financial implications encompassed everything from summer school
programs and expanded staffing to HVAC upgrades and technology purchases. Additionally,
purchases included some scattered items, like furniture for teacher lounges and wide-screen
televisions, which could ultimately test the federal government’s intentions for the funds to
specifically help schools recover from the effects of the pandemic. While some districts were
investing big money in initiatives that did not appear strictly COVID-related at first, other
districts spent nearly all funds on technology updates and PPE for cleaning, ventilation, and air
filtration. Some districts also held on to varying sums for future use, and many admitted funds

118

could not be expended adequately due to product unavailability, lack of infrastructure, or staffing
shortages.
Theme 2
Uncertainty reigned, and there was a lack of clarity regarding the scope of the available
funding. District leaders and school business officials scrambled to allocate significant, and in
some cases unprecedented, sums of money during these uncertain times. An influx of emergency
funds that would soon expire, dips in average daily attendance (ADA), and reimbursement
confusion all created chaos, tension, and challenges for school leaders.
Theme 3
Another commonality among district leaders was the expressed desire for sustainability
of funds more than flexibility and accountability. Flexibility of COVID-19 funds was
appreciated; however, timelines, accountability, lack of infrastructure, COVID-19 outbreaks,
political disputes over masking and vaccination, and the academic and emotional upheaval
wrought by many months of pandemic-era schooling were among the issues that truly weighed
on districts’ wallets. Districts had to navigate complex bureaucratic hurdles and a public health
crisis to better understand and potentially use these funds. Leaders mentioned they had broad
flexibility with the use of the COVID-19 funds but spending deadlines and accountability
reporting were not feasible and in some cases a burden to operationalizing initiatives.
Theme 4
Leaders had to consider the health risks to school personnel and students’ families as well
as the practicality and cost of the mitigation strategies needed to operate safely. The findings
suggest that financial incentives offered to Southern California’s K–12 public schools in March
of 2021 were not the primary drivers to reopen schools; rather, the main impetus was the overall

119

well-being and safety of constituents. Implementing COVID-19 spread mitigation strategies fully
and faithfully to maximize protection of students and staff was a priority and true motive.
Theme 5
Despite many uncertain financial implications of the COVID-19 funds, there were some
“silver linings” and positive outcomes. School leaders recognized the challenges associated with
operationalizing a number of reopening strategies, what was feasible, and protecting students and
staff using CARES funds. School leaders shared how virtual learning opportunities, online
academies, improved facilities upgrades, increased parent engagement via social media/online
town hall meetings and purchasing of one-to-one devices were made possible by CARES Act
funding.
Findings for Research Question 2
Research Question 2 asked, “What impact, if any, have federal, state, and local health
agencies had on K–12 public school districts in Southern California, and what strategies have
district superintendents, assistant superintendents, and principals followed to address the
suggested guidelines?” This research question was designed to better understand the impact of
health and safety guidelines on school districts’ ability to reopen schools safely. The research
findings highlight the importance of health guidelines in assisting schools to reopen safely. Two
themes emerged while interviewing participants: incoherent messaging between county, local,
and state departments and lack of alignment, which created frustration.
Theme 1
County public health departments issued guidance that was crucial to leaders. There were
varying degrees of collaboration between district leaders and county public health departments.
This consistent collaboration among leaders and health officials was key to the success of

120

schools reopening safely while addressing the many concerns of the staff and community
members.
Theme 2
Confusing messaging, inconsistent language, and differing recommendations existed
across organizations. The lack of alignment between the various organizations issuing COVID-
19-related guidance and conflicting recommendations were burdensome and frustrating for
leaders. The guidance was also ever-changing, and it created frustration, not only for leaders, but
for staff and community members as well.
Findings for Research Question 3
Research Question 3 asked, “How, if at all, have union negotiations played a role in
Southern California K–12 public school districts’ response to the COVID-19 pandemic?” The
third research question was designed to help the researcher better understand the role of labor
unions in shaping districts’ responses to the COVID-19 pandemic. Superintendents, assistant
superintendents, and principals felt very strongly that union negotiations with both certificated
and classified employees were critical to responding effectively to the COVID-19 pandemic.
Throughout the pandemic, each school in districts around Southern California had staff
that remained working in person on site in order to maintain the school facilities, feed the
families in the school community, and assist in the coordination of distance learning. Schools
slowly began reopening their doors, and the first staff members on campus were the classified
staff. Classified staff members were called into work prior to any other staff, so that they could
help prepare schools to meet the new health and safety guidelines that were required for
reopening. New procedures for health screening, cleaning, movement, personal safety, food
preparation and distribution, isolation, and transportation had to be developed and implemented

121

by members of the classified staff (Marianno et al., 2022). 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 on students, which included direction on implementation and delivery of distance
learning, special education, and meals through the end of the school year (CDE, 2020). However,
after school closures in the spring of 2020, it became clear that school districts and unions
needed to work together to proactively plan for multiple different scenarios that would prepare
teachers for changing circumstances. These conversations would include labor partners and
unions. Given these needs, there were two themes that emerged during the interviews: concerns
about the quality of online instruction and the importance of acknowledging the classified
employees as essential workers.
Theme 1
Leaders stated their concerns about the quality of online instruction during distance
learning. It was crucial for districts to replicate the continuity of valuable learning and quality
instruction online. Many district leaders emphasized the importance of continuing a positive
learning experience for students.
Theme 2
Districts were also concerned about the importance of seeing the classified employees as
essential workers and emphasized the importance of keeping classified employees safe while
they continued in-person work on school campuses.

122

Findings for Research Question 4
Research Question 4 asked, “How, if at all, have K–12 Southern California public school
districts leadership teams comprised of superintendents, assistant superintendents, and principals
addressed the 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?” This research question was designed to help the researchers better understand
how district leaders gave school communities a place to voice their concerns regarding schools
reopening. These concerns helped leaders make decisions on how and when they would open
their schools. This research question also helped the researchers better understand how district
leaders addressed the concerns of their school communities, what strategies were used to address
families’ concerns, and how district and school leaders communicated with their communities.
Theme 1
Leaders discussed how open communication, over communication, and transparency
helped ease the concerns of their parent communities during the pandemic.
Theme 2
Parents across the three districts all shared concerns about student safety as schools
moved back to in-person learning opportunities.
Implications for Practice
This research study examined the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on K–12 public
school districts in Southern California. Through the surveys and interviews designed to collect
data for this study, the research team was able to better understand what district and site
administrators have learned from their experiences and decision-making responsibilities in
managing the crisis. The study has brought to light the pandemic’s impact on students, families,

123

leaders, schools, and districts. Most importantly, it examined how district and school leaders
have influenced administrative practices, student achievement, financial responsibility, union
leadership, and community/parent support as they responded to the COVID-19 crisis. The
examination of relevant literature and subsequent data collection for this study led to three
implications regarding school district and site leaders becoming crisis managers during the
COVID-19 pandemic. The conceptual framework (see Figure 3) utilized for this research study
was based on three theoretical frameworks. The three frameworks provide an understanding of
the theories that impact school leadership and how leadership can adapt to managing the
COVID-19 pandemic crisis. The three theories used to develop the conceptual framework
present important implications for leaders and their changing roles throughout this crisis.
Crisis management is the process by which an organization deals with any major
unpredictable event threatening to harm the organization, its stakeholders, or the public (Vargo
& Seville, 2011). Three elements are common to most definitions of a crisis: (a) a threat to the
organization, (b) the element of surprise, and (c) a short decision time (Seeger et al., 1998).
Crisis management is the discipline of preparing the resources and organizational structures
necessary to respond effectively in the face of a crisis and recover effectively in the aftermath. It
is about building the capability to identify imminent threats to the organization and designing a
plan for addressing those threats (Vargo & Seville, 2011). Flexibility, collaboration, and self-
correcting mechanisms are important aspects of crisis response and management (Liou, 2015).
As the nation moves toward reopening public spaces considering the ongoing pandemic
and the coming school year, there are some lingering questions and concerns to address. Some
emerging insights about leadership within the COVID-19 educational landscape and propositions
offered for consideration are outlined below.

124

Implication 1: Bolman and Deal’s Four Frames
The first implication includes consideration and use of strategic leadership frames or
lenses when managing a crisis. Superintendents, assistant superintendents, and principals enacted
leadership utilizing Bolman and Deal’s (2017) political, structural, human resources, and
symbolic frames, especially during times of crisis. The Four-Frame Model (Bolman & Deal,
2017) is a set of frames, each comprising “a set of ideas and assumptions,” to guide
organizations. Bolman and Deal (2017) argued the Four Frames provide leaders with rich
descriptions of organizational structures, mindsets, and associated leadership actions that result
in improved organizational understandings. Bolman and Deal (2017) asserted it is important for
leaders not to stand within one frame but to work within all Four-Frames in a cohesive manner,
giving themselves a broader mindset and lens to reframe their view of the organization, make
better sense of data, and be more effective in their leadership and decision making. According to
Bolman and Deal (2017), managers often misread situations, and leaders must learn how to use
multiple lenses to get a better sense of the problems they face and identify the leadership actions
necessary to address them. These frames focus on the fundamentals of great leadership and thus
offer leaders a pathway to navigate unknown and unchartered situations, like COVID-19.
Serving as a potential roadmap for shifting leadership roles, these frames serve as time-
tested guidance for more effective organizational leadership (Bolman & Deal, 2017). During
COVID-19, district leaders wore multiple hats. Leaders were required to make fiscally
responsible decisions despite uncertainty and decipher changing and ambiguous health
guidelines, all while providing for the health, safety, and needs of students, staff, and the
community. Additionally, the proliferation of guidance documents was creating confusion at all

125

levels about how to make sense of the varying perspectives on whether and how to reopen school
or in-person learning.
Implication 2: Collective Decision Making a Standard Practice
The second implication draws from Fullan’s (2014) work on whole systems change and
the role of leaders as “system players.” During the COVID-19 crisis, emerging change dynamics
almost repositioned superintendents, assistant superintendents, and principals to entirely new
roles. During the process of deciding how schools operate during the pandemic, school leaders
needed to ensure that the decisions they made reflected their community’s priorities and unions.
There was a range of stakeholders invested in decisions around reopening schools, and decisions
and processes around this topic were incredibly complex and tense (Netolicky, 2020). To this
end, school leaders had to be willing to listen and co-plan with relevant community members and
constituent groups. District leaders had to be systems players and engage the community in
decisions to help ensure that the divergent concerns of education stakeholders were, at a
minimum, brought to light and considered. It is known that children benefit from community
input, and, in the absence of this kind of relationship, schools may not change (Epstein, 1995,
2018).
The findings from this study revealed that the logic and value behind reopening and
safety decisions varied among stakeholders. The implication here is that decision makers risked
the possibility of school staff and families not understanding and even challenging the reasoning
behind certain choices without collaboration, potentially leading some stakeholders to disengage
from schools. In our findings, school leaders shared how they had to deepen partnerships with
families and communities by involving them in planning for the safe reopening of schools,
preparing students for learning and making up for “loss,” and implementing newly required

126

policies, procedures, and plans. This type of involvement was particularly important for families
and communities that experienced the greatest impact from inequitable schooling during the
pandemic or have been historically marginalized by K–12 public schools.
Implication 3: Enhanced Effective Communication
The last implication stems from the work of Westover (2020) on coherence and
communication. Organizations face the continuous prospect of change as they fight to stay afloat
and compete in an increasingly competitive and globalized economy (Westover, 2010, 2020). A
sharp focus on cultivating trusting, respectful, and caring relationships among students, staff,
parents, and guardians is integral to create a connected community. A consistent element of crisis
leadership is effective communication. Scholars have emphasized the leader’s role in
communicating effectively with both internal and external audiences (Marsen, 2020). Effective
communication builds trust and helps to create shared understandings and commitments across
stakeholders (Lucero et al., 2009).
A common theme highlighted in the study was the necessity of robust communication
and helping others engage in meaning-making. During times of crisis, effective leaders engage in
holding, which means that they are containing and interpreting what is happening during a time
of uncertainty (McLeod & Dulsky, 2021). In light of changing guidelines, ambiguous funding
resources, and the uncertainty of the ongoing pandemic, regular consistent messaging remained a
constant among school leaders. In our study, district leaders mentioned another theme of
enhanced communication. School leaders, such as principals, held town hall meetings via Zoom,
reported increased participation in online school meetings, and discussed how multiple
communication platforms helped communicate comprehensive messaging and kept families
connected. Another commonality was that, for in-person learning to operate effectively, schools

127

and districts needed to leverage the strengths and talents of teachers, clerical staff, and the unions
by attending to their health and safety concerns through robust communication. Moving forward,
leaders should continue to foster better dialogue and ensure ongoing and clear communication
among all stakeholders to enable a coherent system of continuous improvement.
Recommendations for Future Study
The review of the literature provided context for the study of the COVID-19 pandemic on
schools and how the traditional leadership roles of superintendent, assistant superintendent, and
principal have been transformed. As the pandemic continues to disrupt schooling at the time of
this study, there are several considerations: the impact of the crisis on students, staff, and school
leaders’ well-being and education, the unknown regarding the current state of the virus and
pandemic, current school crisis plans and administrative preparedness programs, and the
relationship between various stakeholders. Together, the harrowing realities of the COVID-19
crisis should be further explored in a future study.
Recommendation 1: Research the Long-term Effects of the Pandemic
The first recommendation is to analyze the long-term impacts of the pandemic on
students, teachers, administrators, and staff. As the pandemic continues to unfold, researchers
and participants were reminded of how much has been learned in the past months, yet how much
remains to be known to better understand how to construct, operate, and gather in environments
that are safe and minimize risk.
The COVID-19 pandemic and subsequent school disruptions have had a profound impact
on school-age children, families, and school staff, particularly on their mental health. There have
been reported increases in stress and mental health difficulties among children, youths, and
adults due to the fears of COVID-19 (Hatzichristou et al., 2021; Karaman et al., 2021; Murata et

128

al., 2021). The severe short-term schooling disruption was felt by many families around the
world; home schooling was not only a massive shock to parents’ productivity, but also to
children’s social life and learning (Burgess & Sievertsen, 2020).
The COVID-19 pandemic and the measures taken to contain the virus have had
consequences that will extend beyond the short term. Schooling interruptions, like the sudden
move to online teaching, will most likely have long-term consequences and likely increase
inequality (Burgess & Sievertsen, 2020). Some unknown and long-term consequences include
coping with trauma and addressing the mental health needs of students and staff (Watson et al.,
2022). Moving forward, it is essential to understand the trauma and related needs of students and
staff. While much attention has been paid to potential learning losses and negative consequences
for academic achievement, the collective trauma of the pandemic should not be underestimated.
Recommendation 2: Research the Crisis-Ready State of Schools and Administrators
The second recommendation is to study the crisis-ready state of educational organizations
at this time. There are some texts and studies available for helping ensure student and staff safety
and security before, during, and after crises; suggestions for assessing crisis response plan
readiness; and guidelines for debriefing and evaluating a school crisis response (Brock et al.,
2001, 2002). It is evident that the global pandemic has created an unprecedented challenge for
school leaders. Like no other crisis before, the COVID-19 pandemic has illustrated the
deficiencies of our educational systems and the lack of administrator preparation regarding crisis
leadership (McLeod & Dulsky, 2021). Most school leadership preparation and training programs
prior to COVID-19 are likely to be out of step with the challenges facing school leaders today.
Although school leaders are used to managing smaller crises, such as water leaks, irate
parents, disagreements, and the like, most school leaders have never dealt with a crisis of this

129

scale and this scope for this long (Gainey, 2009). Even larger crises that often force school
closures, such as wildfires, snowstorms, a hurricane, or an active school shooting, typically end
shortly within days or weeks. In many cases, existing preparation or training programs for
administrative credentials and professional development along with leadership classes will
require a radical revision to remain relevant for aspiring and practicing school leaders.
Additional training for school leaders’ future mindsets, behaviors, and support structures during
crisis incidents is imperative. New administrative programs are recommended for future study so
that they fully encompass the leadership skills, practices, and actions suited to the current and
potentially ongoing COVID-19 situation.
Conclusion
Due to the COVID-19 pandemic, school leadership practices have changed considerably
and irreversibly. School leadership has shifted on its axis and is unlikely to return to “normal”
anytime soon, if ever at all, because of this pandemic. Superintendents, assistant superintendents,
and principals are systems thinkers who create change in their schools and communities. The
leaders who participated in this study shared the experience of managing during the crisis and
engaged in joint sensemaking, collaboration, and collective wisdom building to effectively plan,
respond, and mitigate the pandemic. The research participants brought to light the importance of
relationship-building, clear communication, grounded decision making, and focused goal setting.
Findings from this study have demonstrated how the COVID-19 pandemic has impacted all
facets of schooling and how Southern California K–12 public school superintendents, assistant
superintendents, and principals transitioned into crisis managers.

130

References
Amutha, D. (2020). COVID-19 epidemic and its impact on economy and society. SSRN
Electronic Journal (November 25). https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3737535
Arcego D. M., Krolow R., Lampert C., Toniazzo A. P., Berlitz C., & Lazzaretti C. (2016). Early
life adversities or high fat diet intake reduce cognitive function and alter BDNF signaling
in adult rats: interplay of these factors changes these effects. International Journal of
Developmental Neuroscience, 50(1), 16–25.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijdevneu.2016.03.001
Baptiste, D., Commodore‐Mensah, Y., Alexander, K., Jacques, K., Wilson, P., & Akomah, J.
(2020). COVID‐19: Shedding light on racial and health inequities in the USA. Journal of
Clinical Nursing, 29(15–16), 2734–2736. https://doi.org/10.1111/jocn.15351
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-
teachers-grapple-with-failing-grades
Boin, A., & Renaud, C. (2013). Orchestrating joint sensemaking across government levels:
Challenges and requirements for crisis leadership. Journal of Leadership Studies, 7(3),
41–46. https://doi.org/10.1002/jls.21296
Bolman, L. G., & Deal, T. E. (1991). Leadership and management effectiveness: A multi‐frame,
multi‐sector analysis. Human resource management, 30(4), 509–534.
https://doi.org/10.1002/hrm.3930300406
Bolman, L. G., & Deal, T. E. (2017). Reframing organizations: Artistry, choice, and leadership.
John Wiley & Sons.

131

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), 344–344.
https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2458-13-344
Brock, S. E., Lazarus, P. J., Jr., & Jimerson, S. R. (2002). Best practices in school crisis
prevention and intervention. National Association of School Psychologists.
Brock, S. E., Sandoval, J., & Lewis, S. (2001). Preparing for crises in the schools: A manual for
building school crisis response teams. John Wiley & Sons Inc.
Burgess, S., & Sievertsen, H. H. (2020, April 1). Schools, skills, and learning: The impact of
COVID-19 on education. VoxEu, 1(2). https://voxeu.org/article/impact-covid-19-
education
CA Safe Schools for All. (2021). Definitions. https://schools.covid19.ca.gov/pages/definitions
California Department of Education. (CDE). (2020). Distance learning instruction planning
guidelines. https://www.cde.ca.gov/
California Department of Public Health. (CDPH). (2021). About. Retrieved August 8, 2021, from
https://www.cdph.ca.gov/Pages/About.aspx
California School Employees Association. (CSEA) (2021). About us.
https://www.csea.com/about-us
Cavaliere G., Trinchese G., Penna E., Cimmino F., Pirozzi C., & Lama A., M. P. (2019). High-
fat diet induces neuroinflammation and mitochondrial impairment in mice cerebral cortex
and synaptic fraction. Front. Cell. Neuroscience, 13, 509.
https://doi.org/10.3389/fncel.2019.00509.

132

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. (CDC). (2021). Mission, role and pledge. Retrieved
August 15, 2021, from https://www.cdc.gov/about/organization/mission.htm
Chen F., Zheng D., Liu J., Gong Y., Guan Z., & Lou D. (2020). Depression and anxiety among
adolescents during COVID-19: a cross-sectional study. Brain, Behavior, and Immunity,
88(August), 36–38. https://dx.doi.org/10.1016%2Fj.bbi.2020.05.061
Crescentini C., Feruglio S., Matiz A., Paschetto A., Vidal E., Cogo P., & Fabbro F. (2020). Stuck
outside and inside: An exploratory study on the effects of the COVID-19 outbreak on
Italian parents and Children’s internalizing symptoms. Frontiers in Psychology,
11(October 22): 586074. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2020.586074
Crone, E. A., & Konijn, E. A. (2018). Media use and brain development during adolescence.
Nature communications, 9(1), 588. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-018-03126-x
Dahmen, B., Puetz ,V.B., Scharke W., von Polier, G. G., Herpertz-Dahlmann, B., & Konrad, K.
(2021). Effects of early-life adversity on hippocampal structures and associated HPA
Axis functions. Developmental Neuroscience, 40(1), 13–22.
https://doi.org/10.1159/000484238
DeMatthews, D. & Brown, C. (2019). Urban school leadership and community violence:
Principal perspectives and proactive responses to student mental health needs. The
Educational Forum, 83(1), 28-43. https://doi.org/10.1080/00131725.2018.1506846
Devitt, K. R., & Borodzicz, E. P. (2008). Interwoven leadership: The missing link in multiagency
major incident response. Journal of Contingencies and Crisis Management, 16(4), 208–
216. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-5973.2008.00551.x

133

Dickler, J. (2021, March 30). Learning loss from virtual school due to COVID is significant.
CNBC. https://www.cnbc.com/2021/03/30/learning-loss-from-virtual-school-due-to-
covid-is-significant-.html
Diliberti, M., 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 Corporation. https://www.rand.org/pubs/research_reports/RRA168-
3.html
Dorn, A., Cooney, R., & Sabin, M. (2020). COVID-19 exacerbating inequalities in the US. The
Lancet Child & Adolescent Health, 395(10232), 1243–1244.
https://doi.org/10.1016/s0140-6736(20)30893-x
Dorn, E., Hancock, B., Sarakatsannis, J., & Viruleg, E. (2020). COVID-19 and student learning
in the United States: The hurt could last a lifetime. McKinsey & Company.
https://www.mckinsey.com/industries/public-and-social-sector/our-insights/covid-19-
and-student-learning-in-the-united-states-the-hurt-could-last-a-lifetime
EdData. (2021). Negotiating teachers’ contracts in California. Education Data Partnership.
www.ed-data.org/article/Negotiating- Teachers%27-Contracts-in-California
Edglossary.org. (2021). Cohort. EdGlossary: The Glossary of Education Reform.
https://www.edglossary.org/cohort/
EdTrust. (2021). Parents overwhelmingly concerned their children are falling behind during
school closures. The Education Trust. https://edtrust.org/parents-overwhelmingly-
concerned-their-children-are-falling-behind-during-school-closures/
Epstein, J. L. (1995). School/family/community partnerships. Phi Delta Kappan, 76(9), 701.

134

Epstein, J. L. (2018). School, family, and community partnerships: Preparing educators and
improving schools. Routledge.
Exceptional Lives. (2019, September 14). Special education: A Glossary of terms and acronyms.
www.exceptionallives.org/blog/special-education-a- glossary-of- terms-and-acronyms
Fegert, J. M., Vitiello, B., Plener, P. L., & Clemens, V. (2020). Challenges and burden of the
coronavirus 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic for child and adolescent mental health: a
narrative review to highlight clinical and research needs in the acute phase and the long
return to normality. Child and Adolescent Psychiatry and Mental Health, 14, 20.
https://doi.org/10.1186/s13034-020-00329-3
Fein, A. H., & Isaacson, N. S. (2009). Echoes of Columbine: The emotion work of leaders in
school shooting sites. American Behavioral Scientist, 52(9), 1327–1346.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0002764209332549
Fensterwald, J. (2021, March 1). Newsom, lawmakers set April 1 deadline to reopen schools for
K–2 students. EdSource. https://edsource.org/2021/newsom-lawmakers-set-april-1-
deadline-to-reopen-schools-for-k-2-students/650247
Fensterwald, J., Burke, M., Stavely, Z., & Johnson, S. (2021, June 26). Lawmakers, Newsom cut
deal on state budget: Record spending on pre-K through college. EdSource.
https://edsource.org/2021/lawmakers-newsom-cut-deal-on-state-budget-record-spending-
on-prek-through-college/657001
Finger, B. C., Dinan T. G., & Cryan J. F. High-fat diet selectively protects against the effects of
chronic social stress in the mouse. Neuroscience, 192, 351–360.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroscience.2011.06.072
Fiore, D. J. (2016). School-community relations (4th ed.). Taylor and Francis.

135

Fotheringham, P., Harriott, T., Healy, G., Arenge, G., McGill, R., & Wilson, E. (2020).
Pressures and influences on school leaders as policy makers during COVID-19. SSRN
Publications. http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3642919
Fullan, M. (2014). The principal: Three keys to maximizing impact. John Wiley & Sons.
Fullan, M. (2020). The nature of leadership is changing. European Journal of Education, 55(2),
139–142. https://doi.org/10.1111/ejed.12388
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
Glass, K. (2020, June 29). Black families were hit hard by the pandemic. The effects on children
may be lasting. The New York Times.
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/06/29/parenting/coronavirus-black-children-
inequality.html
Glesne, C. (2011). Becoming qualitative researchers: An introduction (4th ed.). Pearson
Goleman, (2022). Emotional intelligence in leadership: Why it's important. Harvard Business
School.
Gouwens, L. (2008). School leadership in changing cultural contexts: How Mississippi
superintendents are responding to Hurricane Katrina. Journal of Education for Students
Placed at Risk, 13(2/3), 2732–2796. https://doi.org/10.1080/10824660802350276
Gunnar, M., & Quevedo, K. (2007) The neurobiology of stress and development. Annual Review
of Psychology, 58, 145–173. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.psych.58.110405.085605

136

Haleem, A., Javaid, M., & Vaishya, R. (2020). Effects of COVID-19 pandemic in daily life.
Current Medicine Research and Practice, 10(2), 78–79.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cmrp.2020.03.011
Hatzichristou, C., Georgakakou-Koutsonikou, N., Lianos, P., Lampropoulou, A., & Yfanti, T.
(2021). Assessing school community needs during the initial outbreak of the COVID-19
pandemic: Teacher, parent and student perceptions. School Psychology International,
42(6), 590–615. https://doi.org/10.1177/01430343211041697
Herold, B. (2020). The scramble to move America’s schools online: Already in crisis mode, K–
12 schools must now figure out how to educate tens of millions of children stuck at home
due to the coronavirus pandemic. Education Week, 39(28), 14.
https://www.edweek.org/technology/the-scramble-to-move-americas-schools-
online/2020/03
Hoffman, J., & Miller, E. (2020). Addressing the consequences of school closure due to COVID‐
19 on children’s physical and mental well‐being. World Medical & Health Policy, 12(3),
300–310. https://doi.org/10.1002/wmh3.365
Jackson, C., Vynnycky, E., Hawker, J., Olowokure, B., Mangtani, P. (2013). School closures and
influenza: Systematic review of epidemiological studies. BMJ Open, 3(2), e002149.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2012-002149
Jones, C. (2020). Student anxiety, depression increasing during school closures, survey finds.
EdSource. https://edsource.org/2020/student-anxiety-depression-increasing-during-
school-closures-survey-finds/631224
Jones, C., & Freedberg, L. (2021, March 4). California legislature approves plan to encourage
schools to reopen for in-person instruction. EdSource.

137

https://edsource.org/2021/california-legislature-approves-plan-to-encourage-schools-to-
reopen-for-in-person-instruction/650493
Juruena M.F., Eror F., Cleare A.J., & Young A.H. (2020). The role of early life stress in HPA
axis and anxiety. Advances in Experimental Medicine and Biology, 1191, 141–153.
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-32-9705-0_9
Karaman, M. A., Eşici, H., Tomar, İ. H., & Aliyev, R. (2021). COVID-19: Are school
counseling services ready? Students’ psychological symptoms, school counselors’ views,
and solutions. Frontiers in Psychology, 12(March), 647740.
https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2021.647740
Kinsey, E. W., Hecht, A. A., Dunn, C. G., Levi, R., Read, M., Smith, C., Niesen, P., Segilman,
H. K., & Hager, E. R. (2020). School closures during COVID-19: Opportunities for
innovation in meal service. American Journal of Public Health, 110(11), 1635–1643.
https://doi.org/10.2W5/AJPH.2020.305875
Kouzes, J., & Posner, B. (2002a). The leadership challenge (3rd ed.). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-
Bass.
Kuy, S., Tsai, R., Bhatt, J., Chu, Q., Gandhi, P., & Gupta, R. (2021). Focusing on vulnerable
populations during COVID-19. Academic Medicine, 95(11), e2–e3.
https://doi.org/10.1097/ACM.0000000000003571
Lieberman, M. (2021, December 3). School districts are starting to spend COVID relief funds.
The hard part is deciding how. Education Week. https://www.edweek.org/policy-
politics/school-districts-are-starting-to-spend-covid-relief-funds-the-hard-part-is-
deciding-how/2021/12

138

Liou, Y. H. (2015). School crisis management: A model of dynamic responsiveness to crisis life
cycle. Educational Administration Quarterly, 51(2), 247–289.
https://doi.org/10.1177%2F0013161X14532467
Lochmiller, C. R. & Lester, J. N. (2017). An introduction to educational research: Connecting
methods to practice. Sage.
Lucero, M., Tan, A. T. K., & Pang, A. (2009). Crisis leadership: When should the CEO step up?
Corporate Communications: An International Journal, 14, 234–248.
https://doi.org/10.1108/13563280910980032
Maciejewski D., Hillegers M., & Penninx B. (2018). Offspring of parents with mood disorders:
time for more transgenerational research, screening and preventive intervention for this
high-risk population. Current Opinion in Psychiatry, 31(4), 349–357.
https://doi.org/10.1097/yco.0000000000000423
Malkus, N., Christensen, C., & Shurz, J. (2020). School district responses to the COVID-19
pandemic: Round 6, ending the year of closures. American Enterprise Institute for Public
Policy Research. https://www.aei.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/06/School-district-
responses-to-the-COVID-19-Pandemic-Round-6.pdf
Malkus, N., Christensen, C., & West, L. (2020). School district responses to the COVID-19
pandemic: Round 1, districts’ initial responses. American Enterprise Institute for Public
Policy Research. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED606200
Marianno, B. (2021). Teachers’ unions: Scapegoats, or bad-faith actors in COVID-19 school
reopening decisions? Brookings. https://www.brookings.edu/blog/brown-center-
chalkboard/2021/03/25/teachers-unions-scapegoats-or-bad-faith-actors-in-covid-19-
school-reopening-decisions/

139

Marianno, B. D., Hemphill, A. A., Loures-Elias, A. P. S., Garcia, L., Cooper, D., & Coombes, E.
(2022). Power in a pandemic: Teachers’ unions and their responses to school reopening.
AERA Open. https://doi.org/10.1177/23328584221074337
Marsen, S. (2020). Navigating crisis: The role of communication in organizational crises.
International Journal of Business Communication, 57(2), 163–175.
https://doi.org/10.1177/2329488419882981
Masonbrink, A., & Hurley, E. (2020). Advocating for children during the COVID-19 school
closures. Pediatrics, 146(3), e20201440. https://doi.org/10.1542/peds.2020-1440
Maxwell, J. A. (2013). Expanding the history and range of mixed methods research. Journal of
Mixed Methods Research, 10(1), 12–27. https://doi.org/10.1177/1558689815571132
Mayer, B. W., Moss, J., & Dale, K. (2008). Disaster and preparedness: Lessons from Hurricane
Rita. Journal of Contingencies and Crisis Management, 16(1), 14-23.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-5973.2008.00531.x
McLeod, S., & Dulsky, S. (2021). Resilience, reorientation, and reinvention: School leadership
during the early months of the COVID-19 pandemic. Frontiers in Education, 6(March),
637075. https://doi.org/10.3389/feduc.2021.637075
McLoughlin, G. M., McCarthy, J. A., McGuirt, J. T., Singleton, C. R., Dunn, C. G., & Gadhoke,
P. (2020). Addressing food insecurity through a health and equity lens: A case study of
large urban school districts during the COVID-19 pandemic. Journal of Urban Health,
97(6), 759–775. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11524-020-00476-0
Merriam, S. B., & Tisdell, E. J. (2016). Qualitative research: A guide to design and
implementation (4th ed.). Jossey-Bass.

140

Murata, S., Rezeppa, T., Thoma, B., Marengo, L., Krancevich, K., Chiyka, E., Hayes, B.,
Goodfriend, E., Deal, M., Zhong, Y., Brummit, B., Coury, T., Riston, S., Brent, D. A., &
Melhem, N. M. (2021). The psychiatric sequelae of the COVID‐19 pandemic in
adolescents, adults, and health care workers. Depression and Anxiety, 38(2), 233–246.
https://doi.org/10.1002/da.23120
National Conference for State Legislatures. (NCSL) (2021). COVID-19: Essential workers in the
States. https://www.ncsl.org/research/labor-and-employment/covid-19-essential-workers-
in-the-
states.aspx#:~:text=according%20to%20the%20u.,to%20defense%20to%20agriculture
Netolicky, D. M. (2020). School leadership during a pandemic: Navigating tensions. Journal of
Professional Capital and Community, 5(3/4), 391–395. https://doi.org/10.1108/JPCC-05-
2020-0017
Northouse, P. G. (2019). Leadership: Theory and practice. Sage.
Pecoraro, N., Reyes, F., Gomez, F., Bhargava, A., & Dallman, M. F. (2004). Chronic stress
promotes palatable feeding, which reduces signs of stress: feedforward and feedback
effects of chronic stress. Endocrinology, 145(8), 3754–3762.
https://doi.org/10.1210/en.2004-0305
Ries, J. (2021, March 12). Here’s how COVID-19 compares to past outbreaks. Healthline.
https://www.healthline.com/health-news/how-deadly-is-the-coronavirus-compared-to-
past-outbreaks
Roese, J. (2021, January 27). COVID-19 exposed the digital divide. Here’s how we can close it.
World Economic Forum. https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2021/01/covid-digital-divide-
learning-education/

141

Saunders-Hastings, P., & Krewski, D. (2016). Reviewing the history of pandemic influenza:
Understanding patterns of emergence and transmission. Pathogens, 5(4), 66.
https://doi.org/10.3390/pathogens5040066
Saurabh, K., & Ranjan, S. (2020). Compliance and psychological impact of quarantine in
children and adolescents due to Covid-19 pandemic. Indian Journal of Pediatrics, 87(7),
532–536. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12098-020-03347-3
Sawchuk, S. (2021, January 13). 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-this-year/2020/12
Seeger, M. W., Sellnow, T. L., & Ulmer, R. R. (1998). Communication, organization, and crisis.
Annals of the International Communication Association, 21(1), 231–276.
https://doi.org/10.1080/23808985.1998.11678952
Singer, B. J., Thompson, R. N. & Bonsall, M. B. (2021). The effect of the definition of
“pandemic” on quantitative assessments of infectious disease outbreak risk. Scientific
Reports, 11, 2547. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-021-81814-3
Smith, L., & Riley, D. (2012). School leadership in times of crisis. School Leadership &
Management, 32(1), 57–71. https://doi.org/10.1080/13632434.2011.614941
Spinelli, M., Lionetti, F., Pastore, M., & Fasolo, M. (2020). Parents’ stress and children’s
psychological problems in families facing the COVID-19 outbreak in Italy. Frontiers in
Psychology, 11(March), 1713. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2020.01713
Stavely, Z. (2020, October 16). Teachers struggle to recreate language-rich classes for English
learners online. EdSource. https://edsource.org/2020/teachers-struggle-to-recreate-
language-rich-classes-for-english-learners-online/641191.

142

Sumis, A., Cook, K. L., Andrade, F. O., Hu, R., Kidney, E., Zhang X., Kim, D., Carney, E.,
Nguyen, N., Yu, W., Bouker, K. B., Cruz, I., Clarke, R., & Hilakivi-Clarke L. (2016).
Social isolation induces autophagy in the mouse mammary gland: link to increased
mammary cancer risk. Endocrinology-Related Cancer, 23(10), 839–856.
https://doi.org/10.1530/erc-16-0359
The Lancet Editorial Staff. (2020). Pandemic school closures: Risks and opportunities. The
Lancet Child & Adolescent Health, 4(5), 341–341. https://doi.org/10.1016/s2352-
4642(20)30105-x
Tomiyama, A. J., Dallman, M. F., & Epel, E. S. (2011). Comfort food is comforting to those
most stressed: evidence of the chronic stress response network in high stress women.
Psychoneuroendocrinology, 36(10), 1513–1519.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.psyneuen.2011.04.005
Turner, C., & Kamenetz, A. (2020). NPR cookie consent and choices. National Public Radio.
https://www.npr.org/2020/03/11/814438424/when-should-schools-close-for-coronavirus
Ulrich-Lai, Y. M., Christiansen, A. M., Ostrander, M. M., Jones, A. A., Jones, K. R., Choi, D.
C., Krause, E. G., Evanson, N. K., Furay, A. R., Davis, J. F., Solomon, M. B., de Kloet,
A. D., Tamashiro, K. L., Sakai, R. R., Seeley, R. J., Woods, S. C., & Herman, J. P.
(2010). Pleasurable behaviors reduce stress via brain reward pathways. Proceedings of
the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 107(47), 20529–
20534. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1007740107
United States Department of Education. (2021, May). U.S. Department of Education website.
https://www.ed.gov.

143

United States Department of Labor. (2021). Personal protective equipment – Overview.
Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA). https://www.osha.gov/personal-
protective-equipment
Vargo, J., & Seville, E. (2011). Crisis strategic planning for SMEs: Finding the silver lining.
International Journal of Production Research, 49(18), 5619–5635.
https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1007740107
Walters, A. (2020). Inequities in access to education: Lessons from the COVID‐19 pandemic.
The Brown University Child and Adolescent Behavior Letter, 36(8), 8–8.
https://doi.org/10.1002/cbl.30483
Wang, G., Zhang, Y., Zhao, J., Zhang, J., & Jiang, F. (2020). Mitigate the effects of home
confinement on children during the COVID-19 outbreak. The Lancet Child & Adolescent
Health, 395(10228), 945–947. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(20)30547-X
Warren, P., & Lafortune, J. (2020, February). Declining enrollment in California schools: Fiscal
challenges and opportunities in the coming decade. Public Policy Institute of California.
https://www.ppic.org/publication/declining-enrollment-in-california-schools-fiscal-
challenges-and-opportunities-in-the-coming-decade/
Waters, T. J., & Marzano, R. J. (2006). School district leadership that works: The effect of
superintendent leadership on student achievement. (Working paper). Mid-Continent
Research for Education and Learning (McREL).
https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED494270.pdf
Watson, K. R., Capp, G., Astor, R. A., Kelly, M. S., & Benbenishty, R. (2022). We need to
address the trauma: School social workers’ views about student and staff mental health

144

during COVID-19. School Mental Health (February 28), 1–16.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s12310-022-09512-7
Westover, J. (2010). Managing organizational change: Change agent strategies and techniques to
successfully managing the dynamics of stability and change in organizations.
International Journal of Management and Innovation, 2(1), 45–51.
https://link.gale.com/apps/doc/a270375479/aone?u=nysl_oweb&sid=googlescholar&xid
=1741ff73
Whitla, M. (2003). Crisis management and the school community. Australia Council for
Educational Research (ACER).
Wong, A. U. T. (2020, December 23). Scores of students are getting F’s: What’s the point of
failing them during COVID-19? USA Today.
https://eu.usatoday.com/story/news/education/2020/12/23/students-failing-grades-online-
class-coronavirus/3967886001/
World Health Organization. (2021a). Who we are. WHO International. www.who.int/about/who-
we-are
World Health Organization. (2021b). World Health Organization coronavirus dashboard. WHO
International. https://covid19.who.int
Xiong, Y., Ma, Y., Tian, Y., Zhang, C., Yang, W., Liu, B., Ruan, L., Lu, C., & Huang, L. (2021).
longitudinal cohort study using a modified child-pugh score to escalate respiratory
support in COVID-19 patients—Hubei Province, China, 2020. China CDC Wkly, 3(20),
423–429. https://dx.doi.org/10.46234%2Fccdcw2021.113

145

Appendix A: Research Participant Invitation Email
Dear ________________ [stakeholder group role],
My name is [USC STUDENT’S NAME] and I am currently completing my doctoral
dissertation at the University of Southern California’s Rossier School of Education under the
guidance of Dr. Rudy Castruita. I am writing to invite you to participate in a 15-minute survey
and 35-minute virtual interview. Collecting data from highly effective leaders such as yourself
would be greatly appreciated and is essential for the success of this study.
The ultimate purpose of the study is to analyze the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on
K–12 school districts. We aim to understand what district and site administrators have learned
from their experiences and their decision-making responsibilities in managing the crisis.
This research study has been reviewed and approved by the University of Southern
California Institutional Review Board for Human Subjects Research (IRB). The IRB believes
that the research procedures safeguard your privacy, welfare, civil liberties, anonymity, and
rights. Please be assured that your participation and answers will be kept confidential and
anonymous. The results will be analyzed solely for this dissertation and no identifying
information will be used.
Please click on this [survey link] to participate. If you have any questions, please feel free
to contact me at -----------@----. Thank you very much for your time and assistance.

Sincerely,

[researcher’s name]
Doctoral Candidate

146

Rossier School of Education
University of Southern California

147

Appendix B: Principal Survey
Thank you for participating in this research project. The goal is to understand how the
COVID-19 pandemic affected K–12 school districts, and in doing so, transformed the role of
district and school site leaders into crisis managers. You were chosen to participate in this survey
because you demonstrated leadership as a principal during the COVID-19 crisis.
Your participation in this study is entirely voluntary. Your identity, position, and any
identifying information about your school will be anonymized to secure confidentiality. Thank
you again for your participation. We also invite you to take part in a virtual 35-minute interview
to be scheduled at your convenience after the survey.

Table B1
Principal Survey Items
Survey items Response choices
How many years have you served as a principal? Open Ended (Demographic)
Less than 1 year
1 to 2 years
3 to 5 years
6 to 10 years
Over 10 years
How long have you been principal at your current school? Open Ended (Demographic)
Less than 1 year
1 to 2 years
3 to 5 years
6 to 10 years
Over 10 years
RQ1: Financial implications
The CARES Act met my school’s funding needs in the area of
personnel.
1 = strongly disagree
2 = disagree
3 = neither agree nor disagree
4 = agree
5 = strongly agree

148

Survey items Response choices
The CARES Act met my school’s funding needs in the area of
personal protective equipment (PPE).
1 = strongly disagree
2 = disagree
3 = neither agree nor disagree
4 = agree
5 = strongly agree
The CARES Act met my school’s funding needs in the area of
technology.
1 = strongly disagree
2 = disagree
3 = neither agree nor disagree
4 = agree
5 = strongly agree
The CARES Act met my school’s funding needs in the area of
professional learning and/or training.
1 = strongly disagree
2 = disagree
3 = neither agree nor disagree
4 = agree
5 = strongly agree
The CARES Act met my school’s funding needs in the area of
facility upgrades.
1 = strongly disagree
2 = disagree
3 = neither agree nor disagree
4 = agree
5 = strongly agree
RQ2 Health and Safety Guidelines

The federal, state, and local health guidelines were clear in
providing information to support the safe reopening of my
school.
1 = strongly disagree
2 = disagree
3 = neither agree nor disagree
4 = agree
5 = strongly agree
I understood how to safely reopen my work site based on the
public health guidelines.
1 = strongly disagree
2 = disagree
3 = neither agree nor disagree
4 = agree
5 = strongly agree
The health guidelines impacted my school’s return to school
plan in the spring of 2021.
1 = strongly disagree
2 = disagree
3 = neither agree nor disagree
4 = agree
5 = strongly agree
RQ3 Union Negotiations

149

Survey items Response choices
Negotiations with certificated unions influenced the way my
school effectively responded to the COVID-19 pandemic
for students and families.
1 = strongly disagree
2 = disagree
3 = neither agree nor disagree
4 = agree
5 = strongly agree
Negotiations with classified unions influenced the way my
school effectively responded to the COVID-19 pandemic
for students and families.
1 = strongly disagree
2 = disagree
3 = neither agree nor disagree
4 = agree
5 = strongly agree
Negotiations with the teacher's union impacted the quality of
instruction offered to students at my school during
distance learning.
1 = strongly disagree
2 = disagree
3 = neither agree nor disagree
4 = agree
5 = strongly agree
RQ4 Community Concerns

My school maintained good communication with families
during the pandemic.
1 = strongly disagree
2 = disagree
3 = neither agree nor disagree
4 = agree
5 = strongly agree
My school met the needs of students and families in the area
of nutrition.
1 = strongly disagree
2 = disagree
3 = neither agree nor disagree
4 = agree
5 = strongly agree
My school met the needs of students and families in the area
of technology (computers/devices).
1 = strongly disagree
2 = disagree
3 = neither agree nor disagree
4 = agree
5 = strongly agree
My school met the needs of students and families in the area
of technology (internet service).
1 = strongly disagree
2 = disagree
3 = neither agree nor disagree
4 = agree
5 = strongly agree
My school met the needs of students and families in the area
of social emotional well-being.
1 = strongly disagree
2 = disagree

150

Survey items Response choices
3 = neither agree nor disagree
4 = agree
5 = strongly agree
My school met the needs of students and families in the area
of health & safety.
1 = strongly disagree
2 = disagree
3 = neither agree nor disagree
4 = agree
5 = strongly agree
My school met the academic needs of students. 1 = strongly disagree
2 = disagree
3 = neither agree nor disagree
4 = agree
5 = strongly agree
Overarching

The board of education supported my school’s response to the
COVID-19 pandemic?
1 = strongly disagree
2 = disagree
3 = neither agree nor disagree
4 = agree
5 = strongly agree
District administrators supported my school’s response to the
COVID-19 pandemic?
1 = strongly disagree
2 = disagree
3 = neither agree nor disagree
4 = agree
5 = strongly agree
District facilities and operations teams supported my school’s
response to the COVID-19 pandemic?
1 = strongly disagree
2 = disagree
3 = neither agree nor disagree
4 = agree
5 = strongly agree
Teachers supported my school’s response to the COVID-19
Pandemic?
1 = strongly disagree
2 = disagree
3 = neither agree nor disagree
4 = agree
5 = strongly agree
Classified Staff supported my school’s response to the
COVID-19 Pandemic?
1 = strongly disagree
2 = disagree
3 = neither agree nor disagree
4 = agree

151

Survey items Response choices
5 = strongly agree
Families supported my school’s response to the COVID-19
Pandemic?
1 = strongly disagree
2 = disagree
3 = neither agree nor disagree
4 = agree
5 = strongly agree

152

Appendix C: Assistant Superintendent Survey
Thank you for participating in this research project. The goal is to understand how the
COVID-19 pandemic affected K–12 school districts, and in doing so, transformed the role of
district and school site leaders into crisis managers. You were chosen to participate in this survey
because you demonstrated leadership as an assistant superintendent during the COVID-19 crisis.
Your participation in this study is entirely voluntary. Your identity, position, and any
identifying information about your district will be anonymized to secure confidentiality. Thank
you again for your participation. We also invite you to take part in a virtual 35-minute interview
to be scheduled at your convenience after the survey.

Table C1
Assistant Superintendent Survey Items
Survey items Response choices
How many years have you served as an assistant
superintendent?
Open ended (demographic)
Less than 1 year
1 to 2 years
3 to 5 years
6 to 10 years
Over 10 years
How long have you been an assistant superintendent at your
current district?
Open ended (demographic)
Less than 1 year
1 to 2 years
3 to 5 years
6 to 10 years
Over 10 years
RQ1 Financial Implications

The CARES Act met my district's funding needs in the area
of personnel.
1 = strongly disagree
2 = disagree
3 = neither agree nor disagree
4 = agree

153

Survey items Response choices
5 = strongly agree
The CARES Act met my district's funding needs in the area
of personal protective equipment (PPE).
1 = strongly disagree
2 = disagree
3 = neither agree nor disagree
4 = agree
5 = strongly agree
The CARES Act met my district's funding needs in the area
of technology.
1 = strongly disagree
2 = disagree
3 = neither agree nor disagree
4 = agree
5 = strongly agree
The CARES Act met my district's funding needs in the area
of professional learning and/or training.
1 = strongly disagree
2 = disagree
3 = neither agree nor disagree
4 = agree
5 = strongly agree
The CARES Act met my district's funding needs in the area
of facilities upgrades.
1 = strongly disagree
2 = disagree
3 = neither agree nor disagree
4 = agree
5 = strongly agree
RQ2: Health & safety guidelines

The federal, state, and local health guidelines were clear in
providing information to support the safe reopening of
schools.
1 = strongly disagree
2 = disagree
3 = neither agree nor disagree
4 = agree
5 = strongly agree
I understood how to safely reopen work sites based on the
public health guidelines.
1 = strongly disagree
2 = disagree
3 = neither agree nor disagree
4 = agree
5 = strongly agree
The health guidelines impacted the district’s return to school
plan in the spring of 2021.
1 = strongly disagree
2 = disagree
3 = neither agree nor disagree
4 = agree
5 = strongly agree

154

Survey items Response choices
RQ3: Union negotiations

Negotiations with certificated unions influenced the way my
district effectively responded to the COVID-19 pandemic
for students and families.
1 = strongly disagree
2 = disagree
3 = neither agree nor disagree
4 = agree
5 = strongly agree
Negotiations with classified unions influenced the way of my
district effectively responding to the COVID-19
pandemic for students and families.
1 = strongly disagree
2 = disagree
3 = neither agree nor disagree
4 = agree
5 = strongly agree
Negotiations with the teacher's union impacted the quality of
instruction offered to students during distance learning.
1 = strongly disagree
2 = disagree
3 = neither agree nor disagree
4 = agree
5 = strongly agree
RQ4: Community concerns

My district maintained good communication with families
during the pandemic.
1 = strongly disagree
2 = disagree
3 = neither agree nor disagree
4 = agree
5 = strongly agree
My district met the needs of students and families in the area
of nutrition.

1 = strongly disagree
2 = disagree
3 = neither agree nor disagree
4 = agree
5 = strongly agree
My district met the needs of students and families in the area
of technology (computer/devices).
1 = strongly disagree
2 = disagree
3 = neither agree nor disagree
4 = agree
5 = strongly agree
My district met the needs of students and families in the area
of Technology (Internet Service).
1 = strongly disagree
2 = disagree
3 = neither agree nor disagree
4 = agree
5 = strongly agree

155

Survey items Response choices
My district met the needs of students and families in the area
of social emotional well-being.

1 = strongly disagree
2 = disagree
3 = neither agree nor disagree
4 = agree
5 = strongly agree
My district met the needs of students and families in the area
of health & safety.
1 = strongly disagree
2 = disagree
3 = neither agree nor disagree
4 = agree
5 = strongly agree
My district met the academic needs of students. 1 = strongly disagree
2 = disagree
3 = neither agree nor disagree
4 = agree
5 = strongly agree
Overarching

The board of education supported my district’s response to
the COVID-19 pandemic?
1 = strongly disagree
2 = disagree
3 = neither agree nor disagree
4 = agree
5 = strongly agree
District administrators supported my district’s response to
the COVID-19 pandemic?
1 = strongly disagree
2 = disagree
3 = neither agree nor disagree
4 = agree
5 = strongly agree
District facilities and operations teams supported my
district’s response to the COVID-19 pandemic?
1 = strongly disagree
2 = disagree
3 = neither agree nor disagree
4 = agree
5 = strongly agree
Teachers supported my district’s response to the COVID-19
pandemic?
1 = strongly disagree
2 = disagree
3 = neither agree nor disagree
4 = agree
5 = strongly agree
Classified staff supported my district’s response to the
COVID-19 pandemic?
1 = strongly disagree
2 = disagree

156

Survey items Response choices
3 = neither agree nor disagree
4 = agree
5 = strongly agree
Families supported my district’s response to the COVID-19
pandemic?
1 = strongly disagree
2 = disagree
3 = neither agree nor disagree
4 = agree
5 = strongly agree

157

Appendix D: Superintendent Survey
Thank you for participating in this research project. The goal is to understand how the
COVID-19 pandemic affected K–12 school districts, and in doing so, transformed the role of
district and school site leaders into crisis managers. You were chosen to participate in this survey
because you demonstrated leadership as a superintendent during the COVID-19 crisis.
Your participation in this study is entirely voluntary. Your identity, position, and any
identifying information about your district will be anonymized to secure confidentiality. Thank
you again for your participation. We also invite you to take part in a virtual 35-minute interview
to be scheduled at your convenience after the survey.

Table D1
Superintendent Survey Items
Survey items Response choices
How many years have you served as a superintendent? Open ended (demographic)
Less than 1 year
1 to 2 years
3 to 5 years
6 to 10 years
Over 10 years
How long have you been superintendent at your current
district?
Open ended (demographic)
Less than 1 year
1 to 2 years
3 to 5 years
6 to 10 years
Over 10 years
RQ1: Financial implications

The CARES Act met my district's funding needs in the area
of personnel.
1 = strongly disagree
2 = disagree
3 = neither agree nor disagree
4 = agree
5 = strongly agree

158

Survey items Response choices
The CARES Act met my district's funding needs in the area
of personal protective equipment (PPE).
1 = strongly disagree
2 = disagree
3 = neither agree nor disagree
4 = agree
5 = strongly agree
The CARES Act met my district's funding needs in the area
of technology.
1 = strongly disagree
2 = disagree
3 = neither agree nor disagree
4 = agree
5 = strongly agree
The CARES Act met my district's funding needs in the area
of professional learning and/or training.
1 = strongly disagree
2 = disagree
3 = neither agree nor disagree
4 = agree
5 = strongly agree
The CARES Act met my district's funding needs in the area
of facility upgrades.
1 = strongly disagree
2 = disagree
3 = neither agree nor disagree
4 = agree
5 = strongly agree
RQ2: Health and safety guidelines

The federal, state, and local health guidelines were clear in
providing information to support the safe reopening of
schools.
1 = strongly disagree
2 = disagree
3 = neither agree nor disagree
4 = agree
5 = strongly agree
I understood how to safely bring back staff during the fall of
2020 to work sites based on the public health guidelines.
1 = strongly disagree
2 = disagree
3 = neither agree nor disagree
4 = agree
5 = strongly agree
The health guidelines impacted our district's return to school
plan in the spring of 2021.
1 = strongly disagree
2 = disagree
3 = neither agree nor disagree
4 = agree
5 = strongly agree
RQ3: Union negotiations

159

Survey items Response choices
Negotiations with certificated unions influenced the way my
district effectively responded to the COVID-19
pandemic for students and families.
1 = strongly disagree
2 = disagree
3 = neither agree nor disagree
4 = agree
5 = strongly agree
Negotiations with classified unions influenced the way of
my district effectively responding to the COVID-19
pandemic for students and families.
1 = strongly disagree
2 = disagree
3 = neither agree nor disagree
4 = agree
5 = strongly agree
Negotiations with the teacher's union impacted the quality
of instruction offered to students during distance
learning.
1 = strongly disagree
2 = disagree
3 = neither agree nor disagree
4 = agree
5 = strongly agree
RQ4: Community concerns

My district maintained good communication with families
during the pandemic.
1 = strongly disagree
2 = disagree
3 = neither agree nor disagree
4 = agree
5 = strongly agree
My district met the needs of students and families in the
area of nutrition.
1 = strongly disagree
2 = disagree
3 = neither agree nor disagree
4 = agree
5 = strongly agree
My district met the needs of students and families in the
area of technology (computers/devices).
1 = strongly disagree
2 = disagree
3 = neither agree nor disagree
4 = agree
5 = strongly agree
My district met the needs of students and families in the
area of technology (internet service).
1 = strongly disagree
2 = disagree
3 = neither agree nor disagree
4 = agree
5 = strongly agree
My district met the needs of students and families in the
area of social emotional well-being.
1 = strongly disagree
2 = disagree

160

Survey items Response choices
3 = neither agree nor disagree
4 = agree
5 = strongly agree
My district met the needs of students and families in the
area of health & safety.
1 = strongly disagree
2 = disagree
3 = neither agree nor disagree
4 = agree
5 = strongly agree
My district met the academic needs of students. 1 = strongly disagree
2 = disagree
3 = neither agree nor disagree
4 = agree
5 = strongly agree
Overarching

The board of education supported my district’s response to
the COVID-19 pandemic?
1 = strongly disagree
2 = disagree
3 = neither agree nor disagree
4 = agree
5 = strongly agree
District administrators supported my district’s response to
the COVID-19 pandemic?
1 = strongly disagree
2 = disagree
3 = neither agree nor disagree
4 = agree
5 = strongly agree
District facilities and operations teams supported my
district’s response to the COVID-19 pandemic?
1 = strongly disagree
2 = disagree
3 = neither agree nor disagree
4 = agree
5 = strongly agree
Teachers supported my district’s response to the COVID-19
pandemic?
1 = strongly disagree
2 = disagree
3 = neither agree nor disagree
4 = agree
5 = strongly agree
Classified staff supported my district’s response to the
COVID-19 pandemic?
1 = strongly disagree
2 = disagree
3 = neither agree nor disagree
4 = agree

161

Survey items Response choices
5 = strongly agree
Families supported my district’s response to the COVID-19
pandemic?
1 = strongly disagree
2 = disagree
3 = neither agree nor disagree
4 = agree
5 = strongly agree
I recommend the following assistant superintendent from
my district to participate in this study:
[open-ended response]
I recommend the following principal from my district to
participate in this study:
[open-ended response]

162

Appendix E: Principal Interview Protocol

Interviewer: Date:
Interviewee: Location:
Job Title: Contact Information:
Length of Time in Your Position:
Introduction:
[Introduce yourself and your affiliation.]

During this conversation, we hope to learn more about the COVID-19 pandemic and your
experience as a principal during this time. The ultimate goal of this study is to better understand
leadership during a crisis.

Your comments will remain confidential. We would like to record this interview to ensure the
accuracy of our conversation. The recording will be used only by our research team to review
responses and to provide an opportunity to code themes between the various respondents. The
information recorded will remain secure and anonymous. Do we have your consent to record?

This interview will last approximately 35 minutes. Do you have any questions before we begin?

I. What, if any, are the financial implications that the COVID-19 pandemic has had on
K–12 districts and how have district leaders addressed these implications?

1. What have been the biggest financial implications of the pandemic on your
school?
2. In what ways, if any, would more spending flexibility/structure have benefitted
your school?
3. In what ways has COVID-19 related funding been used to meet student needs in
your school?
4. To what extent, if any, did financial incentive influence your school’s reopening
plan/timeline?

II. What, if any, have been the impact of Federal, State and Local Health agencies on
K–12 school districts, and what strategies have districts followed to address the
suggested guidelines?

163

1. In what ways did your school collaborate with federal, state, and local
government agencies and community organizations to support your school during
COVID?
a. PQ: What agencies or organizations?
2. To what degree, if any, did the various agencies align COVID-19 guidance for
your school?
3. What strategies have been effective for your school in implementing health
guidelines/policies?
4. Who at your school was primarily in charge of interpreting and implementing the
health guidelines/policies?

III. How, if at all, have union negotiations played a role in K–12 district’s response to
the COVID-19 Pandemic?

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 at your school?
4. In what ways, if any, were safety protocols influenced by union negotiations at
your school?

IV. How, if at all, has your district addressed the concerns of the parent community
regarding safety, nutrition, distance learning, lack of technology, academic standing,
and how and when to open schools due to the COVID-19 pandemic?

1. In what ways did your school gather input from and communicate to the
community?
2. What were the biggest concerns from your school’s community and how were
they addressed?
a. PQ: Were there any safety concerns?
b. PQ: Were there any nutrition concerns?
c. PQ: Were there any academic concerns?
d. PQ: Were there any technology concerns?
e. PQ: Were there any re-opening concerns?

Conclusion

Thank you for your time and willingness to meet with me and for all the valuable information
you provided for this study.

164

Appendix F: Assistant Superintendent Interview Protocol

Interviewer: Date:
Interviewee: Location:
Job Title: Contact Information:
Length of Time in Your Position:
Introduction

[Introduce yourself and your affiliation.]

During this conversation, we hope to learn more about the COVID-19 pandemic and your
experience as an assistant superintendent during this time. The ultimate goal of this study is to
better understand leadership during a crisis.

Your comments will remain confidential. We would like to record this interview to ensure the
accuracy of our conversation. The recording will be used only by our research team to review
responses and to provide an opportunity to code themes between the various respondents. The
information recorded will remain secure and anonymous. Do we have your consent to record?

This interview will last approximately 35 minutes. Do you have any questions before we begin?

I. What, if any, are the financial implications that the COVID-19 pandemic has had on
K–12 districts and how have district leaders addressed these implications?

1. What have been the biggest financial implications of the pandemic on your
district?
2. In what ways, if any, would more spending flexibility/structure have benefitted
your district?
3. In what ways has COVID-19 related funding been used to meet student needs in
your district?
4. To what extent, if any, did financial incentive influence your district’s reopening
plan/timeline?

II. What, if any, have been the impact of Federal, State and Local Health agencies on
K–12 school districts, and what strategies have districts followed to address the
suggested guidelines?

165

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. PQ: 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?
4. Who in your district was primarily in charge of interpreting and implementing the
health guidelines/policies?

III. How, if at all, have union negotiations played a role in K–12 district’s response to
the COVID-19 Pandemic?

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?

IV. How, if at all, has your district addressed the concerns of the parent community
regarding safety, nutrition, distance learning, lack of technology, academic standing,
and how and when to open schools due to the COVID-19 pandemic?

1. In what ways did your district gather input from and communicate to the
community?
2. What were the biggest concerns from your district’s community and how were
they addressed?
a. PQ: Were there any safety concerns?
b. PQ: Were there any nutrition concerns?
c. PQ: Were there any academic concerns?
d. PQ: Were there any technology concerns?
e. PQ: Were there any re-opening concerns?

Conclusion

Thank you for your time and willingness to meet with me and for all the valuable information
you provided for this study.

166

Appendix G: Superintendent Interview Protocol

Interviewer: Date:
Interviewee: Location:
Job Title: Contact Information:
Length of Time in Your Position:
Introduction
[Introduce yourself and your affiliation.]

During this conversation, we hope to learn more about the COVID-19 pandemic and your
experience as a superintendent during this time. The ultimate goal of this study is to better
understand leadership during a crisis.

Your comments will remain confidential. We would like to record this interview to ensure the
accuracy of our conversation. The recording will be used only by our research team to review
responses and to provide an opportunity to code themes between the various respondents. The
information recorded will remain secure and anonymous. Do we have your consent to record?

This interview will last approximately 35 minutes. Do you have any questions before we begin?

I. What, if any, are the financial implications that the COVID-19 pandemic has had on
K–12 districts and how have district leaders addressed these implications?

1. What have been the biggest financial implications of the pandemic on your
district?
2. In what ways, if any, would more spending flexibility/structure have benefitted
your district?
3. In what ways has COVID-19 related funding been used to meet student needs in
your district?
4. To what extent, if any, did financial incentive influence your district’s reopening
plan/timeline?

II. What, if any, have been the impact of Federal, State and Local Health agencies on
K–12 school districts, and what strategies have districts followed to address the
suggested guidelines?

167

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. PQ: 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?
4. Who in your district was primarily in charge of interpreting and implementing the
health guidelines/policies?

III. How, if at all, have union negotiations played a role in K–12 district’s response to
the COVID-19 Pandemic?

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?

IV. How, if at all, has your district addressed the concerns of the parent community
regarding safety, nutrition, distance learning, lack of technology, academic standing, and
how and when to open schools due to the COVID-19 pandemic?

1. In what ways did your district gather input from and communicate to the
community?
2. What were the biggest concerns from your district’s community and how were
they addressed?
a. PQ: Were there any safety concerns?
b. PQ: Were there any nutrition concerns?
c. PQ: Were there any academic concerns?
d. PQ: Were there any technology concerns?
e. PQ: Were there any re-opening concerns?

Conclusion

Thank you for your time and willingness to meet with me and for all the valuable information
you provided for this study.

168

Appendix H: Question Alignment Matrix
Instrument Research question
RQ1 RQ2 RQ3 RQ4

What, if any, are
the financial
implications that
the COVID-19
pandemic has had
on K–12 public
school districts in
Southern
California and
how have district
superintendents,
assistant
superintendents
and principals
addressed these
implications?
What, if any, has
been the impact
of federal, state,
and local health
agencies on K–
12 public school
districts in
Southern
California, and
what strategies
have district
superintendents,
assistant
superintendents,
and principals
followed to
address the
suggested
guidelines?
How, if at all,
have union
negotiations
played a role
in K–12
Southern
California
public school
districts'
response to
the COVID-
19 pandemic?
How, if at all, have
K–12 Southern
California public
school districts
leadership teams
comprised of
superintendents,
assistant
superintendents,
and principals
addressed the
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?
Principal
survey
3–7 8–10 11–13 14–20
Principal
interview
protocol
1–4 5–8 9–12 13–14
Assistant
superintendent
survey
3–7 8–10 11–13 14–20
Assistant
superintendent
protocol
1–4 5–8 9–12 13–14
Superintendent
survey
3–7 8–10 11–13 14–20
Superintendent
interview
protocol
1–4 5–8 9–12 13–14

Abstract (if available)

Abstract The purpose of this study was to analyze the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on Southern California K–12 school districts and understand what district and site administrators have learned from their experiences and their decision-making responsibilities in managing the crisis. This study has brought to light the impact of the pandemic on students, families, leaders, schools, and districts. Most importantly, this study examined how district and school leaders influenced administrative practices, student achievement, fiscal responsibility, union leadership, and community/parent support as they responded to the COVID-19 crisis. The study implemented a mixed methods approach to establish triangulation. This study utilized surveys and semi-structured interviews to gather data from 9 school superintendents, 9 assistant superintendents, and 9 principals from 9 public school districts. The study highlights unique leadership roles administrators, superintendents, and principals assumed and the qualities they enacted. Findings from this study have demonstrated how the COVID-19 pandemic has impacted all facets of schooling and how Southern California K–12 public school superintendents, assistant superintendents, and principals transitioned into crisis managers and relied on relationship-building, clear communication, grounded decision making, and focused goal setting. As the pandemic continues to disrupt schooling at the time of this study, there are several considerations and areas for future study: the impact of the crisis on students, staff, and school leaders’ well-being and education, the unknown regarding the current state of the virus and pandemic, current school crisis plans and administrative preparedness programs.
Keywords: COVID-19 pandemic, crisis, leadership, K–12 school districts, school administration, mixed methods, superintendent, assistant superintendent, principal, district responses to COVID-19, pandemic, learning loss, fiscal impact, unions, COVID-19 guidance, health, safety, social-emotional, technology, nutrition, academic concerns, spending flexibility, agencies, CARES Act, ESSR Funding.

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

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

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

Asset Metadata

Creator Spangler, Jaclyn Dawn (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 Educational Leadership

Degree Conferral Date 2022-05

Publication Date 05/19/2022

Defense Date 04/07/2022

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

Tag assistant superintendents,COVID,Crisis,leaders,OAI-PMH Harvest,pandemic,principals,superintendent

Language English

Contributor Electronically uploaded by the author (provenance)

Advisor Castruita, Rudy (committee chair)

Creator Email jspangle@usc.edu

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-oUC111333307

Unique identifier UC111333307

Document Type Dissertation

Rights Spangler, Jaclyn Dawn

Internet Media Type application/pdf

Type texts

Source 20220523-usctheses-batch-943 (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