Close
About
FAQ
Home
Collections
Login
USC Login
Register
0
Selected
Invert selection
Deselect all
Deselect all
Click here to refresh results
Click here to refresh results
USC
/
Digital Library
/
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
Share
Open document
Flip pages
Contact Us
Contact Us
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
Arpy Cherkezian
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 Arpy Cherkezian 2022
All Rights Reserved
The Committee for Arpy Cherkezian certifies the approval of this Dissertation
Gregory Franklin
John Roach
Rudy Castruita, Committee Chair
Rossier School of Education
University of Southern California
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 assistants
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.” Respondents
commonly shared the importance of relationship-building, clear communication, grounded
decision making, and focused goal setting during the crisis. 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
vi
vi
Dedication
To my father Harry Barseghian whose love-and-support is astonishing-and-humbling. My deep
appreciation for you is indescribable. I could not have achieved this without your guidance.
vii
Acknowledgements
Thank you to my dissertation chair, Dr. Rudy Castruita and committee members Dr. John
Roach and Dr. Gregory Franklin for the support and guidance you have generously shared.
Thank you to my thematic research partners, Kristan Bruce and Jaclyn Spangler. I could
not have asked for better partners to work with on this fulfilling journey.
viii
Table of Contents
Abstract ........................................................................................................................................... iv
Dedication ....................................................................................................................................... vi
Acknowledgements ...................................................................................................................... vii
List of Tables ................................................................................................................................... x
Chapter One: Overview of the Study .............................................................................................. 1
Background of the Problem ................................................................................................. 2
Statement of the Problem .................................................................................................... 3
Purpose of the Study ............................................................................................................ 3
Significance of the Study ..................................................................................................... 4
Limitation and Delimitations ............................................................................................... 5
Definition of Terms ............................................................................................................. 5
Organization of the Study .................................................................................................. 11
Chapter Two: Review of the Literature ......................................................................................... 12
Theoretical Framework ..................................................................................................... 15
Pandemic Preparedness, Closures, and Historical Context ............................................... 21
Conclusion ......................................................................................................................... 55
Chapter Three: Methodology ........................................................................................................ 57
Sample and Population ...................................................................................................... 60
Instrumentation .................................................................................................................. 61
Data Collection .................................................................................................................. 62
Summary ............................................................................................................................ 64
Chapter Four: Findings .................................................................................................................. 65
Participants ........................................................................................................................ 67
Results for Research Question 1 ........................................................................................ 73
ix
Discussion for Research Question 1 ................................................................................ 102
Results for Research Question 2 ...................................................................................... 102
Chapter Five: Discussion ............................................................................................................. 127
Findings ........................................................................................................................... 129
Implications for Practice .................................................................................................. 134
Future Research ............................................................................................................... 139
Conclusions ..................................................................................................................... 141
References ................................................................................................................................... 142
Appendix A: Research Participant’s Invitation Email ................................................................ 180
Appendix B: Principal Survey ..................................................................................................... 181
Appendix C: Assistant Superintendent Survey ........................................................................... 185
Appendix D: Superintendent Survey ........................................................................................... 189
Appendix E: Principal Interview Protocol .................................................................................. 194
Appendix F: Assistant Superintendent Interview Protocol ......................................................... 196
Appendix G: Superintendent Interview Protocol ........................................................................ 198
Appendix H: Question Alignment Matrix ................................................................................... 200
x
x
List of Tables
Table 1: Demographic Information, School District Participants 70
Table 2: Qualitative Survey, Superintendent Demographic 72
Table 3: Quantitative Survey, Assistant Superintendent Demographic 73
Table 4: Quantitative Survey, Principal Demographic Information 74
Table 5: Quantitative Survey, District and Site Leaders’ Mean Agreement Scores 77
Regarding Financial Implications of COVID-19
Table 6: Quantitative Survey, District and Site Leaders’ Mean Agreement Scores 105
Regarding the Impact of Health and Safety Guidelines
Table 7: Quantitative Survey, District and Site Leaders’ Mean Agreement Ratings 112
Regarding the Impact of Union Negotiations
Table 8: Quantitative Survey, District and Site Leaders’ Mean Agreement Ratings 118
of Parent Concerns
1
1
Chapter One: Overview of the Study
The COVID-19 pandemic has been both 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 very short notice under “hold harmless” guidelines from state agencies
overseeing education with the exception of school closures lasting several weeks (Fensterwald,
2020). 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; Pollock,
2020).
Federal and state governments assisted school districts financially to help address the
challenges of distance learning and safety. Governmental agencies also provided rules, guidance,
and protocols to 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 well. As these rules and regulations evolved, so too did the roles and
expectations of district employees. Unions renegotiated basic aspects of working conditions
during this time to keep members safe and to express how the pandemic impacted their work.
Parents were also heavily impacted by the pandemic as students stayed home to learn. Parents
rely on schools not just for education, but also for childcare, food, as well as social, emotional,
and medical care for their children. All of these stakeholder concerns drastically changed the role
of school leadership, both at the district and site level. School leaders became crisis managers to
see their organizations through this tumultuous time of the COVID-19 pandemic.
2
Background of the Problem
Over the last century, schools throughout the United States have had to face various
public health crises that have impacted schooling for K-12 students. One of the deadliest
pandemics in human history was the Spanish Flu of 1918 (H1N1, Influenza A), which lasted two
years, infected approximately 500 million people, and left behind a death toll of an estimated 20
to 50 million (Stern et al., 2009). Some 80 years later, the world saw Severe Acute Respiratory
Syndrome (SARS) circle the globe from 2002 to 2004, which infected over 8,000 people from 29
different countries and caused a death toll of 774 (Centers for Disease Control [CDC], 2005). In
2009, the Swine Flu (another H1N1 virus like the Spanish Flu of 1918) broke out worldwide,
lasted just under 8 months, and caused an estimated 284,000 deaths (Braunack-Mayer et al.,
2013; Stern et al., 2009). COVID-19 was not the first time that American schools closed their
doors because of a flu pandemic. The deadly second wave of the 1918-19 Spanish flu pandemic
caused many urban K-12 public schools to close their doors, in some cases up to fifteen weeks
(Stern et al., 2009). What is different about the COVID-19 pandemic as it relates to school
closures is that they occurred as a preventative public health measure for the disease, not as a
response to massive community spread (Stern et al., 2009).
The most recent and current pandemic, COVID-19, was first identified in December
2019, and has resulted in over 32 million confirmed cases and over 578,000 documented deaths
in the United States alone as of May 2021 (California Department of Education [CDE], 2021).
Worldwide, this pandemic has resulted in over 156 million confirmed cases and over 3.2 million
documented deaths (World Health Organization [WHO], 2021). While COVID-19 has yet to
rival the statistics of the Spanish Flu from a hundred years ago, the U.S. education system’s
3
response to the current COVID-19 crisis is unparalleled in history (Berkman, 2008; Malkus et al,
2020a-c; Stern et al, 2009).
Statement of the Problem
The COVID-19 Pandemic presented a disruption in K-12 school districts, causing
unforeseen consequences within the education system and highlighting financial implications,
the impact of agencies, negotiations with unions, and the impact on students and community.
COVID-19 shifted the roles and scope of schools and school leaders, beyond instructional
leaders and 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 K-12
school districts in southern California 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 styles,
requirements, and mandates influence administrative practices, student achievement, fiscal
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:
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?
4
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?
Significance of the Study
The significance of the 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 COVID-19 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 in history 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. Tough decisions had to be made
to support a myriad of student needs throughout school closures. By analyzing the effective
practices and shortcomings of this crisis from the leaders on the frontlines, superintendents,
assistant superintendents, and principals, we hope to gain insight about prevention and
5
implementation as future crises occur in education. If a pandemic ever arises again, this study
will support how the crises would be addressed through the systems in place by school leaders,
educators, boards of education, and community stakeholders that are meant to reimagine and
revolutionize a new educational landscape that is committed to building a culture of equity to
repay the educational debt.
Limitation and Delimitations
There are some boundaries of the study beyond the control of the research team that may
affect internal validity. Limitations of this study include: the ongoing disruptions caused by the
COVID-19 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; and the sample may not accurately represent all school
districts in California. Next steps would include using a similar process to include a larger
representation from different districts throughout California or the United States.
In addition, the delimitations of the study relate to generalizability of the findings and are
associated with 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 who were willing to participate in the study.
Definition of Terms
The following is a list of key terms and definitions used throughout this research study:
Assembly and Senate Bill 86: this bill provides $2 billion as an incentive for schools that have
not already done so to offer in-person instruction beginning April 1, 2021 starting with the
earliest grades. The legislation also allocates $4.6 billion for all school districts regardless of
6
whether they meet the timetable 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): 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. Specifically, they oversee
enforcing education law and regulations and continuing 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 employee 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
7
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 offered to the Office of Postsecondary Education as the
Higher Education Emergency Relief Fund (CSEA, 2021).
Center for Disease Control (CDC): Nation’s health agency that “conducts critical science and
provides health information” and responds to health crises (CDC, 2021)
Cohort: "refers to a group of individuals who have something in common" such as same grade
level, or specific student groups such as English Learners. (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 three years. The result of this negotiation determines the
salaries and benefits, hours, calendar, and most aspects of teachers’ working conditions.
Negotiators can also discuss problems and address current 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).
COVID-19: A novel strain of coronaviruses that shares 79% genetic similarity with SARS-CoV
from the 2003 SARS outbreak, declared in March 2020 by the World Health Organization
8
(WHO) as a global pandemic (World Health Organization Coronavirus Dashboard, 2021; 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): 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 the COVID-19 pandemic has had, and continues to have, on elementary and
secondary schools across the Nation (U.S. Department of Education, 2021).
Essential workers: Essential workers are those who conduct a range of operations and services
that are typically essential to continue critical infrastructure operations (National Conference for
State Legislatures, 2021).
Free and Appropriate Public Education (FAPE): All students ages 3 to 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: Combination of in-person and distance learning (CDE, 2020).
In-person: Students are receiving in-person instruction for at least part of the instructional day
for the full instructional week (CA Safe Schools for All, 2021).
9
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 and shoes, earplugs or muffs, hard hats, respirators,
or 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: Refers to anyone who is 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 also be collective entities, such as
local businesses, organizations, advocacy groups, committees, media outlets, and cultural
institutions, in addition to organizations that represent specific groups, such as teachers unions,
parent-teacher organizations, and associations representing superintendents, principals, school
boards, or teachers in specific academic disciplines (e.g., the National Council of Teachers of
10
English or the Vermont Council of Teachers of Mathematics). In a word, stakeholders have a
“stake” in the school and its students, meaning that they have personal, professional, civic, or
financial interest or concern (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. Together, WHO coordinates the world’s response to health emergencies, promotes
well-being, prevents disease, and expands access to health care (World Health Organization,
2021).
11
Organization of the Study
This research study is organized into five chapters. Chapter One provides an introduction
to the study, statement of the problem, purpose of the study, significance of the study, four
research questions, limitations, delimitations, and the definitions of key terms. Chapter Two
reviews the existing literature relevant to the problem. Chapter Three presents the methodology
of the research design, sampling and data collection procedures, instruments designed for data
collection, and data analysis procedures. Chapter Four details the findings and major themes of
the research along with an analysis of the data. Chapter Five provides a summary of the study’s
findings, a conclusion, and an examination of implications for further research as well as
recommendations for future research.
12
Chapter Two: Review of the Literature
In December 2019 the novel coronavirus, SARS-CoV-2 or (COVID-19), was first reported
in Wuhan, China. Over the subsequent weeks, the virus and the associated disease, COVID-19,
spread internationally and, on 11 March 2020, the World Health Organization (WHO) declared it
a pandemic (WHO, 2020a). To contain the spread of COVID-19 and minimize the impact of
COVID-19, national and subnational governments implemented a variety of measures (Prem et al.,
2020). One setting where measures were implemented from a very early stage is the school setting.
By mid-April 2020, 192 countries had closed schools, affecting more than 90% (nearly 1.6 billion)
of the world’s student population (United States Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization
[UNESCO], 2020).
The COVID-19 pandemic caused an unprecedented public health crisis, delivering an
immense shock to humanity. At its peak, the closures affected at least 55.1 million students in
124,000 U.S. public and private schools (Dutta, 2020). Every state either ordered or recommended
that schools remain closed through the end of the 2019-20 school year (Lake & Desseault, 2020a).
As the virus spread, most school districts began to close in March. Washington state reported the
first U.S. death due to coronavirus on February 29, and the virus had been reported in over half of
all U.S. states by the middle of March. By the end of March, U.S. states reported over 3,000 deaths
and 164,500 confirmed cases. One month later, the U.S. had reported 60,966 total deaths and over
1 million confirmed cases, which nearly doubled again by the end of May, when the U.S. reported
103,781 deaths and 1.77 million cases (Roser et al., 2020).
The U.S. federal government passed the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security
(CARES) Act on March 27, 2020. The Act included support for K-12 and higher education
institutions in the form of formula grants that were to be distributed to states based on their shares
13
of Title I-A funds. The disbursed funds were to be used for response activities and long-term
closure planning, coordination, and educational technology purchases. The intention of the bill
was to enable flexibility in addressing the specific educational needs each state faced. In addition,
the act included $18.5 billion for the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP),
supporting child nutrition (Jordan, 2020). Additionally, the United States Department of Education
awarded grants to governors to support Local Education Agencies with emergency assistance
(Jordan, 2020).
Of the 3.3 million reported cases in the United States by July 10, 2020, the Centers for
Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) estimated that five percent of symptomatic cases in the
United States were found among children. However, cases among children were undercounted
because of the low volume of COVID-19 testing nationally among the pediatric population, as
older age groups and those presenting with severe respiratory symptoms had been the testing
priority (Kelvin & Halperin, 2020). According to the CDC, the vast majority of positive cases in
2020 occurred in people aged 18–64. While people under the age of 65 represented a significant
number of positive cases, those aged 60–85 who tested positive for the virus were at highest risk
for severe illness and death. Black, Hispanic or LatinX, and Indigenous populations accounted for
55% of all COVID-19 cases and made up a disproportionate share of all COVID cases (Tai et al.,
2021).
By April 15, 2020, case data from CDC showed that, in COVID-19 cases where race was
specified, Blacks, who comprised 13% of the total U.S. population, made up 30% of COVID-19
cases and Latinos, who made up 18% of the population accounted for 17% of COVID-19 cases
(Millet et al., 2020). Disparities in identified cases and deaths also varied across states, with a
14
disproportionately high percentage of Blacks and Latinos affected (Artiga et al., 2020; CDC,
2020a; Tai et al., 2021; U.S. Census Bureau, 2018).
With the virus’s health consequences unknown, health, government, and education systems
around the globe pursued various avenues of crisis management. Faced with the uncertainty and
growing intensity of the novel coronavirus pandemic, academic leaders and administrators
throughout the United States made the strategic decision to transition to remote learning. The
decision to pivot to remote teaching and learning required new transformative learning for all
stakeholders and serious adaptive work that was stressful, since many academic institutions lack
the necessary digital infrastructure (Fernandez & Shaw, 2020a). Transitioning to online course
delivery required radical changes in attitude, values, and beliefs for some stakeholders and it also
required process enhancements, new strategies, and even new ways of doing business for many
(Heifetz & Laurie, 2001).
COVID-19 has been one of the gravest crises the country has seen in over a century
(Fernandez & Shaw, 2020b). Few institutions have been affected more than schools which created
undeniable chaos nd shook the fabric of education (Hargreaves & Fullan, 2020. To do their part to
control the virus and protect students, teachers, staff, and their families, the nation’s schools closed
their doors to reduce the spread of the virus and protect public health, leaving 1.6 billion learners
in over 194 countries out of school (UNESCO, 2020).
The following Literature Review explores the impact of COVID-19 in the areas of K-12
pandemic preparedness and closures, health and safety, instruction, certified and clerical staff
administration, and nutritional services from March 2020 through Fall 2020. The purpose of this
literature review is to understand how schools responded and help policymakers understand what
15
schools are likely to do in the coming school year(s) as well as the implications those actions may
have for students.
Theoretical Framework
The researcher utilized 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 crisis of the Covid-19 pandemic. In Reframing Organizations: Artistry,
Choice and Leadership, Bolman and Deal (2017) analyze the four frames, or four significant
functions of a leader which include the structural, political, human resource, and symbolic
frames for leadership. This framework gives an overall 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 analyzes 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 (2019) Districts on the Move: Leading a Coherent System of Continuous
Improvement. This work reveals how the unique culture of each K-12 school district will present
diversions along the journey of implementing coherent systems for continuous improvement.
Westover’s (2020) four main aspects to leading a coherent path of progress include 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
16
which can assist leaders in determining the importance of the multifaceted nature of their roles.
These four frames are:
1. 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 there is an
adequate environment in which employees can fulfill their roles with clear understanding
of positions and responsibilities. The role of the leader is to guarantee that the structure is
engineered to support 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).
2. Human resource frame - The human resource frame reveals how employees bring value
to an organization and, in turn, how the organization can support and empower its
employees. Bolman and Deal’s (2017) work on the human resources frame emphasized
the importance of the organization’s role in supporting employees and building capacity
for growth.
3. 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
leadership ability to build coalitions to accomplish broader organizational goals. Political
leaders understand that their most vital role is to allocate scarce resources and to
comprehend the power balance involved with this task, including a determination of who
would be perceived to be the 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).
17
4. 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 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.
The Principal: Three Keys to Maximizing Impact
Fullan’s (2014) work, 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. It is noted that 50% of school principals feel stress frequently, that about 60% of
principals are satisfied with their position (a decrease of 10% in the past decade), and that 75%
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 to increase their satisfaction in
the position. First key: Lead learner.
Creating a culture of learning is the first 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
18
maximize the impact of the school and to 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 an administrator 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: 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 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 capacity of the district as an
entity and the individual schools within the district. This work also 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
19
system and the benefits and challenges of developing a system-wide mission. The third key:
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 enable 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)
delves into the key benchmarks of capacity and the leadership competencies necessary for
districts to progress in creating a system that ensures and monitors continuous improvement.
Westover (2020) argues that the culture of leadership in a school district is the most
critical factor for both 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 learning” (Westover, 2020, p. 8). The four aspects of
creating coherent systems for continuous improvement within school districts are:
20
1. Clarity of District Goals and Priorities - School districts must first analyze the underlying
causes of areas where improvement is needed and to align specific improvement strategies
that specifically address these issues. School districts should only implement high-impact
strategies that are proven to be effective that will, in turn, guide district actions and the
support that need to be provided (Westover, 2020).
2. 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.
3. Coherent Instructional Framework for Developing Collective Expertise - a coherent
instructional framework integrates resources, strategies, and assessments which are
implemented within short, three to four weeks 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 what next steps are needed.
4. 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 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.
21
Pandemic Preparedness, Closures, and Historical Context
The emergence of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) in the United States in spring
2020 forced U.S. schools to transition rapidly to remote learning (Lake & Dusseault, 2020a).
Unsurprisingly, schools were unequally prepared to meet this challenge (Hamilton et al., 2020a).
Findings and surveys of K–12 grade public schools collected in spring 2020 highlighted substantial
disparities in schools’ curriculum coverage, access to technology, and teacher training on remote
learning topics (Gross & Opalka, 2020; Hamilton et al., 2020; Harris et al., 2020).
The majority of U.S. public schools were unprepared for a crisis on the level of COVID-
19 (Hamilton et al., 2020b). During the 2017–2018 school year, only 46% of U.S. public schools
had a written plan for dealing with a pandemic and public information was lacking as well (Oster
et al., 2021). Comprehensive emergency plans to facilitate the implementation of school closures,
continuity of education, and feeding of students during closures varied especially among low-
poverty districts prior to the pandemic (Kersten et al., 2020).
For centuries, novel strains of influenza have emerged to produce human pandemics,
causing widespread illness, death, and disruption, creating a huge need for flexible policies capable
of responding to change as such emergencies develop (Saunders-Hastings & Krewski, 2016). The
appearance of the H1N1 flu in 2009 forced schools to consider closing to mitigate the spread of
disease. Research from the experiences of school district decisions and operations during the
Spanish Flu show that clearly defined lines of authority as well as transparent communication
between policymakers and community officials ensured a smooth implementation of school
closures (Stern et al., 2009).
In the Spring of 2020, schools indicated that they would take substantial lead time for
schools to shift to online instruction for the first time (Schwartz et al., 2020a). Schools that used
22
online instruction before the COVID-19 pandemic were better positioned to switch to remote
learning once on-the-ground instruction stopped (Diliberti et al., 2020). In 2016, only 38 states had
a publicly available school health emergency plan (Uscher-Pines et al., 2018). Prior to COVID-
19, school and health officials indicated that, to provide quality instruction, they needed sufficient
online infrastructure, including learning management systems, home internet access for students,
and teachers and families, and training in using online instruction before the onset of a crisis
(Schwartz et al., 2020b).
School leaders such as superintendents are familiar with change and most leaders work
within systems that would expect a focus on change for the purpose of improving learning.
Leadership literature on change is abundant within and beyond the educational sphere (Garcia-
Huidobro et al., 2017). Many leadership policy frameworks across nations describe standards and
expectations of change leadership for improvement (Hitt & Tucker, 2016). Despite this extensive
focus on change, the arrangements, and structures of schooling, on the whole, have remained the
same and the disruption to these persistent schooling arrangements caused by the COVID-19
pandemic was the most significant and pervasive to occur since the introduction of mass schooling
(Zhao, 2020).
The last week of March 2020 marked a turning point in state-level education policy on
remote learning during the COVID-19 pandemic. School closures had been announced in all fifty
U.S. states, and Kansas was the first to close their schools for the remainder of the year. By Friday
March 27, all fifty state education agencies had a COVID-19 webpage or homepage section
devoted to policy guidance for closures and remote learning. Twenty percent of states had released
comprehensive remote learning guidance that addressed issues related to digital versus non-digital
options, grading policy, graduation requirements, equity issues, provision of services to students
23
with disabilities, time and schedule recommendations, and suggested resources, lesson plans, and
more (Reich et al., 2020). The level of pandemic preparedness and the work of schools in
supporting students and providing accessible forms of learning during school closures varied
vastly across school districts (Catalano et al., 2021; Reich et al., 2020). There was also complexity
in the decisions that school districts needed to make given health guidance and local agencies
oversite (Dibner et al., 2020; Reich et al., 2020).
Few would argue that school closures were an important and necessary policy action in
fighting COVID-19 (Hoffman & Miller, 2020). Indeed, evidence from past epidemics suggests
that closing schools can have a significant effect on reducing infection rates and flattening the
curve (Ferguson et al., 2006). Even though school-closure policies were considered one of the
most promising nonpharmaceutical interventions for mitigating seasonal and pandemic influenza.,
their effectiveness is still debated, primarily due to the lack of empirical evidence about the
behavior of the population during the implementation of the policy (Litvinova et al., 2019).
In most school districts across the world, efforts to reduce severe acute respiratory
syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) circulation and new COVID-19 development were based
on restrictive measures, including the avoidance of social interactions, the prohibition of
movements within the national territory, and the closure of all nonessential activities, including
schools (Esposito & Principi, 2020). While the closure of all non-essential business, the avoidance
of other social interactions, and proper hand washing remain the best measures to reduce the total
burden of COVID-19, choosing to close schools proved to be a difficult decision for school
districts (Esposito & Principi, 2020). It is highly likely that early introduction of this restrictive
measure was effective in reducing influenza incidence rates and related clinical, social, and
economic problems during both seasonal and pandemic influenza outbreaks (Litinova et al., 2019).
24
School superintendents realized that it was possible that school closures could have
negative effects and lead to greater medical, economic, and social problems at the very start of the
pandemic (Wang et al., 2020a). Modeling studies seem to indicate that school closures can be
significantly effective for infection control only when the outbreaks are due to viruses with low
transmissibility and attack rates are higher in children than in adults (Esposito & Principi, 2020).
This applies to influenza viruses and influenza infection but does not seem valid for coronaviruses,
including SARS-CoV-2, which have different transmission dynamics, or for COVID-19, which
affects adults and elderly individuals (Esposito & Principi, 2020). It has been calculated that,
although the expected number of cases directly generated by one case of SARS-CoV-2 infection
is high, the total number of children with SARS-CoV-2 infection seems lower than expected and
that children younger than 10 years account for only one percent of COVID-19 cases (Wu, 2019).
The risk of transmission of infection among children in a classroom is low and school
closure were only marginally effective (Wang et al., 2020a). To date, there has been no substantial
data on the relative contribution of school closures to SARS-CoV-2 transmission control (Pang et
al., 2020; Viner et al., 2020a). Modeling studies of COVID-19 from the United Kingdom, using
data from Wuhan, China, predicted that school closures alone would prevent only two percent to
four percent of deaths, much less than other social distancing interventions (Ferguson et al., 2020).
Health and Safety
Transmission
SARS-CoV-2 is transmitted primarily by respiratory droplets from close contact with
infected persons, and by surfaces that have been contaminated by infected persons and then
touched by previously uninfected persons who then touch their mouth, nose, or eyes without first
properly washing their hands (WHO, 2020). The average number of secondary cases per infectious
25
case ranges from 2.5 to well over 3.0, making this virus more infectious than influenza (Inglesby,
2020). Current evidence suggests that, given how the virus is spread, prolonged close contact in
indoor environments presents a particularly elevated risk (CDC, 2020b; Melnick et al., 2020). The
median incubation period, regardless of age, is estimated to be about five days, with a range of
two–14 days, creating uncertainty (Melnick et al., 2020)
Scientific knowledge about the impact of the virus on adults and children is evolving
(Melnick et al., 2020). Early studies relying on symptom-based surveillance suggested that
children were at lower risk than adults for contracting the disease. According to data through June
18, 2020, just 4.9 percent of confirmed cases in the United States had been diagnosed in children
aged 0–17 (CDC, 2020a). Further, the proportion of exposed household members is lower in
children than in adults (Li & Lalani, 2020; Zhang et al., 2020). However, children could be infected
at rates like those for adults and be either asymptomatic or had symptoms too mild to be detected
(Bi et al., 2020).
Compared to adults, children who contract COVID-19 are more likely to experience
asymptomatic infection or mild upper respiratory symptoms. It is estimated that more than 90% of
children who test positive for COVID-19 will have mild symptoms, and only a small percentage
of symptomatic children (estimates range from one to five percent) will have severe or critical
symptoms (Prather et al., 2020). Notably, children are less likely to develop a fever or cough—
two symptoms commonly used to identify cases through symptom-based screening (Lu et al.,
2020). To date, identified risk factors for severe disease among children include age <1 year (and
thus not school age) or existing comorbidities (Lu et al., 2020). Accordingly, the role of chronic
medical conditions in disease severity remains a major concern. A study of 177 children found that
63% of those hospitalized with COVID-19 had underlying conditions, compared with 32% of non-
26
hospitalized patients, and 78% of critically ill children had underlying conditions, compared with
57% of hospitalized, non–critically ill patients (DeBiasi et al., 2020). In 2020, 77% of children
hospitalized with COVID-19 in the United States had at least one underlying health condition
(U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, 2020). In New York City, 8 of 9 (89%) children
with severe COVID-19 infection had an underlying condition, compared with 61% of children
with non-severe illness (Zachariah et al., 2020).
Moreover, even though most children do not seem to have symptoms, they do contract the
virus and thus serve as vectors, spreading it throughout the community to individuals who are at
higher risk for serious health outcomes, hospitalization, and death (Cruz & Zeichner, 2020). It is
challenging to get young children to practice appropriate hygiene related to hand washing,
coughing, and face touching (Hoffman & Miller, 2020). This challenge, combined with the
impracticality of social distancing practices due to limited classroom space, congregate lunch
practices, and frequent and varied interactions among groups of students, made schools
particularly conducive environments for spreading disease during a pandemic, affecting not just
students but teachers, custodians, food service workers, and other building staff (Carroll, 2020).
While children with underlying disease, particularly those with progressive conditions, are at
increased risk of severe complications, it is not yet known how great the absolute risk of severe
COVID-19 disease is for children with conditions like asthma and how those risks should be
counterbalanced against the risks of not attending school (Prather et al., 2020). Based on the limited
data to date, the provision of clear guidelines on which children are at sufficiently considerable
risk to require alternative educational modalities is not possible (Bailey & Schurz., 2020).
Scientific debate is ongoing regarding the effectiveness of school closures on virus transmission
(Cohen & Kupferschmidt, 2020).
27
Mitigation
It has been suggested that children who test positive on serologic tests could be admitted
to school because it could identify children who have already been infected or can be considered
protected and can attend school without posing risks to other children (Zhao et al., 2020). However,
the sensitivity of the presently available antibody tests is suboptimal, according to research
findings on asymptomatic infections (Zhao et al., 2020). Children have milder symptom of Covid-
19 and their role in the transmission of the disease remains unclear (Ludvigsson, 2020). Children
tend to have an asymptomatic infection, and as the immune response to SARS-CoV-2 infection
has been found to be greater the more serious the disease is, most children will have a low antibody
titer that is inadequate for obtaining positivity on tests with low sensitivity (Zhao et al., 2020).
Children and youth (aged 18 and younger are at minimal risk of serious, long-term consequences
of death because of contracting COVID-19 (Ludvigsson, 2020). Even so, measures such as
physical distancing, avoiding large gatherings, handwashing, and wearing masks are clearly
important for limiting transmission within a school setting when students, teachings, and other
staff are present (Krishnaratne et al., 2020; National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and
Medicine [NASM], 2020). The fact that evidence is inadequate in both areas---transmission and
mitigation-- makes it extremely difficult for decision makers to gauge the health risks of physically
opening school to create plans for operating them in ways that reduce the transmission of the virus
(Melnick et al., 2020, NASM, 2020). Nonetheless, the fact that schools were closed for an extended
period could have detrimental social and health consequences for children living in poverty and
are likely to exacerbate existing inequalities (Van Lancker & Parolin, 2020).
School Closures & Toll on Student Well-being
28
Quarantine is often an unpleasant experience for those who undergo it. Separation from
loved ones, the loss of freedom, uncertainty over disease status, and boredom can, on occasion,
create dramatic effects (Brooks et al., 2020). Suicide has been reported, substantial anger
generated, and lawsuits brought following the imposition of quarantine in previous outbreaks. As
such, the potential benefits of mandatory mass quarantine need to be weighed carefully against the
possible psychological costs (Barbisch et al., 2015; Miles, 2015; Rubin & Wessley, 2020).
Successful use of quarantine as a public health measure requires us to reduce, as far as possible,
the negative effects associated with it (Brooks et al., 2020).
Closing schools to limit the transmission of infection during epidemics has long been a
recommended course of non-pharmaceutical action under certain circumstances (Viner et al.,
2020b). The logic underpinning this policy is clear: school children mix at close proximity for
extended periods of time, can have poor hygiene, and can then infect parents and other contacts
outside of the school setting (Kneale et al., 2020). School staff are also at higher risk of infection
while in the school environment (Kneale et al., 2020). Previous evidence has shown that closing
schools can have the intended impact of reducing infection rates, although factors such as the
timing and length of the closures are likely to be important (Kneale et al., 2020). While the efficacy
of school closure is debatable, especially at this moment in time, the potential negative
consequences of this measure cannot be ignored (Cohen & Kupferschmidt, 2020). Families need
to take care of the young children when daycares and schools are closed, parents must remain at
home, with inevitable economic consequences such as loss of parental economic productivity,
(Kneale et al., 2020). In addition, disadvantaged children and families are likely to carry a
substantially higher proportion of the associated costs (e.g., impact on educational attainment),
29
thereby increasing existing inequalities (Crawley et al., 2020; Krishnaratne et al., 2020; Viner et
al., 2020a; Viner et al., 2020b).
Moreover, school closure can cause risks of deepening social, economic, and health
inequities, particularly in limited-income households (Dorn et al., 2020). In the countries where
the Ebola epidemic took place in 2014 to 2016, school closures were associated with increased
child labor, violence, and socioeconomic problems (Bayham & Fenichel, 2020). In the rapidly
changing pandemic situation, media and social conversations were entirely dominated by the
outbreak, and children were exposed to large amounts of information and high levels of stress and
anxiety in the adults around them, coupled with substantial changes to their daily routine and social
infrastructure (Dalton et al., 2020).The three most prevalent symptoms amongst primary and
secondary school students were anxiety (24.9%), depression (19.7%), and stress (15.2%) (Tang et
al., 2021). Mental health problems and resilience co-existed in children and adolescents during the
COVID-19 outbreak (Chaturvedi et al., 2021).
At this time, there is limited research that looked at the immediate and long-term effects of
the COVID-19, quarantine, and school closures on the mental health of students. However, the
existing research identified considerable impacts across emotional, behavioral and
restlessness/inattention problems (Ludvigsson, 2020; Viner et al., 2021). Eighteen to sixty percent
of children and young people scored above risk thresholds for distress, particularly anxiety and
depressive symptoms (Viner et al., 2021). Nevertheless, school closures due to the COVID-19
outbreak affected 87% of the world’s students physically, socially, and psychologically, yet
rigorous investigation into their mental health during this period is lacking (Brooks et al., 2020;
Dorn et al., 2020).
30
School closures, however, also have significant broader psychosocial, societal, and
economic implications, including considerable costs and negative consequences (Christakis, 2020;
Kneale et al., 2020; Krishnaratne et al., 2020; Viner 2020a), both in the short term and longer term
(Smith, 2020). For children and adolescents, school closures are likely to have negative impacts
on educational outcomes, but also on their physical and mental health (Golberstein et al., 2020;
Krishnaratne et al., 2020; UNESCO, 2020). The well-documented links between education and
health mean that school closures during the COVID-19 pandemic are likely to be associated with
significant health harms to children and young people (Brooks et al., 2020). During the period of
school closure, children and adults throughout the United States experienced prolonged and
collective stress related to myriad societal changes and family events (Brooks et al., 2020;
Hoffman & Miller, 2020). For parents and caregivers, school closures caused a major disruption
to their family and work life and there were impacts on job and income security as well as
psychosocial health (Kneale et al., 2020; Krishnaratne et al., 2020). Salient stressors include the
death and illness of family members; social distancing from friends, extended family, teachers,
and colleagues; exposure to frightening news information; parental job stress and job loss; and
parents being forced into the role of educators while either working from home or providing
essential services in the community (Hoffman & Miller, 2020). Students’ health and mental health
needs are going to be even more acute in the wake of the pandemic given the social, emotional,
and economic stresses that are proceeding concomitantly and are likely to persist for some period
once the crisis has been resolved (Hoffman & Miller, 2020).
Although medical literature shows that children are minimally susceptible to COVID-19,
they are hit the hardest by psychosocial impact of this pandemic (Ghosh et al., 2020). Being
quarantined in homes and institutions may impose greater psychological burden than the physical
31
sufferings caused by the virus (Ghosh et al., 2020). School closures, lack of outdoor activity, and
aberrant dietary and sleeping habits are likely to disrupt children's usual lifestyle and can
potentially promote monotony, distress, impatience, annoyance, and varied neuropsychiatric
manifestations (Ghosh et al., 2020). The negative psychological effects of the quarantine and
ongoing pandemic include post-traumatic stress symptoms, confusion, and anger (Brooks et al.,
2020). Stressors also include longer quarantine duration, infection fears, frustration, boredom,
inadequate supplies, inadequate information, economic loss, and stigma (Brooks et al., 2020).
School closures, as part of broader social distancing measures, were associated with considerable
harms to children and young people health and wellbeing (Viner et al., 2021). The negative
psychological effects of the quarantine and ongoing pandemic include post-traumatic stress
symptoms, confusion, and anger (Brooks et al., 2020). Stressors included longer quarantine
duration, infection fears, frustration, boredom, inadequate supplies, inadequate information,
economic loss, and stigma (Brooks et al., 2020). The widespread stress imposed by school closures
resulting from COVID-19 will have varying impacts on different subgroups of children in negative
ways (Brooks et al, 2020; Hoffman & Miller, 2020).
Prolonged school closures are one of the most disruptive forces in the COVID-19 era
(Harris & Jones, 2020). Long term impact, effects, and consequences of opening schools in the
current pandemic are yet to be determined, but the mental health of young people who feel trapped
or isolated at home is very real issue and has the potential to become a greater problem than the
virus itself. (Harris & Jones, 2020; Lee, 2020). School closures have been a recommended non-
pharmaceutical intervention in pandemic response owing to the potential to reduce transmission
of infection between children, school staff, and those that they contact (Kneale et al., 2020). Given
the developing situation with coronavirus, policy makers are in urgent need of evidence synthesis
32
to produce guidance for the public (Brooks et al., 2020). In circumstances such as these, rapid
reviews are recommended by the World Health Organization and the psychological impact of
quarantine on mental health and psychological wellbeing, and the factors that contribute to, or
mitigate, these effects are unknown (Brooks et al., 2020; Melnick et al., 2020).
A systematic review of the evidence is needed to inform policy decisions around school
closures and reopening during the pandemic (Viner et al., 2021). Knowledge management becomes
paramount when the overall goal for an institution is to be capable of getting ahead of events and
reacting skillfully and strategically (Shaw et al., 2007). This is particularly true for public sector
organizations such as educational institutions that have a stewardship responsibility and generate
and manage knowledge, while delivering key services (Quarchioni et al., 2020).
Instruction
Distance Learning
Online learning, open learning, web-based learning, blended learning, and distance
learning are terms that are often used interchangeably and have in common the ability to use a
computer connected to a network that offers the possibility to learn from anywhere, anytime, in
any rhythm, with any means (Cojocariu et al., 2014). Online learning is defined as “learning
experiences in synchronous or asynchronous environments using different devices (e.g., mobile
phones, laptops, etc.) with internet access (Singh & Thurman, 2019, p.). In these environments,
students can be anywhere (independent) to learn and interact with instructors and other students”
(McFarland et al., 2017; Singh & Thurman, 2019). Distance learning—which comes in a wide
range of forms from sending home offline materials like worksheets and hard-copy textbooks to
courses that are hosted entirely online with no face-to-face instruction—is frequently incorporated
into instruction in K–12 schools in the United States (Schwartz et al., 2020)
33
Rapid developments in technology have made distance education easy (McBrien et al.,
2009). Distance or blended learning models could minimize interruptions in instruction (Wong et
al., 2014; Zviedrite et al., 2020). Online learning can also be used as a tool that can make the
teaching–learning process more student-centered, more innovative, and even more flexible
(Dhawan, 2020). Blended learning and distance learning could provide resilience in times of crisis
and offer students opportunity to continue instruction outside the school building (Mackey et al.,
2012). Even before the unprecedented global COVID-19 pandemic, there were prolonged school
closures, ten or more consecutive school days, due to causes such as teacher strikes, hurricanes,
flooding, or disease outbreaks (Baytiyeh, 2018).
Although distance learning can and is playing a significant role in emergencies, there has
been little research describing the implementation of distance or blended learning in times of crises
or emergency where there is neither time nor resources for extensive design or redesign of existing
strategies (Baytiyeh, 2018; Mackey et al., 2012; Schwartz, 2020a). The unplanned and rapid move
to online learning caused by COVID-19 with little to no training, insufficient bandwidth, and little
preparation is estimated to result in poor educational experiences, social exclusion, or the
emergence of new hybrid models (Li & Lalani, 2020). Simply migrating teaching to online
platforms is not enough; teaching itself needs to adapt its knowledge management practices and
continue offering an equivalent service creating public value (Iacuzzi et al., 2020). Difficulties
with remote and hybrid instruction were well documented and include technology access,
instructional quality, student engagement along with mental health and social-emotional learning
concerns (Gao et al., 2021).
Evidence suggesting that measures taken by schools during remote learning in the Spring
of 2020 may not have been as effective as hoped. There was instructional time lost during the
34
spring and those losses were much greater in high-poverty schools (Malkus, 2020a)). Districts
serving more poor and low-performing students offered less robust remote instructional platforms
to students, both at the end of the year and throughout the entire year after closures were announced,
than more advantaged districts offered (Malkus, 2020a). There are concerning signs that many
teachers had no contact at all with a significant portion of students (Lieberman, 2020). According
to a national survey of teachers conducted by Education Week (Kurtz, 2020), as of the first week
of April 2020, only 39% of teachers reported interacting with their students at least once a day,
and most teacher–student communication occurred over email. A survey of district responses
collected by the American Enterprise Institute found that only one in five school districts met their
standard for “rigorous” remote learning (Malkus, 2020a). Nationally, teachers estimated that their
students spent half as much time on learning as they did before the COVID-19 school closures
(Gewertz, 2020). Additional evidence shows that even when teachers made themselves and their
instructional materials available online, many students lacked the means to access online materials
from home (Kuhfeld et al., 2020).
Nearly all California schools closed in spring 2020 and turned to distance learning for
instruction. By fall 2020, districts began implementing a range of instructional models including
in-person, hybrid, and remote (Gao et al., 2020). The most common model among districts was
remote instruction for all students, at 47% (Prunty et al., 2021). While only 12% of districts were
open in-person for all students in fall 2020, another 15% were hybrid. While fewer than half of
districts overall were remote, well over half of all California students attended school remotely in
fall (Prunty et al., 2021). This is because most students were enrolled in urban/suburban California
districts, and many of these districts were in remote mode in fall 2020 (Prunty et al., 2021).
35
Altogether, 60%of students were attending school remotely, with higher percentages of Black and
Latino students and low-income students relegated to remote-only mode (Prunty et al., 2021).
Districts were not prepared for distance learning when schools first closed in spring 2020 (Malkus,
2020; Prunty et al., 2021). Since then, three-quarters of districts improved internet and device
access and have invested significant resources to improve distance learning, including efforts to
expand student access to devices and internet and to increase the mandated minimum instructional
minutes (Prunty et. al, 2021). Districts may have achieved general improvements in the fall of
2020 because of their shifts in priorities (Prunty et al., 20201). Since spring 2020, most districts
reported elevating student engagement, addressing achievement gaps, ensuring student health and
safety, and supporting student emotional health and well-being. Assessing student achievement
was less likely to be a higher priority for majority minority districts; however, students’ social and
emotional well-being was also a key budget priority in 90% of California school districts (Prunty
et al., 2021). Additionally, most districts also prioritized technology access, learning loss
mitigation, students with additional needs (including English Learners, students with disabilities,
and foster youth), maintaining programming and supports, and providing adequate resources
(Prunty et al., 2021). Additionally, most districts reported spending more on technology and school
safety, and other major expenditures were made possible through direct federal support, including
the $4.5 billion CARES Act (Prunty et al., 2021).
Remote Learning Experiences
Distance learning has revealed how unevenly educational resources are distributed—from
access to internet and devices, to teacher instruction and parental involvement—a situation that
may expand California’s longstanding racial and socioeconomic divide (Gao et al.,
2020). During the COVID-19 pandemic in spring, education systems scrambled to meet the
36
needs of students and families with little available data on how school closures may affect not
only health physical and mental but learning and achievement (Kuhfeld et al., 2020). The urgent
instructional retooling with nationwide school closures led to wide variation in program quality
and even when remote instruction began (Malkus, 2020b). While some districts responded
quickly and began providing instruction almost immediately after school buildings were
shuttered, others did not provide remote learning until weeks after closures began (Malkus,
2020b).
Most school districts supplied some remote instruction during the last months of the school
year (Lake & Dusseault, 2020a). School administrators faced increasing pressure to measure data,
address academic achievement, and combat perceived student academic loss (Hurtt et al., 2021).
But it remains unclear how effective remote learning was, given that most K–12 students and
teachers had little experience with online instruction and that large gaps in technology access exist
in parts of the country (Malkus, 2020a). Additionally, during the extended school closure in Spring
2020, working parents were struggling to educate and care for their children (Harris, 2020). These
unique educational challenges were accompanied by broader shocks to society, including a major
economic downturn, job losses, widespread protests over racial injustice, and the tangible health
threat of COVID- 19. In short, extended time out of school will certainly affect student
achievement, and that impact is hard to estimate given all the unique aspects of COVID-19 on
schooling and society (Kuhfeld et al., 2020).
The temporary discontinuation of traditional in-person teaching and shift to online models
represent an unprecedented disruption of students’ educational careers and induced a sharp decline
in what is the most important school input factor to produce educational achievement: the support
of trained educators (Grewening et al., 2020). Out-of-school learning requires a large amount of
37
self-regulated learning where students must independently acquire and understand the academic
content without the support of trained educators (Grewening et al., 2020). While self-regulated
learning may be feasible for high-achieving students during school closures, it may be especially
challenging for students who struggle academically in the traditional instructional setting
(Grewening et al., 2020). On average, the school closures reduced students’ learning time by about
half and this reduction was significantly larger for students who struggle academically than for
high-achieving students (Grewening et al., 2020).
Projections of COVID-19-related learning loss based on estimates from absenteeism
literature and analyses of summer learning patterns underscored the concept of academic loss
(Kuhfeld et al., 2020). In the Kuhfeld et al. (2020) study, returning students were expected to start
fall 2020 with 63% to 68% of the learning gains in reading and 37% to 50% of the learning gains
in mathematics compared to a typical school year. Nonetheless, students made little to no progress
while learning from home and that learning loss was most pronounced among students from
disadvantaged homes (Engzell et al., 2020). Students and parents with lack of access to
technological devices, high-speed internet, and information to navigate online learning are among
the most likely to face growing inequalities (Dynarski, 2020). COVID-19 has exposed and
intensified enormous gaps in schools’ and families’ capacity to support children’s’ learning
(Dynarski, 2020).
Impact of Interrupted Learning
Children from low-income households live in conditions that make home schooling
difficult and online learning environments require computers with reliable internet connection
(Morgan et al., 2019). The pandemic highlights disparities in access to digital devices and the
internet (Darling Hammond & Kini, 2020). When schools closed, 15% of U.S. households and
38
35% of low-income households with school-age children did not have a high-speed internet
connection at home (Darling Hammond & Kini, 2020). In early April, two third of leaders in
high-poverty districts reported that a lack of basic technology was a ‘major’ problem (Darling
Hammond & Kini, 2020).
Research suggests that non-school factors are a primary source of inequalities in
educational outcomes (Van Lancker & Parolin, 2020). Schools provide safeguarding and
supervision, and closures increase the economic burden of families using day care or their
reliance on vulnerable older relatives (Armitage & Nellums, 2020). Working parents might leave
children unsupervised or forgo employment to stay at home with them (Armitage & Nellums,
2020).
Suspension of face-to-face instruction in schools during the COVID-19 pandemic has led
to concerns about consequences for students’ learning and so far, data to study this question are
limited (Engzell et al., 2020). In the past, the gap in mathematical and literacy skills between
children from lower and higher socioeconomic backgrounds often widens during school holiday
periods or break (Alexander et al., 2007). The summer holiday in most American schools is
associated with a setback in mental health and wellbeing contributing to a loss in academic
achievement equivalent to one month of education for children with low socioeconomic status
(Alexander et al., 2007; Cooper et al., 1996; Morgan et al., 2019). School shutdowns could not
only cause disproportionate learning losses for these students—compounding existing gaps—but
also lead more of them to drop out (Dorn et al., 2020). Learning loss during school closures
varies significantly by access to remote learning, the quality of remote instruction, the
availability of home support, and the degree of engagement, which could have long- term effects
on these children’s long-term economic well-being and on the U.S. economy (Dorn et al., 2020).
39
COVID-19 presented a unique challenge in that data on learning loss during lockdown have been
slow to emerge because unlike societal sectors like the economy or the healthcare system,
schools usually do not post data at high-frequency intervals (Engzell et al., 2020). This lag in
relevant data has made it unclear as to how lessons from the pandemic closings can be applied to
current school contexts. During “landscape scale” crises when the only certainty is uncertainty,
responses tend to be improvised (Howitt & Leonard, 2009). If learning is expected to continue
digitally, the closures are likely to widen the learning gap between children from lower-income
and higher-income families (Azevedo et al., 2020; Morgan et al., 2019).
Impact on Under-Resourced Communities and Marginalized Groups
The COVID-19 pandemic disproportionately impacted Black, LatinX, Native American,
immigrant, and marginalized low-income populations (CDC, 2020a; Tai et al., 2021; Van Lancker
& Parolin, 2020). The rates of exposure, positive tests, and deaths due to complications of the
disease are greater among historically marginalized populations compared with their white
counterparts (Tai et al., 2021; Van Lancker & Parolin, 2020). The CDC (year) reported that age-
adjusted hospitalization rates are highest for American Indian or Alaska Native populations at
193.8 per 100,000, followed by non-Hispanic Black (171.8 per 100,000), and Hispanic/LatinX
populations (150.3). Asian and White populations have the lowest age-adjusted hospitalization
rates, at 44.9 and 37.8 per 100,000, respectively (CDC, 2020b). These statistics vary across the
country. In New York City, over 50%of tests administered in communities of color were positive
at the height of the outbreak (Thompson et al., 2020). These gross disparities not only result in
poor clinical outcomes associated with COVID-19 but also include a host of social and financial
impacts that further exacerbate the structural challenges experienced by these groups (NASE,
2020).
40
There were higher rates of COVID-19 infections and deaths in the African American
community (Yancy et al., 2020). The economic downturn has been particularly damaging for Black
and Hispanic parents, who are less likely to be able to work from home during the pandemic
(Reimold et al., 2021; Krogstad et al., 2020). Additionally, the trauma caused by police shootings
of African Americans and the subsequent nationwide protests might interact with any COVID-19-
induced trauma to affect students’ achievement in complicated ways (Kuhfeld et al., 2020).
Nevertheless, COVID-19 is projected to exacerbate persistent achievement disparities across
income levels and between White students and students of Black and Hispanic heritage (Dorn et
al, 2020). Projecting the impact on achievement by race/ethnicity involves unwarranted conjecture
but is highly likely to show that there are widening achievement gaps by school level
socioeconomic status (Kuhfeld et al., 2020).
COVID-19 also impacts vulnerable student populations such as English learners, students
with disabilities, and lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and queer (LGBTQ+) students (Salerno
et al., 2020; OECD, 2020). Even before the pandemic, students learning English struggled to
participate on equal terms in the classroom as they confronted the dual challenge of mastering
grade-level content while continuing to learn English. English Learners 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 that is foundational to
educational success (Sugarman & Lazarin, 2020). For English learners, the abrupt shift to learning
from home amid the challenges of the pandemic has made that struggle even harder and their losses
are expected to linger for years to come (Barber et al., 2021; Sugarman & Lazarin, 2020). COVID-
19 significantly disrupted the education of elementary and secondary school students with
disabilities because the related aids and services needed to support their academic progress and
41
prevent regression were abruptly unavailable (Asbury et al., 2020; Neece et al., 2020). There are
signs that those disruptions may be exacerbating longstanding disability-based disparities in
academic achievement (Aishworiya & Kang, 2021). LGBTQ persons face social disadvantages
and mental health disparities, which may have been exacerbated because of COVID-19 pandemic
trauma and social isolation measures (Salerno et al., 2020). During the pandemic, lesbian, gay,
bisexual, transgender, and queer (LGBTQ+) students in elementary and secondary schools have
faced particularly heightened risks for anxiety and stress and have lost regular access to affirming
student organizations and supportive peers, teachers, and school staff (Salerno et al., 2020). These
students also are at an increased risk of isolation and abuse from unsupportive or actively hostile
family members (Fish et al., 2020).
Labor Relations
Impact on Teachers
The unplanned and unprecedented disruption to education changed the work of teachers
suddenly, and in key aspects (Darling-Hamond & Hyler, 2020; Kaden, 2020). The COVID-19
pandemic forced widespread K–12 school closures in the spring of 2020 to protect the well-being
of society. School districts in the United States reacted to the pandemic based on location,
infrastructure, financial resources, socioeconomics, and community needs (Brook et al., 2020;
Reich et al., 2020). Educators across the country and around the world struggled to shift their
practice from in-person to remote teaching within a matter of days (Whalen, 2020; Gross &
Opalka, 2020). The global pandemic exposed a significant gap in teacher preparation and training
for emergency remote teaching, including teaching with technology to ensure continuity of
learning for students at a distance (Whalen, 2020). School closures not only upended life for
42
children and families, they left educators forced to determine quickly how to remotely educate
students in an equitable manner (Bohl, 2020; Collins, 2020; Robles, 2020; Schwartz, 2020b).
With little advanced notice, school districts informed families that their children would be
home for multiple weeks or, in some cases, through the end of the academic year (Hoffman &
Miller, 2020). By April 17, 2020, 43 states; Washington, DC; and the U.S. territories (American
Samoa, Guam, Northern Marianas, Puerto Rico, and U.S. Virgin Islands) ordered school closures.
Closures were recommended but not required in the remaining seven states (Education Week,
2020). In California, mandatory quarantines effectively made the state’s recommended school
closure compulsory as well (Hoffman & Miller, 2020). By March 20, 2020, all school buildings in
California and institutions shut down (Education Week, 2021). School buildings closed, and
schooling migrated to an online environment. This change in thinking caused ripple effects and
public education may have changed in ways that are yet to be determined (Van Lancker & Parolin,
2020). Teachers needed to find ways to connect to students and transition to unfamiliar modes of
teaching fast. Whether we call it distance, online, or virtual learning, teachers were challenged to
provide meaningful educational experiences to all their students (Merrill, 2020). Those types of
learning and instruction are not new, but they were new to teachers and the roles of the teacher
changed during the crisis. In the wake of COVID-19, "teaching as usual" will be neither possible
nor sufficient to meet students' needs because schools have experienced disruptions to each aspect
of the instructional core: teachers, students, and content (Myung et al., 2020).
The advent of COVID-19 magnified the already proven importance of teachers’
professional development for technology integration (Ferdig et al., 2020; Killion, 2020). To
address a wide array of professional needs and challenges, districts utilized a plethora of resources
(Ferdig et al., 2020; Killion, 2020). Large curriculum publishers and a flood of online learning
43
resources like Zoom and Google offered tutorials and tools that flex as needs change and enable
continuous connection and collaboration (Google, n.d.; Schwartz, 2020b). Additionally, networks
and TV stations such as PBS launched learning to support students and teachers with “at home
learning” partnerships (Grosbeck, 2021). Teachers reported feeling overwhelmed with sifting
through the outpouring of lessons, videos, simulations, and activities (Schwartz, 2020b).
For training specific to COVID-19 preparation and protocols, school leaders and teachers
turned to federal, state, and local agencies for guidelines. At the federal, the CDC became the
primary source for classroom layout, contact tracing, hygiene, and cleaning (CDC, 2020a). At the
state level, the California Department of Education provided resources for all California schools
in the areas of funding, testing, personal protective equipment (PPE), safety guidance, and vaccines
(CDE, 2020). At the local level, county health agencies provided guidance on school reopening
protocols.
In emergency settings, students may experience trauma (Burde et al., 2017). Students can
lack typical services provided by schools (e.g., meals, IEP providers), and even electrical power,
access to technology, or reliable Internet (Craig Rush et al., 2016). These factors can significantly
impact an educators’ ability to support learners with technology. Confined to working from home
with existing lesson plans no longer adequate, challenged to quickly learn modern technologies,
and removed from students themselves, teachers experienced the single most traumatic and
transformative event of the modern era (Baired, 2020). K–12 students had to develop new learning
skills and often struggled at home with social isolation and loneliness (Brooks et al., 2020). School
principals and district leadership moved to online meetings and had to find ways to connect
students to the internet, supply computers, and expand foodservice (Kaden, 2020).
44
Time allocation and workload for teachers changed drastically in the first 9-week online
learning period and described as above average compared to a regular workload (Kaden, 2020).
To support the campus collective in pivoting to remote learning, academic leaders relied upon a
new toolbox of intellectual stimulation, idealized influence, and inspiration while providing
essential training, support and resources to faculty suddenly immersed in online teaching
(Fernandez & Shaw, 2020a). Facing unknown challenges of supporting students remotely and
continuing to provide the necessary resources for student learning and well-being principals
responded with advocacy and compassion to support teachers and staff (Anderson et al., 2020).
The COVID-19 outbreak also exposed a significant variation in educators’ readiness to use
technology to support learners at a distance (Hodges et al., 2020; Whalen, 2020). While teachers
who used technology frequently in their practice, including for blended learning, reported an easier
transition to emergency remote training for themselves and their students, most educators were
simultaneously learning new remote teaching strategies while teaching online (Whalen, 2020).
Additionally, for providers of in-service teacher training and support, there was a flux of new
responsibilities and overwhelming recommendations (Zweig & Stafford, 2020). Creating
unstructured professional development (e.g., mentoring or online forums) and socially connected,
learner-centered activities that allowed educators to develop knowledge and skills to help them
teach with technology in any format or situation, including online, remote, or blended settings
were some of the new tasks (Zweig & Stafford, 2020, p.). While the pandemic’s impact on teachers
is still unknown, exploring the difference between emergency remote learning, blended teaching,
and online teaching may help teacher educators identify professional learning topics that can
improve teachers’ feelings of preparedness for teaching moving forward (Whalen, 2020).
45
Not only did COVID-19 impact the nature of teaching and pedagogical skills, but the
pandemic also exacerbated an existing teacher shortage problem (Darling-Hammond & Hyler,
2020). In the United States, education spending still has not recovered from the Great Recession
when layoff and salary cuts shrank the number of teachers, discouraged aspiring educators from
entering the classroom, and reduced preparation program enrollment and capacity (Leachman,
2019). By summer of 2020, one in five U.S. teachers reported they were unlikely to return if
schools open physically in the near term (Page, 2020). As a result, states faced the prospect of a
new wave of resignations and retirements, which, combined with potential staff cuts to meet
budget shortfalls, and piled on top of pre-existing workforce challenges, created the
counterintuitive outcome of simultaneous shortages and layoffs in the educator workforce (Bailey
& Schurz 2020; Darling-Hammond & Hyler, 2020; Kini 2020; Will, 2020a).
Impact on Classified Members and Labor Relations
By April of 2020, over 21 states and three U.S. territories were ordering that their schools
stay closed for the duration of the 2019-20 school year, and with most students learning from home
for at least the near term, the pandemic sidelined millions of workers — from building custodians
to classroom aides to school psychologists — who normally attended to a vast range of school
needs (Straus, 2020). State Superintendent Tony Thurmand understood that labor and management
groups needed to work together during this unprecedented time and presented a framework and
executive order for collaboration (CDOE, 2020a). All pay and benefits for K-12 school employees
continued through the 2019-2020 budget year as all K-12 schools, county offices of education, and
colleges received full-year funding (Fensterwald, 2020). Requirements to support average daily
attendance (ADA) and instructional days were waived to ease this mandate for K-12 schools. This
included temporary, hourly, exempt, and non-exempt, as well as probationary employees as LEAs
46
determined they would otherwise pay during this period of closure (Fensterwald, 2020). By April
2020, half of all school employees who were certificated and classified had jobs that were
endangered (Mahnken, 2020). Fifty-one percent of school personnel are non-teaching employees
(NCES, 2018). Non-teaching school staff are often described as the “hidden half” and even though
their roles are non-instructional and behind the scenes, they provide essential services (Loeb,
2016). Cafeteria workers feed students, guidance counselors work with students to help them plan
their future, and teacher aides provide one-on-one services in the classroom to students who require
it (Loeb, 2016).
Teachers and principals are disproportionately vulnerable to COVID-19—presenting a
challenge for school districts (Will, 2020). Current guidance suggests that individuals with higher-
risk profiles should remain at home (Bailey & Schurz, 2020). This poses a significant dilemma for
education, as early estimates suggest that at least 18%of all teachers fall within an age range
considered to be vulnerable (Bailey & Schurz, 2020). Given the full range of school personnel,
including paraprofessionals, bus drivers, custodians, administrative staff, cafeteria staff, and
counselors, the numbers are likely to be higher (Bailey & Schurz, 2020).
When the pandemic first swept through California in March 2020, Governor Newsom acted
quickly to loosen restrictions on schools and districts, allowing them to pivot to different modes
of learning without fear that they would lose funding or be held accountable for things over which
they had no control (Fensterwald, 2020). Then, the state limited its role during the spring to issuing
guidance and support. The California Department of Education convened task forces and issued
guidance in June 2020 to inform local decisions on school reopening (CDE 2020a, 2020a). In
presenting the document, CDE officials emphasized that the guidance is just that—guidance—and
that each district will make its own plans and decisions (CDE 2020b; Reich et al., 2020).
47
Superintendents were “doing everything they possibly could” to keep support staff on the
payroll, some forced to temporarily cut positions (Mahnken, 2020). Without added financial
assistance, school staff were facing agonizing decisions, often caught between dueling impulses
to either keep working or fill a caretaker role at home (Mahnken, 2020). The only safeguard for
furloughed or dismissed certificated employees was unemployment. School districts were giving
certificated employees a choice to either accept a furlough or to collect unemployment and be
home with families to continue to work (Mahnken, 2020). Additionally, there was some hesitation
amongst teachers and staff about a safe return. One-in-five teachers said they were unlikely to go
back to school if they reopened in the fall of 2020 and six-in-ten parents said they would continue
at-home education (Page, 2020). Furthermore, groups representing teachers have pushed to reopen
public schools virtually in the fall of 2020 because of concerns about the health risks associated
with reopening in person. Stronger teachers’ unions may more successfully influence public school
districts to reopen without in-person instruction (DeAngelis & Makridis, 2021).
In response to the COVID-19 crisis, school districts worked quickly to roll out distance
learning plans in Spring 2020. Sometimes these plans impinged upon or were directly in conflict
with provisions found in collective bargaining agreements (CBAs) negotiated between teachers’
unions and district administration (Hemphill & Marriano, 2021). Urban school systems changed
CBAs to make way for learning under COVID-19 conditions. COVID-19–related contract changes
in many urban school districts returned to the bargaining table with teachers’ unions to negotiate
short-term fixes to CBAs that allowed for more flexibility to implement distance learning which
included compensation, workload, non- teaching duties, evaluation, leave, and technology
(Hemphill & Marriano, 2021).
48
Teachers’ unions are among the most powerful of these interested parties, routinely ranked
by state legislators as one of the most powerful lobbying groups that they must deal with (Thomas
& Hrebenar, 2004). Even as union strength has waned across the country in recent decades, states
with strong teachers’ unions are still able to exert their power when it comes to critical issues like
state education spending (Swain & Redding 2019). Additional power may be exerted through
campaign contributions on issues such as public-school choice, evaluation methods, and teacher
salary (Hartney & Flavin, 2011). Teachers’ unions have been loud opponents of reopening schools
(Flanders, 2020). The National Education Association (NEA), the largest teacher’s union in the
country, has made the case that state and local reopening plans are insufficient, and that additional
guidance and work is needed for safe reopening to occur (Flanders, 2020). If unions continue to
hold sway, reopening in areas of union strength might be slower because union power is more
predictive of reopening decisions than the status of the pandemic (DeAngelis & Makridis, 2020).
Adapting learning amid the COVID-19 crisis continues to redefine teachers’ everyday
responsibilities and teaching practices required leadership (Whalen, 2020). As school district
leadership, administrators, teachers, and their labor representatives navigate the reality of COVID-
19 schooling, questions regarding the impact of labor agreements on the ability to flexibly address
student needs have arisen (Gerber 2020; Goldstein & Shapiro, 2020). Districts and unions had to
work together to set teacher expectations under changing circumstances (Hemphill & Marriano,
2020). By proactively planning for multiple scenarios with labor partners involved in
conversations from the beginning, researchers suggested that school districts could 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 (Hemphill & Marriano, 2020). Given how fluid COVID-
49
19 is at this time, school leaders will continue to carefully navigate teacher working conditions, an
uncertain fiscal future, and student learning needs (Hemphill & Marriano, 2020).
The number and content of MOUs signed at this time is unknown as well as the number of
urban districts formally returned to the bargaining table with their labor partners to negotiate
COVID-19-related changes to contracts (Hemphill & Marriano, 2021). Although there is limited
research on the effects and contents of CBAs, it highly likely that the COVID-19 crisis and the
additional budget cuts to follow in its wake may be the type of precipitating event that can cause
substantial changes to the content of CBAs (Hemphill & Marriano, 2021). These changes may
occur during a normal negotiation cycle, but, more likely, given the need for a rapid response, will
occur by negotiating an MOU to temporarily alter contract language (Bailey & Schurz, 2020).
There are wide-ranging implications for our education system, given that it may not be safe for
teachers to return to a classroom without a vaccine and union presence does play a role in the
policymaking process when it comes to COVID-19 (Bailey & Schurz, 2020; Flanders, 2020).
Leaders need to assess risks now to make necessary preparations for a reopening and the health
and safety of their personnel must take paramount concern, requiring creative solutions that still
leverage these teachers’ expertise and experience while addressing the pipeline challenges (Bailey
& Schurz, 2020).
Nutrition Service, Food Insecurity, and Wellness
Another area requiring indelible leadership were states and school districts implementing
emergency meal and nutritional services. In 2019, the National School Lunch Program and School
Breakfast Program served 15 million breakfasts and 30 million lunches daily at low or no cost to
students (Kinsey et al., 2020a). Access to these meals was disrupted because of long-term school
closures related to the COVID-19 pandemic, potentially decreasing both student nutrient intake
50
and household food security. By the week of March 23, 2020, all states had mandated statewide
school closures because of the pandemic, and the number of weekly missed breakfasts and lunches
served at school reached a peak of 169.6 million (Kinsey et al., 2020). As COVID-19 disrupted
regular access to food aid resources and creates growing economic uncertainty, low-income
families are being disproportionately burdened (CDC, 2020b). Long-term school closures mean
that millions of students no longer have access to the free or reduced-price meals they rely on to
meet their nutritional needs (McLoughlin et al., 2020a).
Prior to the COVID-19 pandemic, an estimated 14% of families with children (13 million
children) were food insecure, meaning they had limited or uncertain access to enough food for a
healthy and active lifestyle (Kinsey, 2020). With schools closed and families out of work, food
insecurity rates were expected to skyrocket having significant impacts on children’s health,
including poorer behavioral, emotional, and nutritional outcomes (Kinsey, 2020). Among children,
food insecurity has been linked to increased risk of obesity (Metallinos-Katsaras et al., 2012). Food
insecurity can further have long-term consequences for chronic disease morbidity (Rundle et al.,
2020; Simmonds et al., 2015).
For students living in poverty, schools are not only a place for learning but also for eating
healthily (Van Lancker & Parolin, 2020). Research shows that school lunch is associated with
improvements in academic performance, whereas food insecurity (including irregular or unhealthy
diets) is associated with low educational attainment and substantial risks to the physical health and
mental wellbeing of children (Bitler & Seifoddini, 2019; Schwartz & Rothbard, 2020; Van Lancker
& Parolin, 2020).
The number of children facing food insecurity is substantial and cause for
concern (Van Lancker & Parolin, 2020). The COVID-19 pandemic complicated how families
facing food insecurity nourished themselves (Kinsey, 2020). In response to the rapid increase in
51
food insecurity across the country, Congress’ Families First Coronavirus Act (FFCA) made several
provisions to expand federal nutrition assistance programs (Kinsey et al., 2020).
Amidst the COVID-19 federal guidelines for the safe delivery of feeding programs, the
outbreak fell short as school districts did not have experience with summer feeding programs
(Kinsey et al., 2020). States could increase Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP)
allotments up to the maximum benefit amount as an emergency measure which was already at 2.5
million households with children receiving the maximum benefit and states are not allowed to
increase benefit levels beyond that maximum (Kinsey et al., 2020). In response, federal guidance
to raise the SNAP benefit ceiling, as was done during the Great Recession under the American
Reinvestment and Recovery Act, is critical for ensuring adequate nutrition and long-term health
outcomes for millions of low-income children (Kinsey et al., 2020).
The complex and strategic food shopping patterns financially insecure families employ
were upended by the COVID-19 crisis (Cannuscio et al., 2013). Before the pandemic, low-income
households visited multiple food stores in search of the most affordable products, often traveling
long distances to acquire food and, for urban households reliant on public transit or rideshare
services, these strategic food shopping techniques were now much riskier during the pandemic
(Cannuscio et al., 2013).
Prior to this current crisis, food-insecure households reported techniques for making ends
meet, including seeking resources from the charitable food sector (e.g., food pantries, soup
kitchens) and relying on social networks for support. (Kinsey et al., 2019). Proper adherence to
social distancing makes sharing meals with neighbors or family difficult, and congregating meals
at senior centers and soup kitchens are all but impossible, particularly without clear guidance from
health officials about how to serve meals safely (Kinsey et al., 2019).
52
Delivering and securing meal services for children during the pandemic was notable
component of schools (Kinsey et al., 2020; McLoughlin et al., 2020). School administrators had
to recalibrate the school programs because school meals are a vital component of the U.S. social
safety net (Kinsey et al., 2020; McLoughlin et al., 2020). Districts developed meal sites, dropped
off meal systems, and expanded meal services to allow families and guardians to pick up meals
and transport food safely (McLoughlin et al., 2020). Some district leaders also provided
multilingual information and resources to reduce deterrents to permit diverse households to
participate in school meal programming (McLoughlin et al., 2020). School leaders shifted their
attention to the well-being of their communities (Longmuir, 2021). Principals even assumed the
role of caregiver or caretaker at this time (Anderson et al., 2020). Districts took steps to increase
access to healthy option by providing at least one meal per day for students, displaying food safety
information, and advertising that children could eat for free regardless of district enrollment
(McLoughlin et al., 2020). However, during school closures not all districts published menus, or
made nutritional quality of foods clear which impacted food security and the degree to which these
strategies provided equitable meal access (McLoughlin et al., 2020).
The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) National School Lunch Program (NSLP) is
the largest antihunger program in the nation other than the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance
Program (U.S. Department of Agriculture Economic Research Service, 2020). In 2019, the NSLP
and the School Breakfast Program (SBP) served 15 million breakfasts and 30 million lunches daily
at low or no cost to students. More than three quarters of all students taking part in school meal
programs qualify for free or reduced-price meals because they live in a household with an income
below 185% of the federal poverty level (U.S. Department of Agriculture Food and Nutrition
Service, 1969-2019).
53
Loss of access to school meals puts millions of households at increased risk of food
insecurity, a household-level economic and social condition wherein, at times, one or more
household members are unable to acquire adequate food because of insufficient money or other
resources (Coleman-Jensen et al., 2014). In 2018, one in seven children (about 11 million) lived
in a food-insecure household, with higher rates in Black and Hispanic households (Morales et al.,
2020). Food insecurity rates are rising as millions of people in the United States experience job
losses related to COVID-19. Recent estimates show that 33% of households with children,
including 40% of Black and Hispanic households, were food insecure in April 2020
(Schanzenbach & Pitts, 2020). Among food-insecure households, Black households were more
likely to report that they could not afford to buy more food; Asian and Hispanic households were
more likely to be afraid to go out to buy food; Asian households were more likely to face
transportation issues when purchasing food; and White households were more likely to report that
stores did not have the food they wanted (Morales et al., 2020).
The COVID-19 crisis has exposed and exacerbated the food injustice in American society
(Morales et al., 2020). Food insecurity is linked to adverse health and social outcomes (Morales et
al., 2020). People from food-insecure households report poorer physical health, symptoms of
anxiety or depression, lower self-esteem, and poorer overall mental health status (Bruening et al.,
2012; Franklin et al., 2012; Leung et al., 2015; Stuff et al., 2004). Particularly, children who live
in food-insecure homes are more likely to have emotional distress, decreased quality of life, and
worse academic performance (Cook et al., 2004; Grineski et al., 2018; Morales et al., 2020).
Federal school meal programs reduce household food insecurity (Ralston et al., 2017).
Among households with at least one child receiving free or reduced-price meals, NSLP
participation is associated with a 14% reduction in food insufficiency (an alternate measure of food
54
hardship closest to the most severe form of food insecurity) (Huang & Barnidge, 2016). Access to
the School Breakfast Program reduces the risk of marginal food insecurity and the likelihood of
skipping breakfast, especially among low-income children (Huang & Barnidge, 2016). A rise in
food insecurity during the summer months, particularly among NSLP participants, further suggests
that school meals reduce food insecurity (Huang et al., 2015). In addition, school meals provide
critical economic support to low-income families as the NSLP lifts 1.3 million people out of
poverty (Gundersen et al., 2012)
School meals significantly contribute to students’ daily dietary intake and are more
nutritious than meals from other sources, including home-packed meals (Cullen & Chen, 2016).
This is especially true for children in low-income households who rely on school meals as a
substantial source of nutrition. The Healthy, Hunger-Free Kids Act, passed by Congress in 2010,
increased access to nutritious meals and had a positive impact on diet quality by updating school
meal nutrition standards (Mansfield & Savaino, 2017). Its effects are especially pronounced among
low-income students who receive free and reduced-price lunches (Mansfield & Savaino, 2017).
Prior to COVID-19, concerns about school meal access during school closures (e.g.,
hurricanes, snowstorms, civil unrest, summer break) was mounting (Kinsey et al., 2019). In an
earlier policy brief, the impact of school closures resulting from short-term emergencies on the
number of “missed meals” (meals that would have been served if schools were open) among
children in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania showed that even 3 days of school closures could result in
more than 400, 000 missed meals among school-aged children (Kinsey et al., 2019). Within weeks
of school closures due to COVID-19, there were concerns that missed meals may have a significant
impact on children’s health, nutrition, and food security. Such consequences are likely to be
magnified among low-income, Black, and Hispanic children who are already at greater risk for
55
poor physical and mental health and worse academic performance than their higher-income and
White counterparts (Garcia & Weiss, 2020). Black and Hispanic students are also more likely to
be eligible for free or reduced-price meals and more likely to take part in school meals than their
White and Asian peers (Gleason., 1995). However, the fact that rates of COVID-19–related
morbidity and mortality are disproportionately high among Black and Hispanic populations may
limit their ability to access emergency meal sites (Hooper et al., 2020). District leaders’ immediate
priority was to feed children (Starr, 2020). Leaders faced tough decisions which included
preparing, delivering, and providing meal services to children during the midst of the pandemic as
well as recalibrating the number of cafeteria workers, staff members, who would aid in the
preparation and coordination of pick-ups for meals, and increased cost of preparation (McLoughlin
et al., 2020).
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 a reliance on flexibility, adaptation, and local decision-making,
for better and for worse. 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 to outweigh the long-term risks of deepening social,
economic, and health inequities for children is unclear. Conflicting studies suggest 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
56
current situation and other planned and unplanned reasons that can help us 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 may
be measurable. Even so, understanding how school districts altered operations at the onset of the
pandemic and 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 school can
be reopened. As the pandemic continues to unfold, school districts are learning to better understand
how to construct, operate, and gather in schools in a way that is safe and minimizes the risks to
children and their families. The previous Literature Review does not fully capture the multi-faceted
impact of the COVID-19 on California school districts nor the extent of crisis management in other
key areas of schooling such as finance, budget allocations, meeting state health requirements, and
addressing instructional accountability.
57
Chapter Three: Methodology
The COVID-19 pandemic had an enormous impact on every aspect of society on a global
scale, and the education system was not exempt from being forced to make a complete overhaul
of the processes and procedures in which they operate. Schools, school districts, school site staff,
students, and community members needed to adapt to the constantly changing guidelines coming
from federal, state, and local agencies to continue the business of teaching and learning.
Throughout this period, inequities that affected marginalized populations were amplified and
systems were interrogated as to their relevance and effectiveness. This forced many changes to
be made in the field of education, and educational leaders were faced with unprecedented
responsibilities in decision-making and implementation that impacted schools and communities.
The purpose of this study was to examine the various leadership challenges and dynamics
of directing K-12 schools in a global pandemic. In Chapter Two, literature was reviewed on the
history of pandemics affecting schools, leadership in crisis situations, closure of schools, the
preparation and training of schools facing the pandemic, the effects on children in schools, the
impact on various marginalized groups during the pandemic, equitable grading challenges, the
impact of local and state agencies on schools, reopening plans for schools, the impact of
teachers’ unions, and post-quarantine response.
This chapter describes the study’s research questions, research design methods, sample
and population, access and entry, instrumentation, data collection, data analysis, and ethical
considerations.
Research Questions
In a qualitative study, research questions are the guiding force that drives the work into
discovering the information we are seeking to obtain through a study. The research questions are
58
critical components to focusing the work and guiding the stages of inquiry, data analysis,
synthesizing, and reporting (Robinson & Leonard, 2019).
The purpose of the research questions used in this study were to gather information
related to school district finances, adherence to requirements dictated by outside agencies, the
effects of union negotiations, and addressing how the needs of parents and community members
affected decision-making processes. This study was guided by the following research questions:
1. What, if any, financial implications did the COVID-19 pandemic have 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 district 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?
59
Research Design and Methods
This qualitative study utilized both surveys and interviews of district superintendents,
assistant superintendents, and site principals. Instrumentation included both surveys and
interviews to explore how superintendents, assistant superintendents, and principals prepared and
provided leadership during the COVID-19 pandemic crisis, including factors such as financial
responsibilities, communication, personnel dealings, and social/emotional implications.
Using qualitative methods such as surveys and interviews allows researchers to
understand how people interpret experiences, understand participants' perspectives, and evaluate
human behavior through a particular situation (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). A qualitative methods
approach was appropriate for the purpose of this study due to the varying experiences of school
leaders throughout the COVID-19 pandemic. By utilizing surveys and interviews, the research
team was able to collect information related to the specific experiences of school leaders at
varying levels and allowed for the analysis of any similarities and differences between the
experiences of the participants.
Research Team
The research team for this study consists of 22 doctoral students from the University of
California’s (USC) Rossier School of Education, with Dr. Rudy Castruita as the lead researcher
and supervisor of the study. The research team met on a weekly basis to collaborate, receive
guidance, instruction, and feedback. Together the team established research questions, survey,
and interview questions, and helped to formulate the conceptual framework used to shape the
study. Because of this approach, there are similarities among dissertations.
60
Sample and Population
The population for the study was leaders of Southern California K–12 public school
districts: superintendents, assistant superintendents, and principals. Convenience sampling and
purposeful sampling will be utilized in selecting the participants. Convenience sampling happens
when the researcher selects individuals based on their proximity and accessibility rather than for
specific criteria. Purposeful sampling occurs when the participants are selected based on specific
criteria (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). This study included purposeful selection to ensure that all
participants worked in public Southern California K–12, K–8, elementary, and high school
districts in the roles of superintendent, assistant superintendent, or principal. The selection
criteria included the following: (a) traditional California public K–12, K-8, elementary, and high
school district superintendent, assistant superintendent, or principal; in the current role for at
least a year; (d) having served in these positions during the 2020–2021 school year; and (e) with
a district-wide population of at least 1,000.
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 1,000. All 27
school and district leaders who were selected for meeting the criteria agreed to respond to the
survey and participated in the interview. To protect the identities of the school and district
leaders involved and ensure anonymity, school districts and participants were assigned
pseudonyms.
61
Access and Entry
Prior to conducting the research for this study, the research team received approval from
the USC Internal Review Board IRB approval is a required component in order to ensure not
only the informed consent of the research participants, but also to ensure that participants have
the knowledge necessary to understand the nature of the research, are aware of any potential
risks involved, understand that there is no forced participation, and that they are able to withdraw
their participation in the study at any time (Glesne, 2016; Rubin & Rubin, 2011).
To gain access to the participants for this study, the researchers first sought out potential
participants by targeting former USC graduates who are in the positions of superintendent,
assistant superintendent, and school site principal. While it was not a requirement to be a USC
graduate, the researchers felt that their best chance of success would be to reach out to people
who have been in the research position themselves and would be willing to give back to the USC
community.
After targeting potential participants, the researchers invited them to participate in the
study using the informed consent process. Participants granted permission to use an audio
recording device to facilitate the capturing of data (Bogdan & Biklen, 2007).
Instrumentation
The research team for this study developed the instrumentation tools collaboratively. The
construction of the data-collecting instruments and formation of the research questions used
concepts from the conceptual framework. The surveys and interview protocols were designed to
reflect the research questions. Using both surveys and interviews provided a clear and direct
connection to the responses to the research questions and best understand the challenges of
leading schools and school districts through a global pandemic.
62
Data Collection
Each participant was given a survey as well as participated in an interview. Survey
responses consisted of a 5-point Likert scale. Researched collected and used QualtricsTM.
Interviews were conducted 1:1 between the researcher and the participant.
Researchers coordinated interview times with the participants at a time that was deemed
most convenient according to their schedules. Prior to their interview time, an informed consent
form was signed notifying the participant of the potential risks as well as the option to opt-out at
any time, and permission was granted to use an audio recording device for the researcher’s
coding purposes.
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, the researcher followed the standard interview protocol utilizing the
questions predetermined by the research team. Once the interview was completed, the researcher
coded the data using the audio recording.
Each interview lasted approximately 45 minutes order to maximize the time spent with
the participant while still respecting their valuable time. The researcher 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). Using these
approaches to data collection and analysis were deemed most appropriate by the research team
and effectively answer the research questions for this study.
63
Credibility and Trustworthiness
The credibility and trustworthiness of a study lies in the responsibility of the research
team as they design the survey and interview instrumentation. An important consideration is
recognizing the bias that the researchers each come in with and could potentially skew any data
or the interpretation of results (Miles et al., 2014). To maintain credibility and trustworthiness,
the research team conducted cognitive interviews. “Survey researchers can use cognitive
interview strategies such as think-aloud interviewing and probing to expose respondents’ thought
processes to support survey revision” (Robinson & Leonard, 2018, p. 173). These cognitive
interviews served the purpose of ensuring clear communication and that questions were unlikely
to be misinterpreted.
Ethical Considerations
Researchers must pay close attention to ethical considerations, as dilemmas concerning
ethics are common during the data collection and analysis of a qualitative study; furthermore, the
researcher’s credibility and ethics can affect the validity and reliability of the study (Merriam &
Tisdell, 2015).
Each member of the research team completed all six modules of the Collaborative
Institutional Training Initiative (CITI) through USC’s IRB process. The focus of these modules
was to ensure complete understanding of the implications of ethics throughout a research study.
Once successfully completed, the research team drafted a proposal that was submitted to the IRB
for approval before the data collection period.
The interview process included an informed consent form which gave transparency to the
participants that their participation was voluntary, and they were free to dissociate themselves
from the study at any time. Participants were also informed that all data would be kept secure
64
and remain anonymous. Any questions that caused uncertainty, apprehension, or discomfort
could remain optional. The researchers aimed to ensure the study does not cause any kind of
harm or hardship to the participants and made every effort to maintain the integrity of the study.
Summary
The purpose of this chapter was to elaborate on the process that the researchers used to
address the research questions and guide the study. The goal of this study is to understand the
myriad of challenges faced by school leaders during the COVID-19 pandemic through a
qualitative methods approach. Throughout the data collection, analysis, and presentation of
findings, ethical considerations were utilized.
Researchers should use triangulation to examine consistencies among collected data
(Maxwell, 2012). Qualitative interview findings were triangulated with the data collected from
the surveys as well as the literature review and included the perspectives of superintendents,
assistant superintendents, and school site principals from K-12 public school districts in
California. Data was analyzed using the theoretical framework and tailored to answer the
research questions. These findings are discussed in chapter four.
65
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 1,000.
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
66
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 indicated Strongly Disagree, 2 indicated Disagree, 3 indicated
Neither Agree Nor Disagree, 4 indicated Agree, and 5 indicated 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.
Chapter Four presents 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?
67
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 1,000. All 27
school and district leaders who were selected for meeting the criteria agreed to respond to the
survey and participated in the interview. To protect the identities of the school and district
leaders involved and ensure anonymity, school districts and participants were assigned
pseudonyms.
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
68
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 ELs (1.4%) in District E and the largest percentage of ELs (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).
69
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 displayed 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 can be seen 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.
70
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
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
71
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
72
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
73
Results for Research Question 1
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 COVID-19 pandemic. The relief package included $30.75 billion in emergency education
funding. Various other funds, such as the Elementary and Secondary School Emergency Relief
74
Fund (ESSER I Fund) and the Governor's Emergency Education Relief Fund (GEER I Fund),
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.
Additionally, 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 below. 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 low, reflecting those 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 professional
75
learning or training. Although superintendent participants had higher agreement scores on
average than principles, all participants tended to feel neutral (neither agree nor disagree) that
CARES funding met district needs in professional learning and/or training.
76
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 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.
3.0 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.
There were four interview questions that directly addressed Research Question One:
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?
77
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.
1. 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 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.
2. 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
emergency funds, dips in average daily attendance, and reimbursement uncertainty created
chaos.
3. 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
78
meeting spending deadlines and accountability measures was a burden. A common theme
among district leaders was the overall desire for effective use of funds.
4. 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.
5. 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 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 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 Wi-Fi 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 quite
different from one district to the next.
In District A, the superintendent noted how every area of schooling was financially
impacted:
79
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
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
80
school. So really swamping our schools in our system with all 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
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
81
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
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:
82
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.
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
83
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,
many 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-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.
84
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
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
85
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 10%,
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.
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 5% their usual. We usually have about 97%
attendance and we have about 92%. 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 also noted confusion with spending and fund accounting.
86
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
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 concerns about the declining enrollment and overall “voids”
and fears schools will be “left holding the bag” and unaccounted for:
87
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,
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
88
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”:
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 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.
89
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
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
90
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
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
91
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 80% 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 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
92
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:
I think that 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 was
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
93
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.
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”:
I think 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 that 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
94
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 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
95
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.
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
96
beginning April 1, 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 incentive funding they would receive would be reduced by 1% each day through
May 15, which was viewed as a penalty (Fensterwald, 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
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 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
97
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
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”:
98
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 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
99
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.
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
100
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.
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
101
“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
“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
102
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
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.
Discussion for Research Question 1
Compare and contrast the themes. Make sure to connect them with findings from your
literature review…
Results for Research Question 2
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
103
local partnerships (Harrington, 2021). 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.
Additionally, 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 Two 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.
104
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.
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.
105
There were three interview questions that 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?
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 Two:
1. 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.
106
2. 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
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 having 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. 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
107
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
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
108
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
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 OSHA wasn’t aligned with anything else other than what OSHA wanted and
they were typically stricter 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
109
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.
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 (Hemphill & Marianno, 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
110
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”
(Office of Governor Gavin Newsom, 2020). 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 maintaining transparency and communication with
teachers’ union leaders (Hemphill & Marianno, 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.”
111
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.
There were four interview questions that 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?
2. What were the most important issues negotiated with your classified union, and how were
they resolved?
112
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 (Hemphill & Marianno, 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.
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:
113
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.
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
114
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
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
115
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 1,000 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 90% of 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 Four 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 7, superintendents,
116
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.
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.
117
There were two interview questions that 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?
The first question was designed to provide the researchers with an opportunity to gain
experience 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
118
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.
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
119
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.
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
120
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.
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 choice on how students would return to the
classroom:
121
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
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 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
122
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
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.
123
The findings also 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
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. 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.
124
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,
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
125
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
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
126
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,
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. 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.
127
Chapter Five: Discussion
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
128
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.
129
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
130
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
131
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
132
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 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 by members of
133
the classified staff (Hemphill & Marianno, 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.
Findings for Research Question 4
134
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,
leaders, schools, and districts. Most importantly, it examined how district and school leaders
135
have influenced administrative practices, student achievement, fiscal 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 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.
Implication 1: Bolman and Deal’s Four Frames
136
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 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
137
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
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.
138
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). Considering 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
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,
139
leaders should continue to foster better dialogue and ensure ongoing and clear communication
among all stakeholders to enable a coherent system of continuous improvement.
Future Research
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
al., 2021). The severe short-term schooling disruption was felt by many families around the
140
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 scale and
this scope for this long (Gainey, 2009). Even larger crises that often force school closures, such
141
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 may 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.
Conclusions
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.”
142
References
Aishworiya, R., & Kang, Y. Q. (2021). Including children with developmental disabilities in the
equation during this COVID-19 pandemic. Journal of Autism and Developmental
Disorders, 51(6), 2155-2158. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10803-020-04670-6
Alexander, K. L., Entwisle, D. R., & Olson, L. S. (2007). Lasting consequences of the summer
learning gap. American Sociological Review, 72(2), 167-180.
https://doi.org/10.1177%2F000312240707200202
American Psychological Association. (2012). Ethnic and racial disparities in education:
Psychology’s contributions to understanding and reducing disparities. Presidential Task
Force on Educational Disparities. https://www.apa.org/ed/resources/racial-disparities.pdf
Anderson, E., Hayes, S., & Carpenter, B. (2020). Principal as caregiver of all: responding to
needs of others and self. Consortium for Policy Research in Education.
https://repository.upenn.edu/cpre_policybriefs/92/
Armitage, R., & Nellums, L. B. (2020). Considering inequalities in the school closure response
to COVID-19. The Lancet Global Health, 8(5), e644. https://doi.org/10.1016/S2214-
109X(20)30116-9
Artiga, S., Garfield, R., & Orgera, K. (2020). Communities of color at higher risk for health and
economic challenges due to COVID-19. Kaiser Family Foundation.
https://www.kff.org/coronavirus-covid-19/issue-brief/communities-of-color-at-higher-
risk-for-health-and-economic-challenges-due-to-covid-19/
Asbury, K., Fox, L., Deniz, E., Code, A., & Toseeb, U. (2021). How is COVID-19 affecting the
mental health of children with special educational needs and disabilities and their
143
families? Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 51(5), 1772-1780.
https://dx.doi.org/10.1007%2Fs10803-020-04577-2
Au, L. E., Gurzo, K., Gosliner, W., Webb, K. L., Crawford, P. B., & Ritchie, L. D. (2018).
Eating school meals daily is associated with healthier dietary intakes: The Healthy
Communities study. Journal of the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics, 118(8), 1474-
1481. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jand.2018.01.010
Azevedo, J. P., Hasan, A., Goldemberg, D., Geven, K., & Iqbal, S. A. (2021). Simulating the
potential impacts of COVID-19 school closures on schooling and learning outcomes: A
set of global estimates. The World Bank Research Observer, 36(1), 1-40.
http://hdl.handle.net/10986/33945
Bailey, J. P., & Schurz, J. (2020). COVID-19 is creating a school personnel crisis. American
Enterprise Institute,1-11. https://education.nga.org/wp-
content/uploads/2020/06/American-Enterprise-Institute-COVID19-is-Creating-a-School-
Personnel-Crisis.pdf
Baired, K. (2020). Caring for educators is the first step in serving students. The Journal.
https://thejournal.com/articles/2020/05/19/caring-for-educators-is-the-first-step-in-
serving-students.aspx
Barber, P. H., Shapiro, C., Jacobs, M. S., Avilez, L., Brenner, K. I., Cabral, C., ... & Levis-
Fitzgerald, M. (2021). Disparities in remote learning faced by first-generation and
underrepresented minority students during COVID-19: Insights and opportunities from a
remote research experience. Journal of Microbiology & Biology Education, 22(1),
ev22i1-2457. https://doi.org/10.1128/jmbe.v22i1.2457
144
Barbisch, D., Koenig, K. L., & Shih, F. Y. (2015). Is there a case for quarantine? Perspectives
from SARS to Ebola. Disaster Medicine and Public Health Preparedness, 9(5), 547-553.
https://doi.org/10.1017/dmp.2015.38
Bayham, J., & Fenichel, E. P. (2020). Impact of school closures for COVID-19 on the US health-
care workforce and net mortality: A modelling study. The Lancet Public Health, 5(5),
e271-e278. https://doi.org/10.1016/S2468-2667(20)30082-7
Baytiyeh, H. (2018). Online learning during post-earthquake school closures. Disaster
Prevention and Management: An International Journal. http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/DPM-
07-2017-0173
Bi, Q., Wu, Y., Mei, S., Ye, C., Zou, X., Zhang, Z., … & Feng, T. (2020). Epidemiology and
transmission of COVID-19 in 391 cases and 1286 of their close contacts in Shenzhen,
China: a retrospective cohort study. The Lancet Infectious Diseases, 20(8), 911-919.
https://doi.org/10.1016/S1473-3099(20)30287-5\
Bitler, M. P., & Seifoddini, A. (2019). Health impacts of food assistance: evidence from the
United States. Annual Review of Resource Economics, 11, 261-287.
https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3468077 Bohl, R. (2020, March 14).
Opinion: school closures force many Americans to choose between their children’s
education and earning a paycheck. Marketwatch https://www.
Marketwatch.com/story/school-closures-force-many-americans-to-choose-between-their-
childrens-education-and-earning-a-paycheck-2020-03-13.
Berkman, B. E. (2008). Mitigating pandemic influenza: the ethics of implementing a school
closure policy. Journal of Public Health Management and Practice, 14(4), 372-378.
DOI:10.1097/01.PHH.0000324566.72533.0b
145
Bogdan, R. C., & Biklen, S. K. (2007). Research for education: An introduction to theories and
methods.
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.
Bolman, L. G., & Deal, T. E. (1991). Leadership and management effectiveness: A multi-frame,
multi-sector analysis. Human resource management, 30(4), 509-534.
Bolman, L. G., & Deal, T. E. (2017). Reframing organizations: Artistry, choice, and leadership.
John Wiley & Sons.
Braunack-Mayer, A., 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), 1-15. 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.
Brooks, S. K., Webster, R. K., Smith, L. E., Woodland, L., Wessely, S., Greenberg, N., & Rubin,
G. J. (2020). The psychological impact of quarantine and how to reduce it: rapid review
of the evidence. The Lancet, 395(10227), 912-920. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-
6736(20)30460-8
146
Bruening, M., MacLehose, R., Loth, K., Story, M., & Neumark-Sztainer, D. (2012). Feeding a
family in a recession: Food insecurity among Minnesota parents. American Journal of
Public Health, 102(3), 520-526. https://doi.org/10.2105/ajph.2011.300390
Burde, D., Kapit, A., Wahl, R. L., Guven, O., & Skarpeteig, M. I. (2017). Education in
emergencies: A review of theory and research. Review of Educational Research, 87(3),
619-658. https://doi.org/10.3102%2F0034654316671594
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
California Department of Education (CDE). (2020). Distance learning instruction planning
guidelines. https://www.cde.ca.gov/
California Department of Education. (2020a, April 29). State Superintendent Tony Thurmond
working with state and national leaders to study possibility of schools reopening earlier
[News release]. Cde.ca.gov/nr/ne/yr20/yr20rel27.asp.
California Department of Education. (2020b, June). Stronger together: A guidebook for the safe
reopening of California’s public schools.
Cde.ca.gov/ls/he/hn/documents/strongertogether.pdf
California Department of Health. K-12 guidance 2021-22 school year. California Department of
Public Health. (n.d.). https://www.cdph.ca.gov/Programs/CID/DCDC/Pages/COVID-
19/K-12-Guidance-2021-22-School-Year.aspx.
Cannuscio, C. C., Tappe, K., Hillier, A., Buttenheim, A., Karpyn, A., & Glanz, K. (2013). Urban
food environments and residents’ shopping behaviors. American journal of preventive
medicine, 45(5), 606-614. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.amepre.2013.06.021
147
Carroll, A. E. (2020). Is closing the schools a good idea?. New York Times.
Casey, P. H., Szeto, K. L., Robbins, J. M., Stuff, J. E., Connell, C., Gossett, J. M., & Simpson, P.
M. (2005). Child health-related quality of life and household food security. Archives of
pediatrics & adolescent medicine, 159(1), 51-56.
https://doi.org/10.1001/archpedi.159.1.51
Catalano, A. J., Torff, B., & Anderson, K. S. (2021). Transitioning to online learning during the
COVID-19 pandemic: differences in access and participation among students in
disadvantaged school districts. The International Journal of Information and Learning
Technology, 11(6), 217-223.
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC. (2020a). Interim guidance for administrators
of US institutions of higher education. https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-
ncov/downloads/guidance-administrators-college-higher-education.pdf
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. (2020b). Preparing K-12 school administrators for a
safe return to school in fall 2020. https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-
ncov/community/schools-childcare/prepare-safe-return.htmlCenters for Disease Control
and Prevention. (2020d). COVID-19 in racial and ethnic minority groups.
2020. https://www. cdc. gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/need-extra-precautions/racial-
ethnic-minorities.
Chaturvedi, K., Vishwakarma, D. K., & Singh, N. (2021). COVID-19 and its impact on
education, social life and mental health of students: A survey. Children and Youth
Services Review, 121, 105866. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.childyouth.2020.105866
Christakis, D. A. (2020). School reopening—the pandemic issue that is not getting its due. JAMA
Pediatrics, 174(10), 928-928. https://doi.org/10.1001/jamapediatrics.2020.2068
148
Cohen, J., & Kupferschmidt, K. (2020). Countries test tactics in ‘war’against COVID-19.
Science, 367(6484), 1287-1288. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.367.6484.1287
Cojocariu, V. M., Lazar, I., Nedeff, V., & Lazar, G. (2014). SWOT anlysis of e-learning
educational services from the perspective of their beneficiaries. Procedia-Social and
Behavioral Sciences, 116, 1999-2003. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2014.01.510
Coleman-Jensen, A., Gregory, C., & Singh, A. (2014). Household food security in the United
States in 2013. USDA-ERS Economic Research Report, (173).
http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2504067
Collins, C. (2020). Teaching through Coronavirus: What educators need right now. Teaching
Tolerance. https://www.learningforjustice.org/magazine/teaching-through-coronavirus-
what-educators-need-right-now
Cook, J. T., Frank, D. A., Berkowitz, C., Black, M. M., Casey, P. H., Cutts, D. B., … & Nord,
M. (2004). Food insecurity is associated with adverse health outcomes among human
infants and toddlers. The Journal of nutrition, 134(6), 1432-1438.
Cooper, H., Nye, B., Charlton, K., Lindsay, J., & Greathouse, S. (1996). The effects of summer
vacation on achievement test scores: A narrative and meta-analytic review. Review of
Educational Research, 66(3), 227-268. https://doi.org/10.3102%2F00346543066003227
Craig Rush, S., Partridge, A., & Wheeler, J. (2016). Implementing emergency online schools on
the fly as a means of responding to school closures after disaster strikes. Journal of
Educational Technology Systems, 45(2), 188-201.
https://doi.org/10.1177%2F0047239516649740
Crawley, E., Loades, M., Feder, G., Logan, S., Redwood, S., & Macleod, J. (2020). Wider
collateral damage to children in the UK because of the social distancing measures
149
designed to reduce the impact of COVID-19 in adults. BMJ Paediatrics Open, 4(1).
https://dx.doi.org/10.1136%2Fbmjpo-2020-000701
Cruz, A. T., & Zeichner, S. L. (2020). COVID-19 in children: Initial characterization of the
pediatric disease. Pediatrics, 145(6). https://doi.org/10.1542/peds.2020-0834
Cullen, K. W., & Chen, T. A. (2017). The contribution of the USDA school breakfast and lunch
program meals to student daily dietary intake. Preventive Medicine Reports, 5, 82-85.
https://dx.doi.org/10.1016%2Fj.pmedr.2016.11.016
Dalton, L., Rapa, E., & Stein, A. (2020). Protecting the psychological health of children through
effective communication about COVID-19. The Lancet Child & Adolescent Health, 4(5),
346-347. https://doi.org/10.1016/S2352-4642(20)30097-3
Darling-Hammond, L., & Hyler, M. E. (2020). Preparing educators for the time of COVID…
and beyond. European Journal of Teacher Education, 43(4), 457-465.
https://doi.org/10.1080/02619768.2020.1816961
Darling-Hammond, L., & Kini, T. (2020). A New ‘New Deal’for Education: Top 10 Policy
Moves for States in the Covid 2.0 Era. Forbes Magazine.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/lindadarlinghammond/2020/05/19/a-new-new-deal-for-
education-top-10-policy-moves-for-states-in-the-covid-20-era/?sh=5f89f6a66266
DeAngelis, C. A., & Makridis, C. (2020). Are school reopening decisions related to union
influence?. Social Science Quarterly. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/ssqu.12955
DeBiasi, R. L., Song, X., Delaney, M., Bell, M., Smith, K., Pershad, J., ... & Wessel, D. (2020).
Severe coronavirus disease-2019 in children and young adults in the Washington, DC,
metropolitan region. The Journal of pediatrics, 223, 199-203.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpeds.2020.05.007
150
Dhawan, S. (2020). Online learning: A panacea in the time of COVID-19 crisis. Journal of
Educational Technology Systems, 49(1), 5-22.
https://doi.org/10.1177%2F0047239520934018
Dibner, K. A., Schweingruber, H. A., & Christakis, D. A. (2020). Reopening K-12 schools
during the COVID-19 pandemic: A report from the National Academies of Sciences,
Engineering, and Medicine. Jama, 324(9), 833-834.
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. Data Note: Insights from the American Educator Panels. Research Report.
RR-A168-3. RAND Corporation. https://doi.org/10.7249/RRA168-3
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, 1.
Dutta, M. (2020). COVID-19 and impact of school closures on the children of the United States;
a point of view with an empirical analysis. http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3596096
Dynarski, Susan. “The school year really ended in March.” The New York Times (2020).
Education Week. (2020, December 7). Map: Coronavirus and School Closures in 2019-2020.
Education Week. https://www.edweek.org/leadership/map-coronavirus-and-school-
closures-in-2019-2020/2020/03.
Education Week. (2021, June 14). Map: Where were schools required to be open for the 2020-21
school year? Education Week. https://www.edweek.org/leadership/map-where-are-
schools-closed/2020/07
151
Engzell, P., Frey, A., & Verhagen, M. D. (2021). Learning loss due to school closures during the
COVID-19 pandemic. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 118(17).
https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2022376118
Epstein, J. L. (1995). School/family/community partnerships. Phi Delta Kappan, 76(9), 701.
Epstein, J. L. (2018). School, family, and community partnerships: Preparing educators and
improving schools. Routledge.
Ferdig, R. E., Baumgartner, E., Hartshorne, R., Kaplan-Rakowski, R., & Mouza, C. (Eds.).
(2020). Teaching, technology, and teacher education during the COVID-19 pandemic:
Stories from the field. Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education.
https://www.learntechlib.org/p/216903/
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
Flanders, W. (2020). Politics in the pandemic: The role of unions in school reopening
decisions. Wisconsin Institute for Law & Liberty. https://will-law.org/wp-
content/uploads/2020/12/reopening-brief.pdf.
Franklin, B., Jones, A., Love, D., Puckett, S., Macklin, J., & White-Means, S. (2012). Exploring
mediators of food insecurity and obesity: A review of recent literature. Journal of
Community Health, 37(1), 253-264. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10900-011-9420-4
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.
152
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
Gao, N., Lafortune, J., & Hill, L. (2020). Who is Losing Ground with Distance Learning in
California? Public Policy Institute of California.
Garcia-Huidobro, J. C., Nannemann, A., Bacon, C. K., & Thompson, K. (2017). Evolution in
educational change: A literature review of the historical core of the Journal of
Educational Change. Journal of Educational Change, 18(3), 263-293.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10833-017-9298-8
García, E., & Weiss, E. (2020). COVID-19 and Student Performance, Equity, and US Education
Policy: Lessons from Pre-Pandemic Research to Inform Relief, Recovery, and
Rebuilding. Economic Policy Institute.
Gleason, P. M. (1995). Participation in the national school lunch program and the school
breakfast program. The American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, 61(1), 213S-220S.
Grewenig, E., Lergetporer, P., Werner, K., Woessmann, L., & Zierow, L. (2020). COVID-19 and
educational inequality: how school closures affect low-and high-achieving students (No.
260). Discussion Paper. Available online at: http://hdl.handle.net/10419/227347
Grineski, S. E., Morales, D. X., Collins, T. W., & Rubio, R. (2018). Transitional dynamics of
household food insecurity impact children’s developmental outcomes. Journal of
Developmental and Behavioral Pediatrics: JDBP, 39(9), 715.
https://doi.org/10.1097/dbp.0000000000000598
153
Education Week. (2021, June 30). Map: Coronavirus and school closures in 2019-2020.
Education Week. https://www.edweek.org/leadership/map-coronavirus-and-school-
closures-in-2019-2020/2020/03
Esposito, S., & Principi, N. (2020). School closure during the coronavirus disease 2019
(COVID-19) pandemic: An effective intervention at the global level?. JAMA
pediatrics, 174(10), 921-922. https://doi.org/10.1001/jamapediatrics.2020.1892
Fensterwald, J. (2020, March 16). Gov. Newsom ASSURES school DISTRICTS they’ll be funded
During CORONAVIRUS CLOSURES. EdSource. https://edsource.org/2020/newsom-
assures-districts-theyll-be-funded-during-coronavirus-closures/625750
Ferguson, N., Laydon, D., Nedjati Gilani, G., Imai, N., Ainslie, K., Baguelin, M., … & Ghani, A.
(2020). Report 9: Impact of non-pharmaceutical interventions (NPIs) to reduce
COVID19 mortality and healthcare demand. Imperial College COVID-19 Response
Team. http://dx.doi.org/10.25561/77482
Ferguson, N. M., Cummings, D. A., Fraser, C., Cajka, J. C., Cooley, P. C., & Burke, D. S.
(2006). Strategies for mitigating an influenza pandemic. Nature, 442(7101), 448-452.
https://doi.org/10.1038/nature04795
Fernandez, A. A., & Shaw, G. P. (2020a). Academic leadership in a time of crisis: The
Coronavirus and COVID-19. Journal of Leadership Studies, 14(1), 39-45.
https://doi.org/10.1002/jls.21684
Fernandez, A., & Shaw, G. (2020b). Leadership in higher education in an era of adaptive
challenges. In International Technology, Education and Development Conference (pp.
61-65). IATED Academy. http://dx.doi.org/10.21125/inted.2020.0037
154
Fiore, D. J. (2016). School–community relations. Routledge.
https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315742090
Fish, J. N., McInroy, L. B., Paceley, M. S., Williams, N. D., Henderson, S., Levine, D. S., &
Edsall, R. N. (2020). “I'm kinda stuck at home with unsupportive parents right now”:
LGBTQ youths' experiences with COVID-19 and the importance of online
support. Journal of Adolescent Health, 67(3), 450-452.
https://dx.doi.org/10.1016%2Fj.jadohealth.2020.06.002
Flanders, W. (2020). Politics in the pandemic: The role of unions in school reopening
decisions. Wisconsin Institute for Law & Liberty. Available at〈 https://www. will-law.
org/wp-content/uploads/2020/12/reopening-brief. pdf.
García, E., & Weiss, E. (2020). COVID-19 and Student Performance, Equity, and US Education
Policy: Lessons from Pre-Pandemic Research to Inform Relief, Recovery, and
Rebuilding. Economic Policy Institute.
Gerber, N. (2020, May 28). Update on districts’ teacher policy responses to covid-19. National
Council on Teacher Quality (NCTQ). https://www.nctq.org/blog/Update-on-districts-
teacher-policy-responses-to-COVID--19
Gewertz, C. (2020). Instruction during COVID-19: Less learning time drives fears of academic
erosion. Education Week. https://www.edweek.org/teaching-learning/instruction-during-
covid-19-less-learning-time-drives-fears-of-academic-erosion/2020/05
Ghosh, R., Dubey, M. J., Chatterjee, S., & Dubey, S. (2020). Impact of COVID-19 on children:
special focus on the psychosocial aspect. Minerva Pediatrica, 72(3), 226-235.
https://doi.org/10.23736/s0026-4946.20.05887-9
155
Glesne, C. (2016). Becoming qualitative researchers: An introduction. Pearson. One Lake Street,
Upper Saddle River, New Jersey 07458.
Golberstein, E., Wen, H., & Miller, B. F. (2020). Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) and
mental health for children and adolescents. JAMA Pediatrics, 174(9), 819-820.
https://doi.org/10.1001/jamapediatrics.2020.1456
Goldstein, D., & Shapiro, E. (2020). Online schools demand more of teachers. Unions are
pushing back. The New York Times.
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/04/21/us/coronavirus-teachers-unions-school-home.html
Google. (n.d.). Distance learning | google for education. Google. https://edu.google.com/latest-
news/distance-learning/
Gross, B., & Opalka, A. (2020). Too Many Schools Leave Learning to Chance during the
Pandemic. Center on Reinventing Public Education.
Grosbeck, C. (2021, January 22). Los Angeles Unified 'AT-HOME LEARNING' partnership
with California PBS stations now has over 30 states with local stations using the model.
PBS SoCal. https://www.pbssocal.org/press-room/los-angeles-unified-home-learning-
partnership-california-pbs-stations-now-30-states-local-stations-using-model
Gundersen, C., Kreider, B., & Pepper, J. (2012). The impact of the National School Lunch
Program on child health: A nonparametric bounds analysis. Journal of
Econometrics, 166(1), 79-91. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeconom.2011.06.007
Hamilton, L. S., Kaufman, J. H., & Diliberti, M. (2020a). Teaching and Leading through a
Pandemic: Key Findings from the American Educator Panels Spring 2020 COVID-19
Surveys. Data Note: Insights from the American Educator Panels. Research Report. RR-
A168-2. RAND Corporation. https://doi.org/10.7249/RRA168-2
156
Hamilton, L. S., Grant, D., Kaufman, J. H., Diliberti, M., Schwartz, H. L., Hunter, G. P., ... &
Young, C. J. (2020b). COVID-19 and the State of K-12 Schools: Results and Technical
Documentation from the Spring 2020 American Educator Panels COVID-19
Surveys. RAND Corporation. https://doi.org/10.7249/RRA168-1
Hargreaves, A., & Fullan, M. (2020). Professional capital after the pandemic: revisiting and
revising classic understandings of teachers' work. Journal of Professional Capital and
Community. http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/JPCC-06-2020-0039
Harris, A., & Jones, M. (2020). COVID 19 - School leadership in disruptive times. School
Leadership & Management, 40(4), 243–247.
Harris, A., & Jones, M. (2020). COVID 19–school leadership in disruptive times. School
Leadership & Management, 40(4), 243-247.
https://doi.org/10.1080/13632434.2020.1811479
Harris, D. N., Liu, L., Oliver, D., Balfe, C., Slaughter, S., & Mattei, N. (2020). How America’s
schools responded to the COVID crisis. National Center for Research on Education
Access and Choice & Education Research Alliance for New Orleans.
https://educationresearchalliancenola. Org/files/publications/20200713-Technical-
Report-Harris-etal-How-Americas-Schools-Responded-to-the-COVID-Crisis. Pdf.
Harris, D., & Larsen, M. (2019). The effects of the New Orleans post- Katrina market-based
school reforms on medium-term student out- comes. Education Research Alliance for
New Orleans. https:// educationresearchalliancenola.org/files/publications/Harris-Larsen-
Reform-Effects-2019-08-01.pdf.
157
Harris, E. A. (2020, April 27). “It was just too much”: How remote learning is breaking parents.
The New York Times. https://www .nytimes.com/2020/04/27/nyregion/coronavirus-
homeschooling- parents.html.
Hartney, M., & Flavin, P. (2011). From the schoolhouse to the statehouse: Teacher union
political activism and US state education reform policy. State Politics & Policy
Quarterly, 11(3), 251-268.
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
Heifetz, R. A., & Laurie, D. L. (2001). The work of leadership. Harvard Business
Review, 79(11).
Hemphill, A. A., & Marianno, B. D. (2021). Teachers’ unions, collective bargaining, and the
response to COVID-19. Education Finance and Policy, 16(1), 170-182.
Hitt, D. H., & Tucker, P. D. (2016). Systematic review of key leader practices found to influence
student achievement: A unified framework. Review of Educational Research, 86(2), 531-
569. http://dx.doi.org/10.3102/0034654315614911
Hodges, C., Moore, S., Lockee, B., Trust, T., & Bond, A. (2020). The difference between
emergency remote teaching and online learning. Educause review, 27(1), 1-9.
Hoffman, J. A., & Miller, E. A. (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
Howitt, A. M., Leonard, H. B., & Giles, D. (Eds.). (2009). Managing crises. Sage.
158
Huang, J., Barnidge, E., & Kim, Y . (2015). Children receiving free or reduced-price school lunch
have higher food insufficiency rates in summer. The Journal of nutrition, 145(9), 2161-
2168.
Huang, J., & Barnidge, E. (2016). Low-income Children's participation in the National School
Lunch Program and household food insufficiency. Social Science & Medicine, 150, 8-14.
Hurtt, A., Cohen, K., & Reed, S. (2021). Early pandemic response in California: Identifying the
structural and instructional changes in K-12. Policy Analysis for California Education,
PACE. https://edpolicyinca.org/publications/early-pandemic-response-california
Howitt, A. M., Leonard, H. B., & Giles, D. (Eds.). (2009). Managing crises. Sage.
Hurtt, A., Cohen, K., & Reed, S. (2021). Early pandemic response in California: Identifying the
structural and instructional changes in K-12. Policy Analysis for California Education,
PACE. https://edpolicyinca.org/publications/early-pandemic-response-california
Iacuzzi, S., Fedele, P., & Garlatti, A. (2020). Beyond coronavirus: The role for knowledge
management in schools responses to crisis. Knowledge Management Research &
Practice, 1-6. https://doi.org/10.1080/14778238.2020.1838963
Jones, C., & Freedberg, L. (2021, March 4). California legislature approves plan to encourage
schools to reopen for in-person instruction. EdSource.
https://edsource.org/2021/california-legislature-approves-plan-to-encourage-schools-to-
reopen-for-in-person-instruction/650493
Jones, E., Young, A., Clevenger, K., Salimifard, P., Wu, E., Luna, M. L., ... & Allen, J. (2020).
Healthy schools: Risk reduction strategies for reopening schools. Harvard TH Chan
School of Public Health Healthy Buildings program.
http://dx.doi.org/10.13140/RG.2.2.22333.49127
159
Jordan, P. W. (2020). What Congressional Covid Funding Means for K-12 Schools. McCourt
School of Public Policy, Georgetown University. https://www.future-ed.org/what-
congressional-covid-funding-means-for-k-12-schools/
Kaden, U. (2020). COVID-19 school closure-related changes to the professional life of a K–12
teacher. Education Sciences, 10(6), 165. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci10060165
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.
Kelvin, A. A., & Halperin, S. (2020). COVID-19 in children: The link in the transmission
chain. The Lancet Infectious Diseases, 20(6), 633-634. https://doi.org/10.1016/s1473-
3099(20)30236-x
Kersten, C., Chamberlain, A., Jones, S., Uzicanin, A., & Ahmed, F. (2020). Assessment of US
public school district policies for pandemic preparedness and implications for COVID-19
response activities. Disaster Medicine and Public Health Preparedness, 1-7.
https://doi.org/10.1017/dmp.2020.496
Killion, J. (2021, May 14). Professional learning while hunkering down. Learning Forward.
https://learningforward.org/2020/06/04/professional-learning-while-hunkering-down/
Kini, T. (2020). Raising demands and reducing capacity: COVID-19 and the educator
workforce. Learning Policy Institute. https://learningpolicyinstitute. org/blog/covid-
raising-demands-reducing-capacity-educator-workforce
Kinsey, E. W., Hammer, J., Dupuis, R., Feuerstein-Simon, R., & Cannuscio, C. C. (2019).
Planning for food access during emergencies: Missed meals in Philadelphia. American
Journal of Public Health, 109(5), 781-783. https://doi.org/10.2105/ajph.2019.304996
160
Kinsey, E. W., Kinsey, D., & Rundle, A. G. (2020a). COVID-19 and food insecurity: An uneven
patchwork of responses. Journal of Urban Health, 97, 332-335.
https://dx.doi.org/10.1007%2Fs11524-020-00455-5
Kinsey, E. W., Hecht, A. A., Dunn, C. G., Levi, R., Read, M. A., Smith, C., ... & Hager, E. R.
(2020b). School closures during COVID-19: Opportunities for innovation in meal
service. American Journal of Public Health, 110(11), 1635-1643.
https://dx.doi.org/10.2105%2FAJPH.2020.305875
Kneale, D., O'Mara-Eves, A., Rees, R., & Thomas, J. (2020). School closure in response to
epidemic outbreaks: Systems-based logic model of downstream
impacts. F1000Research, 9. https://dx.doi.org/10.12688%2Ff1000research.23631.1
Kuhfeld, M., Soland, J., Tarasawa, B., Johnson, A., Ruzek, E., & Liu, J. (2020). Projecting the
potential impact of COVID-19 school closures on academic achievement. Educational
Researcher, 49(8), 549-565. https://doi.org/10.3102%2F0013189X20965918
Krishnaratne, S., Pfadenhauer, L. M., Coenen, M., Geffert, K., Jung-Sievers, C., Klinger, C., &
Burns, J. (2020). Measures implemented in the school setting to contain the COVID-19
pandemic: A scoping review. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, (12).
https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.cd013812
Krogstad, J. M., & Lopez, M. H. (2020). Coronavirus economic downturn has hit Latinos
especially hard. Pew research Center, 4.
Kurtz, H. (2020). National survey tracks impact of coronavirus on schools: 10 key
findings. Education Week. https://www.edweek.org/teaching-learning/national-survey-
tracks-impact-of-coronavirus-on-schools-10-key-findings/2020/04
Lafortune, J., Mehlotra, R., & Paluch, J. (2020). Funding California schools when budgets fall
161
short. Public Policy Institute of California.
Lake, R., & Dusseault, B. (2020a). Remote classes are in session for more school districts, but
attendance plans are still absent. Center for Reinventing Public Education.
https://www.crpe.org/thelens/remote-classes-are-session-more-school-districts-
attendance-plans- are-still-absent
Lake, R., & Dusseault, B. (2020b). School systems make a slow transition from the classroom to
the cloud. Center for Reinventing Public Education. https://www. crpe.
org/thelens/school-systemsmake-slow-transition-classroom-cloud
Lake, R., & Olson, L. (2020, July). Learning as we go: Principles for effective assessment during
the COVID-19 pandemic. Center for Reinventing Public Education.
https://www.crpe.org/sites/default/ files/final_diagnostics_brief_2020.pdf
Leachman, M. (2019). K-12 funding still lagging in many states. Center on Budget and Policy
Priorities. https://www. cbpp.org/blog/k-12-funding-still-lagging-in-many-states
Lee, J. (2020). Mental health effects of school closures during COVID-19. The Lancet Child &
Adolescent Health, 4(6), 421. https://doi.org/10.1016/S2352-4642(20)30109-7
Leung, C. W., Epel, E. S., Willett, W. C., Rimm, E. B., & Laraia, B. A. (2015). Household food
insecurity is positively associated with depression among low-income supplemental
nutrition assistance program participants and income-eligible nonparticipants. The
Journal of Nutrition, 145(3), 622-627. https://doi.org/10.3945/jn.114.199414
Li, C., & Lalani, F. (2020, April). The COVID-19 pandemic has changed education forever. This
is how. In World Economic Forum (Vol. 29).
https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2020/04/coronavirus-education-global-covid19-online-
digital-learning/
162
Lieberman, M. (2020). Taking attendance during coronavirus closures: Is it even worth
it. Education Week. https://www.edweek.org/leadership/taking-attendance-during-
coronavirus-closures-is-it-even-worth-it/2020/04
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
Liou, Y. H. (2015). School crisis management: A model of dynamic responsiveness to crisis life
cycle. Educational Administration Quarterly, 51(2), 247–289.
Litvinova, M., Liu, Q. H., Kulikov, E. S., & Ajelli, M. (2019). Reactive school closure weakens
the network of social interactions and reduces the spread of influenza. Proceedings of the
National Academy of Sciences, 116(27), 13174-13181.
https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1821298116
Loeb, S. (2016, July 28). Half the people working in schools AREN'T Classroom teachers-so
What? Brookings. https://www.brookings.edu/research/half-the-people-working-in-
schools-arent-classroom-teachers-so-what/
Longmuir, F. (2021). Leading in lockdown: Community, communication, and compassion in
response to the COVID-19 crisis. Educational Management Administration &
Leadership. https://doi.org/10.1177%2F17411432211027634.
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
163
Ludvigsson, J. F. (2020). Systematic review of COVID-19 in children shows milder cases and a
better prognosis than adults. Acta Paediatrica, 109(6), 1088-1095.
https://doi.org/10.1111/apa.15270
Mackey, J., Gilmore, F., Dabner, N., Breeze, D., & Buckley, P. (2012). Blended learning for
academic resilience in times of disaster or crisis. MERLOT Journal of Online and
Teaching, 8(2), 122-135. https://jolt.merlot.org/vol8no2/mackey_0612.pdf
Mahnken, K. (2020, April 14). Half of All School Employees Aren't Teachers. This Recession
Will Endanger Their Jobs. https://www.the74million.org/article/half-of-all-school-
employees-arent-teachers-this-recession-will-endanger-their-jobs/
Malkus, N. (2020a). Too little, Too late: A hard look at spring 2020 remote learning. American
Enterprise Institute. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED610307.pdf
Malkus, N. (2020b). School districts’ remote-learning plans may widen student achievement
gap. Education Next, 20(3). https://www.educationnext.org/school-districts-remote-
learning-plans-may-widen-student-achievement-gap-only-20-percent-meet-standards/
Mansfield, J. L., & Savaiano, D. A. (2017). Effect of school wellness policies and the Healthy,
Hunger-Free Kids Act on food-consumption behaviors of students, 2006–2016: a
systematic review. Nutrition Reviews, 75(7), 533-552.
https://doi.org/10.1093/nutrit/nux020
Mansfield, J. L., & Savaiano, D. A. (2017). Effect of school wellness policies and the Healthy,
Hunger-Free Kids Act on food-consumption behaviors of students, 2006–2016: a
systematic review. Nutrition reviews, 75(7), 533-552.
Marianno, B. (2021). Teachers’ unions: Scapegoats, or bad-faith actors in COVID-19 school
reopening decisions? Brookings. https://www.brookings.edu/blog/brown-center-
164
chalkboard/2021/03/25/teachers-unions-scapegoats-or-bad-faith-actors-in-covid-19-
school-reopening-decisions/
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, 163–175.
https://doi.org/10.1177/2329488419882981
Maxwell, J. A. (2012). Qualitative research design: An interactive approach. Sage publications.
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. Mayer, Bradley W.
and Moss, Jimmy and Dale, Kathleen C., Disaster and Preparedness: Lessons from
Hurricane Rita. Journal of Contingencies and Crisis Management, Vol. 16, Issue 1, pp.
14-23, March 2008, http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-5973.2008.00531.x
Mays, M. (2021, August 10). Newsom: California teachers must get vaccinated or tested weekly.
POLITICO. https://www.politico.com/states/california/story/2021/08/10/newsom-
california-teachers-must-get-vaccinated-or-tested-weekly-1389805
McBrien, J. L., Cheng, R., & Jones, P. (2009). Virtual spaces: Employing a synchronous online
classroom to facilitate student engagement in online learning. International Review of
Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 10(3).
https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ847763.pdf
165
McFarland, J., Hussar, B., De Brey, C., Snyder, T., Wang, X., Wilkinson-Flicker, S., & Hinz, S.
(2017). The condition of education 2017. NCES 2017-144. National Center for
Education Statistics. https://nces.ed.gov/pubsearch/pubsinfo.asp?pubid=2017144
McLeod, S., & Dulsky, S. (2021). Resilience, reorientation, and reinvention: School leadership
during the early months of the COVID-19 pandemic. Frontiers in Education, 6, Article
637075. https://doi.org/10.3389/feduc.2021.637075
McLoughlin, G. M., Fleischhacker, S., Hecht, A. A., McGuirt, J., Vega, C., Read, M., ... &
Dunn, C. G. (2020a). Feeding students during COVID-19—Related school closures: A
nationwide assessment of initial responses. Journal of Nutrition Education and
Behavior, 52(12), 1120-1130. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jneb.2020.09.018
McLoughlin, G. M., McCarthy, J. A., McGuirt, J. T., Singleton, C. R., Dunn, C. G., & Gadhoke,
P. (2020b). Addressing food insecurity through a health 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
Melnick, H., and Darling-Hammond, L. (with Leung, M., Yun, C., Schachner, A., Plasencia, S.,
and Ondrasek, N.). (2020). Reopening schools in the context of COVID-19: Health and
safety guidelines from other countries policy brief. Learning Policy Institute.
https://learningpolicyinstitute.org/product/reopening-schools-covid-19-brief
Merriam, S. B., & Tisdell, E. J. (2015). Qualitative research: A guide to design and
implementation. John Wiley & Sons.
Merrill, S. (2020). Teaching through a pandemic: A mindset for this moment. Edutopia.
https://www.edutopia.org/article/teaching-through-pandemic-mindset-moment
166
Metallinos-Katsaras, E., Must, A., & Gorman, K. (2012). A longitudinal study of food insecurity
on obesity in preschool children. Journal of the Academy of Nutrition and
Dietetics, 112(12), 1949-1958. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/23174682/
Miles, S. H. (2015). Kaci Hickox: Public health and the politics of fear. The American Journal of
Bioethics, 15(4), 17-19. https://doi.org/10.1080/15265161.2015.1010994
Miles, M. B., Huberman, A. M., & Saldana, J. (2014). Qualitative data analysis: A methods
sourcebook.
Millett, G. A., Jones, A. T., Benkeser, D., Baral, S., Mercer, L., Beyrer, C., ... & Sullivan, P. S.
(2020). Assessing differential impacts of COVID-19 on black communities. Annals of
epidemiology, 47, 37-44. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.annepidem.2020.05.003
Morales, D. X., Morales, S. A., & Beltran, T. F. (2020). Racial/ethnic disparities in household
food insecurity during the COVID-19 pandemic: a nationally representative
study. Journal of Racial and Ethnic Health Disparities, 1-15.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s40615-020-00892-7
Morgan, K., Melendez-Torres, G. J., Bond, A., Hawkins, J., Hewitt, G., Murphy, S., & Moore,
G. (2019). Socio-economic inequalities in adolescent summer holiday experiences, and
mental wellbeing on return to school: Analysis of the school health research
network/health behavior in school-aged children survey in Wales. International journal
of environmental research and public health, 16(7), 1107.
https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph16071107
Murata, S., Rezeppa, T., Thoma, B., Marengo, L., Krancevich, K., Chiyka, E., ... & 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.
167
Myung, J., Gallagher, A., Cottingham, B., Gong, A., Kimner, H., Witte, J., ... & Hough, H.
(2020). Supporting learning in the COVID-19 context: Research to guide distance and
blended instruction. Policy Analysis for California Education, PACE.
https://edpolicyinca.org/publications/supporting-learning-covid-19-context
National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. (2020). Reopening K-12 schools
during the COVID-19 pandemic: Prioritizing health, equity, and communities. National
Academies Press.
Neece, C., McIntyre, L. L., & Fenning, R. (2020). Examining the impact of COVID-19 in
ethnically diverse families with young children with intellectual and developmental
disabilities. Journal of Intellectual Disability Research, 64(10), 739-749.
https://doi.org/10.1111/jir.12769
Netolicky, D. M. (2020). School leadership during a pandemic: Navigating tensions. Journal of
Professional Capital and Community, 5(3/4), 391–395.
OECD. (2020). OECD policy responses to coronavirus (COVID-19). Organisation for Economic
Co-operation and Development. https://www.oecd.org/coronavirus/en/policy-responses
Oster, E., Jack, R., Halloran, C., Schoof, J., McLeod, D., Yang, H., ... & Roche, D. (2021).
Disparities in learning mode access among K–12 students during the COVID-19
pandemic, by race/ethnicity, geography, and grade level—United States, September
2020–April 2021. Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report, 70(26), 953.
https://doi.org/10.15585/mmwr.mm7026e2
Page, S. (2020). Back to school? 1 in 5 teachers are unlikely to return to reopened classrooms
this fall, poll says. USA Today, 26.
168
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/education/2020/05/26/coronavirus-schools-
teachers-poll-ipsos-parents-fall-online/5254729002/
Pang, X., Zhu, Z., Xu, F., Guo, J., Gong, X., Liu, D., ... & Feikin, D. R. (2003). Evaluation of
control measures implemented in the severe acute respiratory syndrome outbreak in
Beijing, 2003. Jama, 290(24), 3215-3221. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.290.24.3215
Pollock, K. (2020). School Leaders’ Work During the COVID-19 Pandemic: A Two-Pronged
Approach. International Studies in Educational Administration, 48(3), 38.
Prather, K. A., Wang, C. C., & Schooley, R. T. (2020). Reducing transmission of SARS-CoV-
2. Science, 368(6498), 1422-1424. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.abc6197
Prem, K., Liu, Y., Russell, T. W., Kucharski, A. J., Eggo, R. M., Davies, N., ... & Klepac, P.
(2020). The effect of control strategies to reduce social mixing on outcomes of the
COVID-19 epidemic in Wuhan, China: A modelling study. The Lancet Public
Health, 5(5), e261-e270. https://doi.org/10.1016/s2468-2667(20)30073-6
Prunty, E., Gao, E., Hill, L., Lafortune, J. (2021, April 14). Distance learning strategies in
California schools. Public Policy Institute of California.
https://www.ppic.org/publication/distance-learning-strategies-in-california-schools/
Quarchioni, S., Paternostro, S., & Trovarelli, F. (2020). Knowledge management in higher
education: A literature review and further research avenues. Knowledge Management
Research & Practice, 1-16. https://doi.org/10.1080/14778238.2020.1730717
Ralston, K., Treen, K., Coleman-Jensen, A., & Guthrie, J. (2017). Children’s food security and
USDA child nutrition programs (No. 1476-2017-2076). Economic Research Service.
https://www.ers.usda.gov/publications/pub-details/?pubid=84002
169
Reich, J., Buttimer, C. J., Fang, A., Hillaire, G., Hirsch, K., Larke, L. R., ... & Slama, R. (2020).
Remote learning guidance from state education agencies during the COVID-19
pandemic: A first look. Massachusetts Institute of Technology. https://edarxiv.org/437e2
Reimold, A. E., Grummon, A. H., Taillie, L. S., Brewer, N. T., Rimm, E. B., & Hall, M. G.
(2021). Barriers and facilitators to achieving food security during the COVID-19
pandemic. Preventive medicine reports, 23, 101500.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pmedr.2021.101500
Robinson, S. B., & Leonard, K. F. (2018). Designing quality survey questions. Sage
publications. https://doi.org/10.3138/jpe.68217
Robles, Y. (2020). Amid coronavirus fears, the CDC told schools to plan for remote learning.
That's harder than it sounds. Chalkboard Beat.
https://www.chalkbeat.org/2020/3/3/21178677/amid-coronavirus-fears-the-cdc-told-
schools-to-plan-for-remote-learning-that-s-harder-than-it-sounds
Roser, M., Ritchie, H., Ortiz-Ospina, E., & Hasell, J. (2020). Coronavirus pandemic (COVID-
19). Our World in Data. https://ourworldindata.org/coronavirus
Rubin, G. J., & Wessely, S. (2020). The psychological effects of quarantining a city. Bmj, 368.
https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.m313
Rubin, H. J., & Rubin, I. S. (2011). Qualitative interviewing: The art of hearing data. Sage
publications. https://dx.doi.org/10.4135/9781452226651
Rundle, A. G., Factor-Litvak, P., Suglia, S. F., Susser, E. S., Kezios, K. L., Lovasi, G. S., ... &
Link, B. G. (2020). Tracking of obesity in childhood into adulthood: effects on body
mass index and fat mass index at age 50. Childhood Obesity, 16(3), 226-233.
https://doi.org/10.1089/chi.2019.0185
170
Salerno, J. P., Williams, N. D., & Gattamorta, K. A. (2020). LGBTQ populations:
Psychologically vulnerable communities in the COVID-19 pandemic. Psychological
Trauma: Theory, Research, Practice, and Policy, 12(S1), S239.
https://doi.org/10.1037/tra0000837
Saunders-Hastings, P. R., & Krewski, D. (2016). Reviewing the history of pandemic influenza:
understanding patterns of emergence and transmission. Pathogens, 5(4), 66.
https://dx.doi.org/10.3390%2Fpathogens5040066
Schanzenbach, D., & Pitts, A. (2020). Estimates of food insecurity during the COVID-19 crisis:
Results from the COVID impact survey, week 1 (April 20–26, 2020). Institute for Policy
Research Rapid Research Report.
https://www.ipr.northwestern.edu/documents/reports/food-insecurity-
covid_week1_report-13-may-2020.pdf=
Schwartz, S. (2020a). Teachers scramble to make remote learning work: It’s very stressful.
Education Week Teacher. https://www.edweek.org/leadership/teachers-scramble-to-
make-remote-learning-work-its-very-stressful/2020/03
Schwartz, S. (2020b). Flood of online learning resources overwhelms teachers. Education Week.
https://www.edweek.org/teaching-learning/flood-of-online-learning-resources-
overwhelms-teachers/2020/03
Schwartz, A. E., & Rothbart, M. W. (2020a). Let them eat lunch: The impact of universal free
meals on student performance. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 39(2), 376-
410. https://doi.org/10.1002/pam.22175
Schwartz, H. L., Ahmed, F., Leschitz, J. T., Uzicanin, A., & Uscher-Pines, L.
(2020b). Opportunities and challenges in using online learning to maintain continuity of
171
instruction in K-12 schools in emergencies. RAND.
https://www.rand.org/pubs/working_papers/WRA235-1.html
Seeger, M. W., Sellnow, T. L., & Ulmer, R. R. (1998). Communication, organization, and crisis.
Annals of the International Communication Association, 21(1), 231–276.
Shaw, D., Hall, M., Edwards, J. S., & Baker, B. (2007). Responding to crisis through strategic
knowledge management. Journal of Organizational Change Management.
https://doi.org/10.1108/09534810710760081
Simmonds, M., Burch, J., Llewellyn, A., Griffiths, C., Yang, H., Owen, C., ... & Woolacott, N.
(2015). The use of measures of obesity in childhood for predicting obesity and the
development of obesity-related diseases in adulthood: a systematic review and meta-
analysis. Health technology assessment (Winchester, England), 19(43), 1-336.
http://dx.doi.org/10.3310/hta19430
Singh, V., & Thurman, A. (2019). How many ways can we define online learning? A systematic
literature review of definitions of online learning (1988-2018). American Journal of
Distance Education, 33(4), 289-306. https://doi.org/10.1080/08923647.2019.1663082
Slavin, R. E., & Storey, N. (2020). The U.S. educational response to the COVID-19
pandemic. Best Evid Chin Edu, 5(2), 617-633. https://ssrn.com/abstract=3652585
Smith, W. C. (2020). Potential long-term consequences of school closures: Lessons from the
2013-2016 Ebola pandemic. International Review of Education, 67, 53-78.
https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-51400/v1
Smith, L., & Riley, D. (2012). School leadership in times of crisis. School Leadership &
Management, 32(1), 57–71.
172
Sohrabi, C., Alsafi, Z., O'neill, N., Khan, M., Kerwan, A., Al-Jabir, A., ... & Agha, R. (2020).
World Health Organization declares global emergency: A review of the 2019 novel
coronavirus (COVID-19). International Journal of Surgery, 76, 71-76.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijsu.2020.02.034
Stake, R.E. (2006). Multiple Case Study Analysis. Guilford.
Starr, J. P. (2020). On leadership: Responding to COVID-19: Short-and long-term
challenges. Phi Delta Kappan, 101(8), 60-61.
https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/0031721720923796
Stern, A. M., Cetron, M. S., & Markel, H. (2009). Closing the schools: Lessons from the 1918–
19 U.S. influenza pandemic: Ninety-one years later, the evidence shows that there are
positive and negative ways to do it. Health Affairs, 28(Suppl1), w1066-w1078.
https://doi.org/10.1377/hlthaff.28.6.w1066
Strauss, V. (2020, April 3). Growing number of states say they are closing schools for rest Of
2019-2020 Year. Washington Post.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/education/2020/03/31/california-inches-closer-joining-
list-states-expected-keep-schools-closed-2019-20-school-year/
Stuff, J. E., Casey, P. H., Szeto, K. L., Gossett, J. M., Robbins, J. M., Simpson, P. M., ... &
Bogle, M. L. (2004). Household food insecurity is associated with adult health status. The
Journal of Nutrition, 134(9), 2330-2335. https://doi.org/10.1093/jn/134.9.2330
Sugarman, J., & Lazarín, M. (2020). Educating English learners during the COVID-19
pandemic: Policy ideas for states and school districts. Policy Brief. Migration Policy
Institute. https://www.migrationpolicy.org/research/english-learners-covid-19-pandemic-
policy-ideas
173
Swain, W. A., & Redding, C. (2019). Teachers’ union power in a budget crunch: Lasting
ramifications of differential spending responses to the great recession. Educational
Policy, 0895904819881161. https://doi.org/10.1177%2F0895904819881161
Tadayon, A. (2021, October 18). California districts anticipate major hits to their 2022–23
budgets as enrollments drop. EdSource. https://edsource.org/2021/districts-anticipate-
major-hits-to-their-2022-23-budgets-as-enrollments-drop/662448
Tai, D. B. G., Shah, A., Doubeni, C. A., Sia, I. G., & Wieland, M. L. (2021). The
disproportionate impact of COVID-19 on racial and ethnic minorities in the United
States. Clinical Infectious Diseases, 72(4), 703-706. https://doi.org/10.1093/cid/ciaa815
Tang, S., Xiang, M., Cheung, T., & Xiang, Y. T. (2021). Mental health and its correlates among
children and adolescents during COVID-19 school closure: The importance of parent-
child discussion. Journal of Affective Disorders, 279, 353-360.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jad.2020.10.016
The Education Trust. (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/
Thomas, C. S., & Hrebenar, R. J. (2004). Interest groups in the states. Politics in the American
states, 100-128.
Thompson, C. N., Baumgartner, J., Pichardo, C., Toro, B., Li, L., Arciuolo, R., ... & Fine, A.
(2020). COVID-19 Outbreak—New York City, February 29–June 1, 2020. Morbidity and
Mortality Weekly Report, 69(46), 1725.
174
The United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO). (2020).
Education: From disruption to
recovery. https://en.unesco.org/covid19/educationresponse
Uscher-Pines, L., Schwartz, H. L., Ahmed, F., Zheteyeva, Y., Meza, E., Baker, G., & Uzicanin,
A. (2018). School practices to promote social distancing in K-12 schools: review of
influenza pandemic policies and practices. BMC public health, 18(1), 1-13.
https://doi.org/10.1186/s12889-018-5302-3
U.S. Department of Agriculture: Food Security in the US Status of U.S. Households with
Children in 2019. USDA ERS - Key Statistics & Graphics. (n.d.).
https://www.ers.usda.gov/topics/food-nutrition-assistance/food-security-in-the-us/key-
statistics-graphics.aspx#children.
U.S. Department of Agriculture National Lunch program. USDA ERS - National School Lunch
Program. (n.d.). https://www.ers.usda.gov/topics/food-nutrition-assistance/child-
nutrition-programs/national-school-lunch-program.
Van Lancker, W., & Parolin, Z. (2020). COVID-19, school closures, and child poverty: a social
crisis in the making. The Lancet Public Health, 5(5), e243-e244.
https://doi.org/10.1016/S2468-2667(20)30084-0
Vargo, J., & Seville, E. (2011). Crisis strategic planning for SMEs: Finding the silver lining.
International Journal of Production Research, 49(18), 5619–5635.
Viner, R. M., Russell, S. J., Croker, H., Packer, J., Ward, J., Stansfield, C., ... & Booy, R. (2020).
School closure and management practices during coronavirus outbreaks including
COVID-19: A rapid systematic review. The Lancet Child & Adolescent Health, 4(5),
397-404. https://doi.org/10.1016/S2352-4642(20)30095-X
175
Viner, R. M., Bonell, C., Drake, L., Jourdan, D., Davies, N., Baltag, V., ... & Darzi, A. (2021a).
Reopening schools during the COVID-19 pandemic: governments must balance the
uncertainty and risks of reopening schools against the clear harms associated with
prolonged closure. Archives of disease in childhood, 106(2), 111-113.
Viner, R. M., Russell, S., Saulle, R., Croker, H., Stansfield, C., Packer, J., ... & Minozzi, S.
(2021b). Impacts of school closures on physical and mental health of children and young
people: A systematic review. MedRxiv. https://doi.org/10.1101/2021.02.10.21251526
Wang, C. J., Ng, C. Y., & Brook, R. H. (2020a). Response to COVID-19 in Taiwan: Big data
analytics, new technology, and proactive testing. Jama, 323(14), 1341-1342.
https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2020.3151
Wang, G., Zhang, Y., Zhao, J., Zhang, J., & Jiang, F. (2020b). Mitigate the effects of home
confinement on children during the COVID-19 outbreak. The Lancet, 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. A working paper. Mid-Continent
Research for Education and Learning (McREL).
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
during COVID-19. School Mental Health, 1–16.
176
Westover, J. H. (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.
Westover, J. (2019). Districts on the move: Leading a coherent system of continuous
improvement. Corwin Press.
Whalen, J. (2020). Should teachers be trained in emergency remote teaching? Lessons learned
from the COVID-19 pandemic. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 28(2),
189-199.
Will, M. (2020a). Are teachers and principals in your state at high risk for COVID-19?: See
analysis. Education Week. https://www.edweek.org/leadership/are-teachers-and-
principals-in-your-state-at-high-risk-for-covid-19-see-analysis/2020/05
Will, M. (2020b). Teachers at higher risk of COVID-19 wonder: Should I even go
back? Education Week. https://www.edweek.org/leadership/are-teachers-and-principals-
in-your-state-at-high-risk-for-covid-19-see-analysis/2020/05
Wong, K. K., Shi, J., Gao, H., Zheteyeva, Y. A., Lane, K., Copeland, D., ... & Uzicanin, A.
(2014). Why is school closed today? Unplanned K-12 school closures in the United
States, 2011–2013. PLoS One, 9(12), e113755.
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0113755
World Health Organization. (2020a). Transmission of SARS-CoV-2: implications for infection
prevention precautions: scientific brief, 09 July 2020 (No. WHO/2019-
nCoV/Sci_Brief/Transmission_modes/2020.3). https://www.who.int/news-
177
room/commentaries/detail/transmission-of-sars-cov-2-implications-for-infection-
prevention-precautions
World Health Organization. (2020b). WHO Director-General’s opening remarks at the media
briefing on COVID-19-11 March 2020. https://www.who.int/director-
general/speeches/detail/who-director-general-s-opening-remarks-at-the-media-briefing-
on-covid-19---11-march-2020
Wu, J. T., Leung, K., & Leung, G. M. (2020a). Nowcasting and forecasting the potential
domestic and international spread of the 2019-nCoV outbreak originating in Wuhan,
China: a modelling study. The Lancet, 395(10225), 689-697.
https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(20)30260-9
Wu, Z., & McGoogan, J. M. (2020b). Characteristics of and important lessons from the
coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) outbreak in China: Summary of a report of 72 314
cases from the Chinese Center for Disease Control and Prevention. Jama, 323(13), 1239-
1242. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2020.2648
Yancy, C. W. (2020). COVID-19 and african americans. Jama, 323(19), 1891-1892.
Yang, X. (2020). Teachers’ perceptions of large-scale online teaching as an epidemic prevention
and control strategy in China. ECNU Review of Education, 3(4), 739-744.
https://doi.org/10.1177%2F2096531120922244
Zachariah, P., Johnson, C. L., Halabi, K. C., Ahn, D., Sen, A. I., Fischer, A., ... & Lakhaney, D.
(2020). Epidemiology, clinical features, and disease severity in patients with coronavirus
disease 2019 (COVID-19) in a children’s hospital in New York City, New York. JAMA
Pediatrics, 174(10), e202430-e202430. https://doi.org/10.1001/jamapediatrics.2020.2430
178
Zhou, T., Molfino, T., & Travers, J. (2021). The cost of COVID: Understanding the full financial
impact of COVID-19 on districts and schools. Education Resource Strategies.
https://www.erstrategies.org/cms/files/4699-cost-of-covid-paper-final.pdf
Zweig, J., & Stafford, E. (2016). Training for online teachers to support student success: Themes
from a survey administered to teachers in four online learning programs. Journal of
Online Learning Research, 2(4), 399-418. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1148594.pdf
Zhao, Y. (2020). COVID-19 as a catalyst for educational change. Prospects, 49(1), 29-33.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11125-020-09477-y
Zhao, J., Yuan, Q., Wang, H., Liu, W., Liao, X., Su, Y., ... & Zhang, Z. (2020). Antibody
responses to SARS-CoV-2 in patients with novel coronavirus disease 2019. Clinical
Infectious Diseases, 71(16), 2027-2034. https://doi.org/10.1093/cid/ciaa344
Zviedrite, N., Hodis, J. D., Jahan, F., Gao, H., & Uzicanin, A. (2021). COVID-19-associated
school closures and related efforts to sustain education and subsidized meal programs,
United States, February 18–June 30, 2020. medRxiv.
https://doi.org/10.1101/2021.03.05.21252848
179
180
Appendix A: Research Participant’s 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
Rossier School of Education
University of Southern California
181
Appendix B: Principal Survey
Introduction
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.
Survey Items
Survey Items Response Choices
1. 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
1. 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
1. 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
1. 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
182
5 - Strongly Agree
1. 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
1. 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
1. 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
1. 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
1. 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
1. 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
1. 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
183
1. 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
1. 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
1. 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
1. 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
1. 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
1. 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
1. My school 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
1. 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
184
4 - Agree
5 - Strongly Agree
1. My school met the academic needs of students. 1 - Strongly Disagree
2 - Disagree
3 - Neither Agree nor Disagree
4 - Agree
5 - Strongly Agree
Overarching
1. 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
1. 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
1. 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
1. 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
1. Classified Staff 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
1. 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
185
Appendix C: Assistant Superintendent Survey
Introduction
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.
Survey Items
Survey Items Response Choices
1. 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
1. 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
1. 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
1. 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
186
1. 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
1. 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
1. 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
1. 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
1. 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
1. 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
RQ3 Union Negotiations
1. 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
187
1. 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
1. 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
1. 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
1. 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
1. 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
1. 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
1. 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
1. 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
188
4 - Agree
5 - Strongly Agree
1. My district met the academic needs of students. 1 - Strongly Disagree
2 - Disagree
3 - Neither Agree nor Disagree
4 - Agree
5 - Strongly Agree
Overarching
1. 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
1. 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
1. 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
1. 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
1. Classified staff 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
1. 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
189
Appendix D: Superintendent Survey
Introduction
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.
Survey Items
Survey Items Response Choices
1. 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
1. 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
1. 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
1. 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
190
1. 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
1. 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
1. 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
1. 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
1. 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
1. 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
1. 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
191
1. 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
1. 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
1. 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
1. 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
1. 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
1. 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
1. 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
1. 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
192
4 - Agree
5 - Strongly Agree
1. My district met the academic needs of students. 1 - Strongly Disagree
2 - Disagree
3 - Neither Agree nor Disagree
4 - Agree
5 - Strongly Agree
Overarching
1. 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
1. 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
1. 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
1. 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
1. Classified staff 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
1. 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
193
1. I recommend the following assistant superintendent from
my district to participate in this study:
[open-ended response]
1. I recommend the following principal from my district to
participate in this study:
[open-ended response]
194
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?
1. 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?
a. What have been the biggest financial implications of the pandemic on your
district?
b. In what ways, if any, would more spending flexibility/structure have benefitted
your district?
c. In what ways has COVID-19 related funding been used to meet student needs in
your district?
d. To what extent, if any, did financial incentive influence your district’s reopening
plan/timeline?
2. 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?
a. In what ways did your district collaborate with federal, state, and local
government agencies and community organizations to support your school district
during COVID?
195
i. PQ- What agencies or organizations?
b. To what degree, if any, did the various agencies align COVID-19 guidance for
schools?
c. What strategies have been effective for your district in implementing health
guidelines/policies?
d. Who in your district was primarily in charge of interpreting and implementing the
health guidelines/policies?
3. How, if at all, have union negotiations played a role in K-12 district’s response to
the COVID-19 Pandemic?
a. What were the most important issues negotiated with your teachers union and how
were they resolved?
b. What were the most important issues negotiated with your classified union and how
were they resolved?
c. In what ways, if any, were instructional programs influenced by union negotiations in
your district?
d. In what ways, if any, were safety protocols influenced by union negotiations in your
district?
4. 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?
a. In what ways did your district gather input from and communicate to the
community?
b. What were the biggest concerns from your district’s community and how were
they addressed?
i. PQ - Were there any safety concerns?
ii. PQ - Were there any nutrition concerns?
iii. PQ - Were there any academic concerns?
iv. PQ – Were there any technology concerns?
v. 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.
196
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?
1. 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?
a. What have been the biggest financial implications of the pandemic on your
district?
b. In what ways, if any, would more spending flexibility/structure have benefitted
your district?
c. In what ways has COVID-19 related funding been used to meet student needs in
your district?
d. To what extent, if any, did financial incentive influence your district’s reopening
plan/timeline?
197
2. 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?
a. In what ways did your district collaborate with federal, state, and local
government agencies and community organizations to support your school district
during COVID?
ii. PQ- What agencies or organizations?
b. To what degree, if any, did the various agencies align COVID-19 guidance for
schools?
c. What strategies have been effective for your district in implementing health
guidelines/policies?
d. Who in your district was primarily in charge of interpreting and implementing the
health guidelines/policies?
3. How, if at all, have union negotiations played a role in K-12 district’s response to
the COVID-19 Pandemic?
e. What were the most important issues negotiated with your teacher’s union and how
were they resolved?
f. What were the most important issues negotiated with your classified union and how
were they resolved?
g. In what ways, if any, were instructional programs influenced by union negotiations in
your district?
h. In what ways, if any, were safety protocols influenced by union negotiations in your
district?
4. 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?
a. In what ways did your district gather input from and communicate to the
community?
b. What were the biggest concerns from your district’s community and how were
they addressed?
i. PQ - Were there any safety concerns?
ii. PQ - Were there any nutrition concerns?
iii. PQ - Were there any academic concerns?
iv. PQ – Were there any technology concerns?
v. 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.
198
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?
1. 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?
a. What have been the biggest financial implications of the pandemic on your
district?
b. In what ways, if any, would more spending flexibility/structure have benefitted
your district?
c. In what ways has COVID-19 related funding been used to meet student needs in
your district?
d. To what extent, if any, did financial incentive influence your district’s reopening
plan/timeline?
199
2. 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?
a. In what ways did your district collaborate with federal, state, and local
government agencies and community organizations to support your school district
during COVID?
PQ- What agencies or organizations?
b. To what degree, if any, did the various agencies align COVID-19 guidance for
schools?
c. What strategies have been effective for your district in implementing health
guidelines/policies?
d. Who in your district was primarily in charge of interpreting and implementing the
health guidelines/policies?
3. How, if at all, have union negotiations played a role in K-12 district’s response to
the COVID-19 Pandemic?
a. What were the most important issues negotiated with your teachers union and how
were they resolved?
b. What were the most important issues negotiated with your classified union and how
were they resolved?
c. In what ways, if any, were instructional programs influenced by union negotiations in
your district?
d. In what ways, if any, were safety protocols influenced by union negotiations in your
district?
4. 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?
a. In what ways did your district gather input from and communicate to the
community?
b. What were the biggest concerns from your district’s community and how were
they addressed?
i. PQ - Were there any safety concerns?
ii. PQ - Were there any nutrition concerns?
iii. PQ - Were there any academic concerns?
iv. PQ – Were there any technology concerns?
v. 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.
200
Appendix H: Question Alignment Matrix
Instrument RQ1
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?
RQ2
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?
RQ3
How, if at all,
have union
negotiations
played a role in
K-12 Southern
California
public school
districts'
response to the
COVID-19
pandemic?
RQ4
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 assistants 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.” Respondents commonly shared the importance of relationship-building, clear communication, grounded decision making, and focused goal setting during the crisis. 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.
Linked assets
University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses
Conceptually similar
PDF
The impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on K–12 public school districts in southern California: responses of superintendents, assistant superintendents, and principals
PDF
The impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on K–12 public school districts in southern California: responses of superintendents, assistant superintendents, and principals
PDF
The impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on K–12 public school districts in southern California: responses of superintendents, assistant superintendents, and principals
PDF
The impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on K–12 public school districts in southern California: responses of superintendents, assistant superintendents, and principals
PDF
The impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on K–12 public school districts in southern California: responses of superintendents, assistant superintendents, and principals
PDF
The impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on K–12 public school districts in southern California: responses of superintendents, assistant superintendents, and principals
PDF
The impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on K-12 public school districts in southern California: responses of superintendents, assistant superintendents, and principals
PDF
The impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on K-12 public school districts in southern California: responses of superintendents, assistant superintendents, and principals
PDF
The impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on K-12 public school districts in southern California: responses of superintendents, assistant superintendents, and principals
PDF
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
Asset Metadata
Creator
Cherkezian, Arpy
(author)
Core Title
The impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on K-12 public school districts in southern California: responses of superintendents, assistant superintendents, and principals
School
Rossier School of Education
Degree
Doctor of Education
Degree Program
Education (Leadership)
Degree Conferral Date
2022-05
Publication Date
05/08/2022
Defense Date
04/11/2022
Publisher
University of Southern California
(original),
University of Southern California. Libraries
(digital)
Tag
academic concerns,agencies,assistant superintendent,CARES Act,COVID-19 guidance,COVID-19 pandemic,Crisis,district responses to COVID-19,ESSR funding,fiscal impact,health,K-12 school districts,leadership,learning loss,mixed methods,Nutrition,OAI-PMH Harvest,pandemic,Principal,Safety,school administration,social-emotional,spending flexibility,superintendent,Technology,unions
Format
application/pdf
(imt)
Language
English
Contributor
Electronically uploaded by the author
(provenance)
Advisor
Castruita, Rudy (
committee chair
), Franklin, Gregory (
committee member
), Roach, John (
committee member
)
Creator Email
acherk57@gmail.com,acherkez@usc.edu
Permanent Link (DOI)
https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-oUC111297264
Unique identifier
UC111297264
Document Type
Dissertation
Format
application/pdf (imt)
Rights
Cherkezian, Arpy
Type
texts
Source
20220509-usctheses-batch-940
(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
Tags
academic concerns
agencies
assistant superintendent
CARES Act
COVID-19 guidance
COVID-19 pandemic
district responses to COVID-19
ESSR funding
fiscal impact
K-12 school districts
learning loss
mixed methods
pandemic
social-emotional
spending flexibility
unions