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
Valerie Monique Granados
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 Valerie Monique Granados 2022
All Rights Reserved
The Committee for Valerie Monique Granados certifies the approval of this Dissertation
David Cash
Greg Franklin
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–12school districts and understand what district and site administrators have learned
from their experiences and their decision-making responsibilities in managing the crisis. This
study brings to light the impact of the pandemic on students, families, leaders, schools, and
districts and examines how district and school leadership influences administrative practices,
student achievement, financial responsibility, union leadership, and community/parent support as
they responded to the COVID-19 crisis. More specifically, this study set out to determine: (a)
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; (b) the impact of federal, state and local health agencies
on K–12 public school districts in Southern California, and what strategies district
superintendents, assistant superintendents, and principals followed to address the suggested
guidelines; (c) how union negotiations played a role in K–12 Southern California public school
districts’ response to the COVID-19 pandemic; and (d) how 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 study implemented a mixed-methods approach in which nine
Southern California K–12 district superintendents, assistant superintendents, and principals
completed a survey and participated in a structured interview. Through this process of mixed-
methods data collection, the study’s findings indicate that district and site administration relied
on the power of nourishing relationships, both new and on-going, to ground their decision
v
making in their values in prioritizing safety and needs for their staff, students, and parents. In
addition, K–12 superintendents, assistant superintendents, and principals acknowledged that
collaboration and the sharing of resources played a critical component in moving forward during
the COVID-19 pandemic crisis. These practices will not only help improve the school system
and student learning experiences during the pandemic, but also in future attempts to provide a
more equitable landscape for students and staff. Ultimately, this study provides guidance for
district and site administrators decision-making responsibilities in managing future crises.
vi
Dedication
To my son, Andre, mamma is done baby. My earning this doctorate degree is an example to you
that nothing is out of your reach. You have made me stronger, better and more fulfilled than I
could have ever imagined. And remember, I will always be most proud of my title as your mom.
To my mom, Guppee, this is just the beginning. Your unconditional love and support inspires me
to always do my best, be kind, laugh often and take nothing for granted.
To my partner, Nicholas, I could not have achieved this without your love and support especially
within my last three months of the program. I love you.
To my Grandpa Nacho, thank you for your belief in me, prayers and encouragement.
To my abuelitos, you mean more to me than you’ll ever know, so thank you for just being you.
To my sister, Vanessa, I am forever grateful for your encouragement, sense of humor and
support throughout my life and this dissertation process. Our talks fueled me when I needed it
the most.
To my friend, Jennifer Saltos (Jenn), thank you for teaching me the importance of self-love and
for helping guide my resilience throughout the past 3 years—I am forever thankful for the
venting sessions and our lifelong friendship—it is one that I treasure dearly.
vii
To my tia Delia. Thank you for always being one of the first to offer support. I appreciate you.
The completion of my program could not have been possible without your help.
To my beloved family, thank you for your love, support, inspiration, and understanding as I
embarked on this amazing journey. My deepest love and eternal gratitude to you all. This is just
the beginning mi familia.
viii
Acknowledgements
This research would have never been completed without the support, encouragement and
efforts of several individuals. Sincere thanks to my dissertation committee: Dr. Rudy Castruita,
Dr. David Cash, and Dr. Gregory Franklin, all who provided me guidance and support.
The writing and completion of this dissertation would not have been possible without the tireless
assistance, support, guidance, and encouragement of my dissertation chair, Dr. Castruita. I would
like to thank my USC classmates for their never-ending mentoring and guidance through the
entire dissertation process. I am eternally grateful for the support that I received from my cohort
members who continued to inspire me to keep on writing my chapters: Christian Mora and Erica
Vallin. Se se pudo.
Lastly, I am most privileged and grateful for the anonymous superintendents, assistant
superintendents, and principals who graciously shared their knowledge and experience vital for
this research.
ix
Preface
Some of the chapters of this dissertation were co-authored and have been identified as
such, while jointly authored dissertations are not the norm of most doctoral programs, a
collaborative effort is reflective of real-world challenges, the USC Graduate School and the USC
Rossier School of Education have permitted our inquiry team to carry out this shared venture.
This dissertation is part of a collaborative project between three doctoral candidates:
Valerie Granados, Christian Mora, and Erica Vallin. We three doctoral students met with
superintendents, assistant superintendents, and principals in Southern California K–12 districts.
The three dissertations produced by our inquiry team collectively analyzed the impact of the
COVID-19 pandemic on K–12 Southern California Public School Districts and understanding
what district and site administrators, specifically superintendents, assistant superintendents, and
principals, have learned from their experiences and their decision-making responsibilities in
managing the crisis.
x
Table of Contents
Abstract .......................................................................................................................................... iv
Dedication ...................................................................................................................................... vi
Acknowledgements ...................................................................................................................... viii
Preface............................................................................................................................................ ix
List of Tables ............................................................................................................................... xiii
List of Figures .............................................................................................................................. xiv
Chapter One: Overview of the Study .............................................................................................. 1
Background of the Problem ................................................................................................ 1
Statement of the Problem .................................................................................................... 2
Purpose of the Study ........................................................................................................... 2
Research Questions ............................................................................................................. 2
Significance of the Study .................................................................................................... 3
Limitation and Delimitations .............................................................................................. 4
Definition of Terms............................................................................................................. 4
Organization of the Study ................................................................................................. 10
Chapter Two: Review of the Literature ........................................................................................ 11
Historical Background ...................................................................................................... 11
Background/Context of the COVID-19 Pandemic ........................................................... 13
COVID-19 Educational-Related Consequences ............................................................... 13
Long Term Effects of the COVID-19 Pandemic .............................................................. 19
How the U.S Congress, California Department of Education, and Governor
Newsom, Responded to COVID-19 ................................................................................. 22
Conclusion ........................................................................................................................ 28
Chapter Three: Methodology ........................................................................................................ 30
Statement of the Problem .................................................................................................. 30
xi
Purpose of the Study ......................................................................................................... 30
Research Questions ........................................................................................................... 31
Research Team .................................................................................................................. 31
Research Design................................................................................................................ 32
Qualitative Methods .......................................................................................................... 32
Quantitative Methods ........................................................................................................ 33
Sample and Population ..................................................................................................... 34
Researcher 1 School District Information......................................................................... 36
Researcher 2 School District Information......................................................................... 37
Researcher 3 School District Information......................................................................... 37
Instrumentation ................................................................................................................. 38
Data Collection ................................................................................................................. 40
Data Analysis .................................................................................................................... 40
Summary ........................................................................................................................... 42
Chapter Four: Findings ................................................................................................................. 43
Participants ........................................................................................................................ 45
Demographic Data ............................................................................................................ 45
Results for Research Question 1 ....................................................................................... 51
Results for Research Question 2 ....................................................................................... 57
Results for Research Question 3 ....................................................................................... 64
Results for Research Question 4 ....................................................................................... 71
Summary ........................................................................................................................... 81
Chapter Five: Discussion .............................................................................................................. 86
Purpose of the Study ......................................................................................................... 87
Participants ........................................................................................................................ 87
xii
Findings............................................................................................................................. 87
Implications for Practice ................................................................................................... 93
Future Research ................................................................................................................ 96
Conclusions ....................................................................................................................... 97
References ..................................................................................................................................... 99
Appendix A: Superintendent Survey .......................................................................................... 107
Closing ............................................................................................................................ 111
Appendix B: Assistant Superintendent Survey ........................................................................... 112
Closing ............................................................................................................................ 116
Appendix C: Principal Survey .................................................................................................... 117
Closing ............................................................................................................................ 121
Appendix D: Research Participants Invitation Email ................................................................. 122
Appendix E: Superintendent Interview Protocol ........................................................................ 123
Introduction ..................................................................................................................... 123
Conclusion ...................................................................................................................... 124
Appendix F: Assistant Superintendent Interview Protocol ......................................................... 125
Introduction ..................................................................................................................... 125
Conclusion ...................................................................................................................... 126
Appendix G: Principal Interview Protocol ................................................................................. 127
Introduction ..................................................................................................................... 127
Conclusion ...................................................................................................................... 128
Appendix H: Alignment of the Survey Protocol to the Research Questions and
Conceptual Framework ............................................................................................................... 129
xiii
List of Tables
Table 1: Participant Selection Criteria 36
Table 2: School District Participants: Demographic Information 47
Table 3: Quantitative Survey: Participant Demographic Information 48
Table 4: Quantitative Survey: Participant Demographic Information 49
Table 5: Quantitative Survey: Participant Demographic Information 50
Table 6: Quantitative Survey: Superintendents of the Nine School Districts’
Perceptions of the Impact of Financial Implications of COVID-19
53
Table 7: Quantitative Survey: Superintendents of the Nine School Districts’
Perceptions of the Impact of Health and Safety Guidelines
59
Table 8: Quantitative Survey: District and Site Leaders’ Perceptions of the
Impact of Union Negotiation
65
Table 9: Quantitative Survey: Superintendents of the Nine School Districts’
Perceptions of Parent Concerns
74
Appendix A: Superintendent Survey 107
Appendix B: Assistant Superintendent Survey 112
Appendix C: Principal Survey 117
Appendix H: Alignment of the Survey Protocol to the Research Questions and
Conceptual Framework
129
xiv
List of Figures
Figure 1: Conceptual Framework 39
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 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, except for school closures that lasted several weeks (Fensterwald, 2020a). However,
whether full or partial, the school closures 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).
Background of the Problem
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
very helpful, they could also be contradictory and difficult to enforce, which caused problems for
school districts. As these rules and regulations evolved, so too did the roles and expectations of
district employees. Unions renegotiated fundamental 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, and social, emotional, and medical care for
their children. These stakeholder concerns drastically changed the role of school leadership, both
at the district and site levels. School leaders became crisis managers to see their organizations
through this tumultuous time of the COVID-19 pandemic.
2
Statement of the Problem
The COVID-19 pandemic disrupted Southern California K–12 school districts, causing
unforeseen consequences within the education system and highlighting financial implications,
the impact of agencies, negotiations with unions, and the impact on students and the community.
COVID-19 shifted schools and school leaders’ roles and scope beyond instructional leaders and
transformed them 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 brings to light the impact of the pandemic on students, families, leaders,
schools, and districts. Most importantly, this study examines how district and school leadership
influences administrative practices, student achievement, financial responsibility, union
leadership, and community/parent support as they responded to the COVID-19 crisis.
Research Questions
Four research questions guided the study:
1. What, if any, are the financial implications that the COVID-19 pandemic has had on
K–12 public school districts in Southern California and how have district
superintendents, assistant superintendents, and principals addressed these
implications?
2. What, if any, have been the impact of federal, state and local health agencies on K–12
public school districts in Southern California, and what strategies have district
3
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
This study is significant as it 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 schools and school leaders’ roles
and scope 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. Difficult decisions had to
be made to support many student needs throughout school closures. By analyzing this crisis’s
effective practices and shortcomings from the leaders on the frontlines, superintendents, assistant
superintendents, and principals, we hope to gain insight about prevention and implementation as
future crises occur in education. If a pandemic ever occurs again, this study will support how the
crises could be addressed school leaders, educators, boards of education, and community
4
stakeholders through existing systems. The results of this study are meant to reimagine and
revolutionize a new educational landscape that is committed to building a culture of equity in
order to repay the educational debt.
Limitation and Delimitations
There are some boundaries of the study beyond the control of the research team that may
affect internal validity. Limitations of this study include:
1. The ongoing disruptions caused by the COVID-19 pandemic on public education.
2. The participants are only from Southern California public schools.
3. Self-reporting surveys are included; interview questions may contain researcher bias.
4. Interviews conducted virtually.
5. The sample may not accurately represent all school districts in California.
Recommendations 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 the 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 provided $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 allocated $4.6 billion for all school districts regardless of
5
whether they meet the timetable Governor Gavin Newsom called for in his “Safe Schools for
All” plan (Jones & Freedberg, 2021).
Assembly and Senate Bill 129: a landmark state budget agreement that added 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
are in charge of enforcing education law and regulations and continuing to reform and improve
public school programs (CDE, 2020).
California Department of Public Health (CDPH): 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
6
assistance and paraeducator services, library and media assistance, computer services and more
(CSEA, 2021).
CARES Act: The Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act (CARES Act) was
passed by Congress on March 27th, 2020. This bill allotted $2.2 trillion to provide fast and direct
economic aid to the American people negatively impacted by the COVID-19 pandemic. Of that
money, approximately $14 billion was given to the Office of Postsecondary Education as the
Higher Education Emergency Relief Fund (CSEA, 2021).
Center for Disease Control (CDC): National health agency that “conducts critical science
and provides health information” and responds to health crises (CDC, 2021, para. 2)
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, para. 1).
Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA): The primary activity of a union is to represent
the teachers in negotiating the terms of employment contracts, called collective bargaining.
Under the Rodda Act, passed in 1975, the school board and the union must review the terms of
the existing agreement at least once every 3 years. The result of this negotiation determines the
salaries and benefits, hours, calendar, and most aspects of teachers’ working conditions.
Negotiators can also discuss problems and address new issues that have arisen during the period
of the contract. This can be especially significant when the legislature and governor have passed
new laws—for example, about COVID-19 safety measures, school finance or teacher training
and evaluation. A district can implement these laws only after the impact has been collectively
bargained (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
7
Organization (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).
8
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, para. 1).
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, p.
1).
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,
9
parent-teacher organizations, and associations representing superintendents, principals, school
boards, or teachers in specific academic disciplines (e.g., the National Council of Teachers of
English or the Vermont Council of Teachers of Mathematics). In a word, stakeholders have a
“stake” in the school and its students, meaning that they have personal, professional, civic, or
financial interest or concern (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.
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
10
well-being, prevents disease, and expands access to health care (World Health Organization,
2021).
Organization of the Study
This research study is organized into five chapters. Chapter One introduced to the study,
statement of the problem, the purpose of the study, the significance of the study, four research
questions, limitations, delimitations, and the definitions of key terms. Chapter Two includes a
discussion of 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 possible implications for
further research as well as recommendations for future research.
11
Chapter Two: Review of the Literature
This study adds to the growing body of academic literature on how the COVID-19
pandemic disrupted K–12 school districts in Southern California. and how superintendents,
assistant superintendents, and principals responded to the crisis. There are a total of four sections
delineated in this literature review. The first section highlights historical examples of pandemics.
This segment examines the impact of pandemics on communities, as well as response trends and
patterns that emerged as recognized by the researcher. The second section includes background
on COVID-19, and a timeline of the outbreak. The context in this section focuses on COVID-19
educational related consequences and starts with defining and naming the considerations for
distance learning, the transition to distance learning and its impact on mental health, challenges
presented to parents and teachers, and the learning loss noted thus far. The final section focuses
on how agencies such as the U.S Congress, The California Department of Education, and
Governor Newsom responded. It also provides a snapshot example of how K–12 principals and
superintendents in the Coastal Bend region of Texas managed school operations during COVID-
19. This review of literature concludes with recommendations for best practices during crisis
situations.
Historical Background
Before unpacking the current global COVID-19 pandemic and its impact on the
educational system, it is critical to review historical examples of pandemics. The following
section provides historical pandemic examples with details regarding the type of illness, death
toll, and timeline of the pandemics impact. Furthermore, these historical examples are mentioned
to provide context on the unprecedented consequences of pandemics.
12
A deadly pandemic caused by the H1N1 influenza strain lasted from February 1918 to
April 1920 (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention [CDC], 2019). The CDC refers to
the1918 Spanish Flu as one of the most severe pandemics in recent history. According to the
CDC, the Spanish Flu infected about 500 million people, and the death toll is estimated to be at
least 50 million worldwide (CDC, 2017).
In early 2003, officials from the World Health Organization and the Centers for Disease
Control and Prevention what public health officials scrambled to contain an outbreak of the
deadly illness known as Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome (SARS). According to the CDC, it
spread to more than two dozen countries in North America, South America, Europe, and Asia
with a total of 8,098 people who became sick and 774 people died worldwide.
The swine flu (H1N1 influenza virus) was first detected in the Spring of 2009, and it was
the second pandemic involving H1N1. According to the CDC (2017), there were an estimated
60.8 million cases, 274,304 hospitalizations, and 12,469 deaths in the United States.
The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), first identified in December 2019, is a
contagious disease caused by a severe acute respiratory syndrome called coronavirus 2. It spread
worldwide, leading to an ongoing global pandemic with 29,769,325 total cases in the United
States and 541,289 total deaths in the United States as of March 25, 2021 (CDC, 2021).
The CDC (2017) provides a brief summary of response trends. In this summary, the CDC
highlights the need for emergency operations to provide round-the-clock coordination and
response. Another point provided in the summary, is the need to initiate a system that distributed
health notices to at-risk patients. Another commonality in the pandemics mentioned above was
the assistance needed by the state and local health departments to investigate the disease and
seek a cure.
13
Background/Context of the COVID-19 Pandemic
As reported by Education Week (2020), in early 2020, after a December 2019 outbreak in
China, the World Health Organization identified SARS-CoV-2 as a new type of coronavirus. In
the United States, the first school to shut down was on February 27, 2020, for two days of
disinfection (Education Week, 2020). On March 5, 2020, the shift to distance learning began,
impacting 24,000 students in the Northshore district in Washington state. On March 11, the
World Health Organization declared COVID-19 a pandemic and, by this time, more than 1
million students were impacted by school closures (Education Week, 2020). On March 12, Ohio
became the first state to announce statewide closing, and on the same day, 15 other states
followed (Education Week, 2020). The American Journal of Managed Care (2021) reported that
on March 13, 2020, former President Trump declared COVID-19 as a National Emergency,
which unlocked billions of dollars in federal funding to fight the disease’s spread. By March 16,
27 states and territories issued orders to cease in-person instruction, impacting more than half of
all students in the United States. By March 25, all U.S public school buildings were closed, with
Idaho and the Department of Defense Education Activity being the last to close (Education
Week, 2020). By May 6, 2020, all states except for Wyoming and Montana announced that
schools would not reopen for the 2019–2020 school year (Education Week, 2020).
COVID-19 Educational-Related Consequences
Defining Distance Learning
Because of the pandemic, schools had to operate what became known as distance
learning. The California Department of Education (2021) defines distance learning as:
instruction in which the student and instructor are in different locations. This may include
interacting through the use of a computer and communications technology, as well as
14
delivering instruction and check-in time with the teacher. Distance learning may include
video or audio instruction in which the primary mode of communication between the
student and instructor is online interaction, instructional television, video, telecourses, or
other instruction that relies on computer or communications technology. (para. 5)
It is important to define distance learning as this is the primary mode of instruction that most
schools converted to during the COVID-19 pandemic.
Distance Learning Considerations
When the Governor of California, Gavin Newsom, issued the executive order regarding the
physical closure of schools, Order N-26-20 provided local educational agencies (LEAs) with
continued state funding. The expectation, as noted on the California Department of Education
website, was that LEAs would:
• Continue delivering high-quality educational opportunities to students to the extent
feasible through, among other options, distance learning and/or independent study;
• Provide school meals in non-congregate settings through the Summer Food Service
Program and Seamless Summer Option, consistent with the requirements of the
California Department of Education and U.S. Department of Agriculture;
• Arrange for, to the extent practicable, supervision for students during ordinary school
hours; and
• Continue to pay employees (paras. 1–2) all good content used above … this is the
clarity you need to have throughout
For students to partake in distance learning, they needed access to digital devices
including, but not limited to laptops and hotspots. School communities cannot require students to
purchase devices or internet access, leaving it up to leaders to decide how to obtain adequate
15
resources (California Department of Education, 2021). The California Department of Education
website encouraged administrators to consider what existing resources they have and how to
leverage them in the transition to the distance learning environment. Furthermore, the California
Department of Education encourages school administrators such as Principals and Vice
Principals to consider processes that ensure students have equitable access and opportunity. The
California Department of Education also illustrated a continuum of delivery strategies based on
their student population and community needs. That continuum of delivery strategies is outlined
as follows: teacher interaction and assistance through online learning platforms, online
curriculum for students to work on at home, online curriculum in the computer lab or classroom
consistent with social distancing guidelines, paper packets of instructional materials for students
to work on at home, and in-person instruction that is consistent with social distancing guidelines
(California Department of Education, 2021).
Malkus (2020) collected data on the type of instruction students received between March
27 and May 29, 2020, using a sample of 250 school districts. When reviewing the analysis as
presented by Malkus, it informs of the different modes of instructions (instructional packets,
online platforms, or a mixture of the two) and supports such as some teacher assistance with
internet access, available to students during the pandemic. The findings also capture the few
opportunities that were available for students compared to a typical school year with students and
teachers physically present in the same classroom. This is what you need to do! For example, the
findings showed that “86 percent of schools were in districts that offered asynchronous platforms
such as Google Classroom, but those platforms were available for just 68 percent of the
instructional days after closures were announced” (Malkus, 2020, p. 6). Furthermore, 83% of
schools in late May offered instructional packets, but only 68% of instructional time after closure
16
(Malkus, 2020). Malkus also reported that synchronous platforms such as Zoom were available
in 44% of schools in late May but 32% of the year after closures. Malkus discovered that “poorer
and lower-scoring districts offered more packets and fewer asynchronous platforms, while high-
minority districts offered more of both” (p. 8). The data was collected to present how
opportunities varied across districts, and further suggest reasoning for the differences.
Transitioning to Distance Learning and Its Impact on Student’s Mental Health
The pandemic forced a sudden shutting of schools, leaving educators to continue
delivering high-quality educational opportunities to the extent possible (California Department of
Education, 2021). Transitioning to distance learning was not the only challenge that took a toll
on students (California Department of Education, 2021). According to the California Department
of Education (2021), “More than a year of “staggering” loss, grief, isolation, and uncertainty has
taken a toll on many students’ mental health, compounding the challenges students face in the
classroom, whether online or in person” (p. 2). Furthermore, a survey administered by Gallup
revealed that three in 10 parents said their child was “experiencing harm to [their] emotional or
mental health,” with 45% citing the separation from teachers and classmates as a “major
challenge” (Calderon, 2020). Though limited, studies are starting to reveal the toll that COVID-
19 has on the emotional well-being of students.
The unfortunate part of the transition to distance learning was the mental health crisis that
emerged when students in the United States lost access to school services (Terada, 2020). In the
article, Terada (2020) highlighted how schools act as a mental health system for 57% of
adolescents. School closures are especially disruptive for children from lower socio-economic
backgrounds. According to a recent study published in The Journal of the American Medical
Association (JAMA) Pediatrics, “among adolescents who received any mental health services
17
during 2012 to 2015, 35% received their mental health services exclusively from school settings”
(Golberstein et al., 2020, p. 819). The study also highlighted that “adolescents in racial and
ethnic minority groups, with lower family income, or with public health insurance were
disproportionately likely to receive mental health services exclusively from school settings”
(Golberstein et al., 2020, p. 819). It was evident that schools needed to continue to provide
services. As a result, tele-mental health services became a short-term solution, as the U.S.
Department of Health and Human Services made a temporary change that allowed tools like
Facetime to comply with federal mandates (Golberstein et al., 2020).
In addition to the mental health crisis, Dorn et al. (2021) address how the achievement
gap is likely to widen. The researcher analyzed the toll on learning and their data revealed that
students, on average, started schools three months behind where they were expected to be in
mathematics. However, students of color displayed 3 to 5 months delays in learning, while their
White counterparts were only 1 to 3 months behind (Dorn et al., 2021). The data for reading
shows little regression, as the students displayed about a month and a half behind in comparison
to historical reading averages. Dorn et al. highlighted the idea that, because conditions for
learning have improved significantly, students that have remained remote are likely to have a
better learning experience as they have adapted to distance learning. Dorn et al. also stated that
of the 13,000 public school districts in the nation, an estimated 60% of K–12 students started the
2020–2021 school year fully remote, 20% started with a hybrid model (remote and in-person
learning), and the remaining 20% stayed full-time in-person. Dorn et al. encouraged districts to
reimagine curriculum, teaching, technology, and support to accelerate learning.
18
Challenges Presented to Parents
Lee et al. (2020) launched a survey on April 14, 2020 with the goal of examining
parenting strategies and factors related to the transition to online learning early in the pandemic.
The sample for the survey included “405 U.S. adults who were the parent of at least one child
aged 12 and under, 69% of whom were mothers” (Lee et al., 2020, p. 3). Furthermore, the
average age of the 405 parents that completed the survey was 34 years old. On average, of the
405 collected surveys, there were about two children aged 12 and under in each household. The
majority of parents (84%) had another adult in the home who was spending time taking care of
the children. The data also showed that nearly one in four parents reported an employment status
change (e.g., laid off, furloughed) due to COVID-19. The survey data also suggested that parents
experienced numerous daily schedule disruptions since coronavirus. More specifically, 20% of
participants indicated a lack of physical activity, 12.8% reported cancellation in entertainment
activities, 21.5% indicated social isolation from relatives, and 7.2% indicated changes in their
basic routine (e.g., meal schedule). When asked about their level of preparedness to support their
children’s education at home, 55% indicated they felt prepared, 25% felt they did not have the
resources, and 50% of parents felt overwhelmed by responsibilities associated with educating
their child(ren) at home. The pandemic also contributed to a high level of anxiety among parents
and children as “44% of parents reported feeling anxious, nervous, or on-edge ‘more than half
the day’ or ‘nearly every day’; becoming easily annoyed or irritable (41%); having trouble
relaxing (38%); and worrying too much about different things (38%) ‘more than half the day’ or
‘nearly every day’ (Lee et al., 2020, p. 4). In the survey, parents also assessed the levels of
anxiety experienced by their children and the data revealed that “40% of parents reported that it
was ‘somewhat true’ or ‘very often true’ that their child complained of loneliness; worried
19
(39%); was nervous, high strung, or tense (30%); and cried a lot (27%)” (Lee et al., 2020, p. 4).
These data points highlight the concerns and challenges faced by families, as the pandemic
created both financial and mental hardships.
Teacher Practice Challenges
Nicosia (2020) highlighted the challenges teachers have encountered due to the
pandemic, ranging from layoffs, pay cuts, and fear of COVID-19 exposure. Nicosia reported
that, during a session at the Education Writers Association’s annual conference, a common
theme from conversations was the pandemic’s impact on racial and ethnic diversity among
teachers, anticipated strains on the substitute teacher pool, and how long-term remote instruction
is changing teacher professional development. In her article, Nicosia also mentioned that even
before the pandemic, the U.S teacher workforce had several challenges, and our educational
system cannot afford to go backward. With 18% of our teaching workforce being diverse
teachers and over half of our students being students of color in our system, Nicosia encouraged
teachers to set goals around assessing and accelerating learning.
Long Term Effects of the COVID-19 Pandemic
A statewide poll conducted by Global Strategy Group and The Education Trust (2020)
gave insight into the experiences and feelings felt by 881 parents in Washington State public
schools from April 13 to April 24, 2020. Key findings, as presented by The Education Trust,
varied by race and income, and it revealed that:
More than three in four (76%) public school parents report higher levels of stress than
usual, including 34% who say their level of stress is much higher than usual. More acute
feelings of stress are particularly common among parents of children with disabilities
20
(54% much higher) and families earning less than $50,000/year (47% much higher).
(para. 2)
The Education Trust reported that the top concerns among parents were ensuring that their child
did not fall behind academically, ensuring that their child was on track to graduate High School,
ensuring that their child was on track to attend college, their child not being able to interact with
other students while they were at home, and their child feeling bored or under stimulated while
they were at home. Furthermore, the data from a statewide poll, as conducted by Global Strategy
Group, revealed the significant gaps between what parents wanted and what was available to
them in the weeks after the school closures. For example, 58% of parents reported regular
contact with or access to their child’s teacher, while 96% stated it was helpful (The Education
Trust, 2020). In addition, 35% of parents expressed that their child’s school shared examples of
resources to help parents teach their children during the day, and 92% reported that it was helpful
(The Education Trust, 2020). As far as access to technology, 88% of parents stated that the
schools provided mobile technology devices like Chromebooks, and 53% said it was helpful
(The Education Trust, 2020). It was also reported that 84% of families were provided with free
internet access, and 22% reported that it was helpful.
The report also highlighted a significant drop in the subjects that students were exposed
to during distance learning. The Education Trust (2020) reported a significant drop across the
state in exposure to subjects: “science (64%) and social studies (58%) make up a second tier
while other subjects like physical education (41%), music and the arts (39%), English as a
second language (ESL) (18%), and world languages (17%) are getting significantly less
attention” (page 3).
21
Similar findings were discovered by Gross and Opalka (2020) as their research indicated
that two-thirds of school districts were setting low expectations for student instruction. Gross and
Opalka’s research also showed that only half of school districts nationally were tracking their
student’s engagement in learning (Gross & Opalka, 2020). Furthermore, Gross and Opalka’s
findings revealed that “27% of school districts require schools to track their students’
attendance—which could include monitoring logins to online platforms or other metrics for
participation used as a proxy for attendance” (para. 11). The difference in distance learning is
also highlighted in Gross and Opalka’s findings:
More affluent school districts are more likely to require live video instruction from
teachers. While expectations around synchronous, or real-time, teaching are uncommon
across the board (expected in 21.8%of districts), only 14.5%of school districts with the
highest concentration of students receiving free or reduced-price lunch expect teachers to
provide live instruction. The most affluent 25%of districts in our sample are twice as
likely to expect real-time teaching. (para. 19)
The online survey, as conducted by Global Strategy Group and The Education Trust,
revealed that parents of children with disabilities also shared higher levels of stress than usual as
a result of school closures. The Education Trust (2020) found that 54% of parents of students
with special needs were experiencing higher levels of stress in comparison to the 34% among
parents overall. Parents of children with disabilities also shared concerns with ensuring that their
child did not fall behind academically—62% said that this was very concerning, compared to
58% of parents overall (The Education Trust, 2020).
22
How the U.S Congress, California Department of Education, and Governor Newsom,
Responded to COVID-19
Support From the State of California
In response to COVID-19, the U.S Congress passed the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and
Economic Security (CARES) Act on Friday, March 27, 2020, which included 30.75 billion
dollars in emergency education funding (California Department of Education, 2021). The
funding, which became available in April of 2020, could be used for a variety of things, such as
purchasing personal protective equipment, improving ventilation, obtaining additional space to
ensure social distancing, bolstering payroll to prevent layoffs, hiring additional staff, funding
summer or after-school programs to blunt learning loss, or providing Wi-Fi hotspots and devices.
On December 30, 2020, Governor Gavin Newsom announced an initial Safe Schools for
All plan that strategized around reopening elementary schools in February and March
(Fensterwald, 2021). With this, an online hub was created to inform school districts of technical
information and resources. It also served as a resource for parents to find answers and lodge
concerns (Fensterwald, 2021). The plan included 2 billion dollars in grants to schools that agreed
to send elementary students back to school starting February 15, 2020 (Fensterwald, 2021).
Elementary schools looking to reopen had to negotiate a health and safety plan with the
employee union by February 1 and start a COVID-19 testing program for students and staff
(Fensterwald et al., 2021).
Fensterwald et al. (2021) summarized the 51-page document created to clarify social
distancing guidelines and it included:
1. Masks: Even the youngest students, from transitional kindergarten through second
grade, had to wear masks in schools;
23
2. Social distancing: Ambiguous language around social distancing, enabling schools to
keep a 6-foot distance among students and staff “where practicable,” had been
trimmed back (see pages 21–22). Under the new regulations, there had to be a 6-foot
bubble between staff and students; deviations were permitted after “good-faith
efforts”—justifiable to health officials—had been tried, including consideration of
hybrid learning models. In no case could the classroom distance be less than 4 feet;
3. Minimum infection levels: On Dec. 30, in announcing his “Safe Schools for All”
strategy for reopening schools, Newsom said that no school that had not been already
open can return to in-person instruction in counties where the COVID testing
positivity rate was averaging more than 28 cases per 100,000 population. Most
counties were above that level at the time. The revised threshold of 25 cases per
100,000 was slightly lower but still in the upper range of the most restrictive “purple
tier” of the state’s classification system and applied only to elementary schools. As
before, no middle or high school could reopen until the county was in the red tier,
with a much lower rate of infection. The exception was those schools that brought
students back to school before the post-Thanksgiving surge. (paras. 9–11)
Fensterwald et al. also reported that, in January of 2021, schools were required to report every
other week in detail by grade whether in-person instruction was full-time or part-time through a
hybrid model and whether small cohorts of high-needs students, including homeless children and
students with disabilities, were receiving services.
Leadership During a Pandemic
The COVID-19 pandemic caused a sudden closure of schools, leaving K–12 principals
and superintendents in the Coastal Bend region of Texas scrambling for ways to support online
24
learning. A study done by Varela and Fedynich (2020) revealed the lack of resources and
confidence leaders had in responding and managing school operations during the pandemic.
Direen (2017) highlighted the ways in which leadership roles are magnified and
scrutinized in times of crisis. Families expected teachers to deliver standards aligned curriculum
remotely. Leaders had to continuously check-in on the digital platforms as well as the
accessibility of school. Of the 152 principals and superintendents that were invited from the
Coastal Bend region of Texas, only 30 participants responded to an online survey using a Likert
scale and open-ended questions. Of the respondents, 25 (88%) were campus level principals
while four (13%) were school district superintendents. In their study, Varela and Fedynich
(2020) mentioned that 53% of school leaders indicated that they were prepared to support their
teachers upon learning of school closures. Results indicated that 53% of leaders felt confident in
how they were prepared to support students during the pandemic. Moreover, 57% of the leaders
were confident in their ability to support parents and guardians during the pandemic (Varela &
Fedynich, 2020). A strong majority of leaders (80%) responded that they were confident in their
preparedness to lead teachers as they transitioned to remote learning. However, when leaders
were asked if their district/campus was prepared with adequate resources to transition to remote
learning, only 37% agreed. The study also asked leaders to think about the future of K–12
education as the pandemic persisted, and of the 30 respondents, only nine responded. Of those
respondents, 44% did not believe that their district/campus is prepared to continue remote
learning (Varela & Fedynich, 2020). Results revealed that 77% of the group of nine respondents
felt prepared to effectively lead remote learning for the incoming school year. The survey also
had leaders reflect on their level of agreement with the following statement: The COVID-19
pandemic will change how I lead my campus/school district in the future. Results indicated that
25
of the 30 participants, 97% indicated they either agreed or strongly agreed. The study also
allowed participants to add additional comments, and amongst those comments the most
common terms mentioned were planning, success, working, teachers, students, communication,
online learning, time, parents, and staff.
Respondents also stated:
● One size does not fit all. Some schools need more resources than others. Low socio
eco schools need the ability to give students electronic devices and Wi-Fi access.
● The biggest problem we faced was to support our students without the technological
capabilities at home. The paper format was a poor replacement for instruction.
● The level of preparedness was based on availability of technology and/or ability to
obtain devices for our students. Our district did an amazing job obtaining devices in
record time. However, not being a 1-1 district impeded our progress and thus I could
not answer “strongly agree” on several preparedness questions. We also realized our
students do not possess “appropriate” technological skills
● I think it was difficult to serve those in most need and early childhood students
(Varela & Fedynich, 2020)
In general, the survey administered by Varela and Fedynich revealed that school leaders had to
evolve quickly as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic. It also brought to light the fact that
schools are equalizers and serve as a safe place for students. As a result, school closures have
also brought forth the reality of inequities that exist. The study displayed high levels of
confidence amongst leaders but unfortunately, the pandemic has created a series of challenges
that is felt by students across the world.
26
Recommendations on How to Prepare and Respond to Future Crisis Situations
Undoubtedly, the pandemic required leaders to respond quickly, efficiently, and
proactively. According to Nichols et al. (2021), managing a crisis requires employees to be
coached in the following four behaviors: deciding with speed over precision, adapting boldly,
reliably delivering, and engaging for impact. In their article, Nichols et al. stated, “Those in
charge will be tested in areas where they have not fully developed their leadership muscles, and
the learning curve will be steep. They will need coaching from their own bosses and others”
(para. 1). Because the roles and responsibilities drastically changed for leaders in all sectors,
Nichols et al. highlighted the importance of knowing how to decide with speed over precision.
Because situations change by the day, it is important for leaders to train themselves in
understanding the information that is available, rapidly determining what matters most, and
making decisions with conviction (Nichols et al., 2021). More importantly, Nichols et al.
mentioned that missteps will happen and, as a leader, it is better not to punish. Nichols et al.
stated that leaders must also adapt boldly and get ahead of changing circumstances.
Cheatham (2020b) highlighted the change in experience of those entering leadership
roles, as she stated, “Leadership entry is always daunting, but leadership entry now is especially
precarious” (para. 1). Further research suggests that strong leaders must learn to seek out
opportunities to heal, repair, and transform (Cheatham, 2020b). In addition, Cheatham
encourages leaders to understand the context of the community in front of them by trying to
understand the community’s history of oppression, opportunity, and leadership for racial and
social justice—and the connection to present-day challenges and opportunities. Cheatham
suggested that leaders need to exhibit the following behaviors:
27
● Be transparent and build trust: “It is critical to seek out multiple perspectives, to “see”
people, to show competence early on by getting after some quick wins, and to follow
through on your plan. Use social media, for example, for regular reporting of your
actions and insights, and be open to the feedback you hear” (Cheatham, 2020b, para.
12).
● Listen with empathy: “If you lead an education organization, nothing is more
important than listening to students, especially students of color and other students
who are marginalized. How can you gain multiple perspectives? How will you gain
access to and center the voices of those most marginalized?” (Cheatham, 2020b,
para. 14).
● Make tough decisions easy: Districts are facing tough trade-offs in every realm—and
some of these decisions risk producing unnecessary conflict between the needs of
children and their teachers. But one group cannot be forfeited for another. Districts
need to be clear on what the upper and lower boundaries are, what is “good” given
the circumstances, and what principles district leaders should never compromise
when making their toughest decisions. (Cheatham, 2020a)
Cheatham (2020b) shares this information with the hopes of encouraging and guiding leaders
with ways of putting the community first. With these suggestions, Cheatham believes that
leaders can manage crisis situations with ease as long as they are leading with transparency and
equity.
Nichols et al. (2020) highlight behaviors that allow leaders to thrive under crisis
situations. Because of the roadblocks that COVID-19 presented, those in charge were tested in
areas that they may not have been otherwise versed. Nichols et al. provide the following tactics
28
which support the following areas: deciding with speed over precision, adapting boldly, reliably
delivering, and engaging for impact.
● Give credit where it’s due: Collect and amplify positive messages —successes, acts
of kindness, obstacles that have been overcome. Many companies are tied to a noble
purpose, such as saving lives, manufacturing medical equipment, helping markets
function more efficiently, or providing joy. Whatever your purpose, celebrate your
daily (often unsung) heroes. Simply staying productive in these times is heroic
(Nichols et al., 2020).
● Collaboration: Ask for help as needed. The best leaders know they can’t do
everything themselves. Identify team structures and assign individuals to support key
efforts (Nichols et al., 2020).
Nichols et al. address the ever-changing priorities that leaders encounter in crisis situations.
Because of this, it is important to understand how roles and responsibilities will shift, and
naming who should be at the table when having these tough conversations.
Conclusion
COVID-19 presented a disruption in K–12 school districts which shifted the roles and
scope of superintendents, principals, and assistant principals, into “crisis managers.” The first
section of the literature review examines historical pandemics and its impact on the community
(number of cases and deaths). It concludes with response trends and patterns that emerged such
as communication systems and the urgency to find a cure. The following section provides a
timeline of COVID-19 that starts with a time frame of early 2020 when the World Health
Organization identified SARS-CoV-2 as a new type of coronavirus and concludes with
education-related consequences as noted until May 2020.
29
The literature review highlights challenges that arose as schools transitioned to distance
learning and its immediate and long-term impact on teachers, families, and students as revealed
by a statewide poll conducted by Global Strategy Group and The Education Trust (2020).
Additional findings on COVID-19 and its educational related consequences were highlighted by
Gross and Opalka (2020) as their research indicated that two-thirds of school districts were
setting low expectations for student instruction. The literature also mentions how the U.S
Congress, The California Department of Education, and Governor Newsom, are responding to
COVID-19, as this impacts how educational leaders make decisions. Furthermore, the literature
provides a snapshot on how K–12 principals and superintendents in the Coastal Bend region of
Texas managed school operations during the pandemic.
The literature review concludes with recommendations on how to prepare and respond
for future crisis situations. The first recommendation as proposed by Nichols et. al (2021)
encourages leaders to adapt boldly, and the importance of making decisions with speed over
precision. The next recommendation as highlighted by Cheatham (2020b) emphasized the
importance of understanding the context of the community when a crisis situation is encountered,
and the need to build trust to be able to heal and transform the community. The following
recommendation that concludes this section is given by Nichols et al. (2020) who supports the
idea of amplifying positive messages in order to maneuver difficult situations.
Due to the recent nature of COVID-19, the researcher found limited studies. This adds to
the current need of research on how COVID-19 disrupted K–12 school districts in Southern
California. and how superintendents, assistant superintendents, and principals responded to the
crisis. New findings can support leaders and their decision-making process during a crisis
situation.
30
Chapter Three: Methodology
The preceding chapters provided an overview of the study, the research questions guiding
the study, and a literature review that is relevant to the topic under discussion. This chapter reviews
the statement of the problem, the purpose of the study, and the research questions. It includes a
discussion of the design of the research study, a summary of the methodology, identification of
the participants, and the instruments used to conduct the research. It concludes with an explanation
of how the data will be collected and analyzed and a summary of this chapter.
Statement of the Problem
The COVID-19 pandemic disrupted K–12 school districts, causing unforeseen
consequences within the education system and highlighting financial implications, the impact of
agencies, negotiations with unions, and the impact on students and the community. COVID-19
shifted schools and school leaders’ roles and scope, beyond instructional leaders and transformed
them into “crisis managers”.
Purpose of the Study
The purpose of this study is to analyze the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on
Southern California K–12 school districts and understand what district superintendents, assistant
superintendents and principals have learned from their experiences and their decision-making
responsibilities managing the crisis. This study brings to light the impact of the pandemic on
students, families, leaders, schools, and districts. Most importantly, this study examines how
district and school leadership influences administrative practices, student achievement, financial
responsibility, union leadership, and community/parent support as they responded to the
COVID-19 crisis.
31
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?
2. What, if any, have been the impact of federal, state, and local health agencies on K–12
public school districts in Southern California, and what strategies have district
superintendents, assistant superintendents, and principals followed to address the
suggested guidelines?
3. How, if at all, have union negotiations played a role in K–12 Southern California public
school districts’ response to the COVID-19 pandemic?
4. How, if at all, have K–12 Southern California public school districts leadership teams
comprised of superintendents, assistant superintendents, and principals addressed the
concerns of the parent community regarding safety, nutrition, distance learning, lack
of technology, academic standing, and how and when to re-open schools due to the
COVID 19 pandemic?
Research Team
Dr. Rudy Castruita from the University of Southern California (USC) Rossier School of
Education led the research team. The dissertation group was composed of twenty-two students,
with Dr. Castruita as the lead researcher and the supervisor for the study. The research team,
which consists of three members, began meeting in the spring of 2021, and contributed to the
literature review bibliography, statement of the problem, purpose of the study, research
32
questions, conceptual framework, and data collection instruments. Due to the many group
aspects of the thematic process, there may be some similarities in the dissertations.
Research Design
This study was designed as a mixed-methods study, utilizing qualitative and quantitative
methods to collect and analyze the data. A mixed-methods approach was selected to establish
triangulation for more accurate findings and make the research study more holistic (Maxwell,
2013). Lochmiller and Lester (2017) state that triangulation establishes evidence across multiple
data points to support the claims made in the study. Collecting data through interviews and
surveys enables triangulation between the results, which is crucial for cross-checking the data
collected and supporting the study’s findings (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). This study was
conducted with school superintendents, assistant superintendents, and principals of Southern
California K–12 public school districts. This study involved collecting qualitative data from
open-ended interview questions with superintendents, assistant superintendents, and school site
principals and quantitative surveys completed by the same district and school leaders that were
interviewed.
Qualitative Methods
In qualitative research, the researcher is the primary data collection and analysis
instrument, and the product is very descriptive. Qualitative researchers study their natural
settings and are often interested in comprehending how people interpret their experiences and
what meaning they attribute to their experiences. They use an inductive process to understand
from the perspective of the study participants (Lochmiller & Lester, 2017; Maxwell, 2013;
Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). Qualitative methods allowed researchers in this study to uncover how
school leaders made decisions and addressed challenges during the COVID-19 pandemic. The
33
researchers used nine interviews in conducting this qualitative research study. The semi-
structured interview protocol developed by the research team consisted of 26 questions, and
researchers were able to ask follow-up questions. Separate interview protocols with minimal
vocabulary changes and similar questions were created for superintendents, assistant
superintendents, and principals. The interview protocols can be found in Appendix E–G. The
researchers conducted the interviews via Zoom and took an average of 35 minutes to complete.
The interview protocol was followed consistently throughout the interviews, and additional
questions were asked when necessary. Via the interviews, the researchers gathered data that
reflected the participants’ opinions, decisions, and knowledge. Qualitative research aims to
interpret how individuals make sense of a process and describe how they interpret what they
experience (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016).
Quantitative Methods
Quantitative research describes patterns, trends, and relationships using numerical data.
Quantitative research usually collects data using instruments such as assessments, surveys, and
existing datasets. The most commonly used protocol for gathering quantitative data is a survey.
Surveys allow the researcher to obtain information from the participants and then easily convert
it to quantitative data to be analyzed (Lochmiller & Lester, 2017). For this study, quantitative
data were collected using a self-administered question survey given on Qualtrics (see Appendix
A–C). The survey questions were developed around the four research questions (see Appendix
H). The survey was designed to gather data that reflected the school leaders’ experiences, views,
decisions, and knowledge about the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on Southern California
K–12 public school districts. Separate surveys with minimal vocabulary changes and similar
questions were created for superintendents, assistant superintendents, and principals. The surveys
34
consisted of 5-point Likert scale questions using the following responses: 1 = strongly disagree
to 5 = strongly agree. The surveys took an average of 35 minutes to complete. The survey link
was emailed to all nine Southern California K–12 school district leaders: three superintendents,
three assistant superintendents, and three principals. The survey included the research
participants invitation email (see Appendix D), the survey questions, and final instructions.
Participants completed the survey using Qualtrics, which tabulated the number of responses
returned. Each survey was slightly altered for each participant group to create more relevancy to
the role and experience of each of the three roles included in this study. This also allows the
researcher access to the best possible responses to address the research questions and quantify
the level of support for each specific survey item (Creswell & Creswell, 2018).
Sample and Population
The identified population for the study consists of leaders of Southern California K–12
public school districts, superintendents, assistant superintendents, and principals. Convenience
sampling and purposeful sampling were utilized in selecting the school districts and the
superintendents, assistant superintendents, and principals who participated in this study.
Convenience sampling happens when the researcher selects individuals based on proximity and
accessibility rather than specific criteria. Purposeful sampling occurs when the participants are
selected based on specific criteria (Lochmiller & Lester, 2017; Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). This
research study included purposeful selection to ensure that all participants worked in public
Southern California K–12, K–8, elementary, and high school districts in superintendent, assistant
superintendent, or principal roles. The selection criteria included the following:
• traditional California K–12, K–8, Elementary, and High School district
superintendent, assistant superintendent, or principal;
35
• public schools;
• the superintendent, assistant superintendent, or principal must have worked in the
current role for at least one year
• the superintendents, assistant superintendents, or principals served in these positions
during the 2020–2021 school year; and
• the student population of the district is at least one thousand.
The sample size for the interviews was set at nine participants, and the minimum sample size for
the survey responses was set at nine participants. Superintendents, assistant superintendents, and
principals selected for this study played a role in supporting school districts and school sites
during the COVID-19 pandemic. The interviews and surveys collected will be compared to the
results collected by other research team members. Table 1 displays the identified population for
this study:
36
Table 1
Participant Selection Criteria
Superintendent Assistant superintendent Principal
In position for at least 2
years
In position for at least 2
years
In position for at least 2
years
Served in position during
2019–2020 and 2020–
2021 school years
Served in position during
2019–2020 and 2020–
2021 school years
Served in position during
2019–2020 and 2020–
2021 school years
Leader in public, K–12
district in Southern
California
Leader in public, K–12
district in Southern
California
Leader in public, K–12
district in Southern
California
Completed study survey
and interview
Completed study survey
and interview
Completed study survey
and interview
Researcher 1 School District Information
School district A serves 6,603 students grades kindergarten through 12th grade (EdData,
2021). The district has an average daily attendance of 4,765 (EdData, 2021). According to
EdData (2021), nearly 37.2% of the student population are English Learners and 91.2% receive
free and reduced-price meals. School district B serves 4,612 students grades kindergarten
through 12th grade (EdData, 2021). The district has an average daily attendance of 2,426
(EdData, 2021). According to EdData (2021), nearly 7.8% of the student population are English
Learners and 38% receive free and reduced-price meals. School district C serves 16,278 students
grades Kindergarten through 12th grade (EdData, 2021). The district has an average daily
attendance of 15,755 (EdData, 2021). According to EdData (2021), nearly 27.3% of the student
population are English Learners and 63% receive free and reduced-price meals.
37
Researcher 2 School District Information
School district D serves 24,776 students grades kindergarten through 12th grade (EdData,
2021). The district has an average daily attendance of 19,393 (EdData, 2021). According to
EdData (2021), nearly 26.3% of the student population are English Learners and 93.4% receive
free and reduced-price meals. School district E serves 3,406 students grades kindergarten
through 12th grade (EdData, 2021). The district has an average daily attendance of 3,176
(EdData, 2021). According to EdData (2021), nearly 25.6% of the student population are English
Learners and 91.2% receive free and reduced-price meals. School district C serves 23,699
students grades kindergarten through 12th grade (EdData, 2021). The district has an average
daily attendance of 22,301 (EdData, 2021). According to EdData (2021), nearly 13% of the
student population are English Learners and 27.5% receive free and reduced-price meals.
Researcher 3 School District Information
School district G serves 3,502 students grades kindergarten through eighth grade
(EdData, 2021). The district has an average daily attendance of 3,408 (EdData, 2021). According
to EdData (2021), nearly 3.1% of the student population are English Learners and 14.6 % receive
free and reduced-price meals. School district H serves 15,730 students in Kindergarten through
eighth grade (EdData, 2021). The district has an average daily attendance of 15,194 (EdData,
2021). According to EdData (2021), nearly 46.3% of the student population are English Learners
and 86.9% receive free and reduced-price meals. School district I serves 23,724 students grades
9th through 12th grade (EdData, 2021). The district has an average daily attendance of 22,611
(EdData, 2021). According to EdData (2021), nearly 6.3% of the student population are English
Learners and 60.9% receive free and reduced-price meals.
38
Instrumentation
After analyzing the current literature and participating in collaborative discussions to
identify gaps in research, an interview protocol and a survey were designed to address the
research questions guiding this research study. The interview and survey questions were field-
tested beforehand to ensure they were concise and that the results generated addressed the
research study questions. Interviews took place virtually because of the safety protocols due to
the COVID-19 pandemic and out of consideration of the time constraints of the participants who
were still leading school through a pandemic. Survey instruments were sent to the participants'
email of choice. All the interviews were recorded with participants’ permission, and notetaking
was also used. Appendix E–G contains the interview protocol that was used. The survey
instruments were administered to Southern California K–12 public school superintendents,
assistant superintendents, and principals. The link to the survey questions was emailed to the
participants. Appendix A–C contains the survey questions that were sent to each participant.
The conceptual framework (See Figure 1) utilized for this research study was based on
three theoretical frameworks. The three frameworks assist in developing an understanding of the
theories that impact school leadership and how they can be adapted to the current situation of
managing the COVID-19 pandemic crisis. The four frames, political, structural, human
resources, and symbolic, described by Bolman and Deal (2017) provide school leaders at both
site and district levels the roadmap to navigate the different aspects of leadership and how leader
actions and habits can impact the organization. Fullan’s (2014) The Principal: Three Keys to
Maximizing Impact goes deeper into the specific role of principals as enacting change at the site
level through being a lead learner, district and system player, and change agent. Westover’s
(2020) framework provides the guiding principles that districts can enact to create an
39
organization that can move together through change and create for continuous improvement
systems. These three frameworks together provide Southern California K–12 school districts
with the steps to persist, at all levels of leadership; even through a crisis like the COVID-19
pandemic.
Figure 1
Conceptual Framework
40
Data Collection
After approval was obtained from the University of Southern California Institutional
Review Board (IRB) during the fall of 2021the data collection process began. District
superintendents were contacted via a formal written request (email), followed by a phone
conversation to obtain permission for the study and access to assistant superintendents and
principals. Once the district superintendents granted permission, participants were contacted for
participation in the study via an email. The email included a summary of the research study, a
request to participate, and a link to the survey. In addition, participants were contacted by phone
to encourage responses to the surveys and to request interviews.
The researchers distributed the surveys through Qualtrics, an online format that allows
participants to complete the survey at their discretion. Participants spent an average of 15
minutes completing the online survey. The semi-structured interviews took place via Zoom and
took an average of 35 minutes to complete. All interviews were recorded with participants’
permission. A professional transcriber transcribed the recordings from the interviews.
Data Analysis
This mixed-methods study used qualitative data from interviews and quantitative data
from surveys. After the data was collected, the qualitative and quantitative data were analyzed
separately based on the four research questions delineated in the study. The qualitative data
collected from the interviews were organized and analyzed to identify common themes. The
researchers read through the interview transcripts, made notations using open coding followed by
axial coding and concluded with selective coding. Common themes and patterns were identified
to understand the impact of the pandemic on schools, students, and leaders and how school
leaders managed the crisis.
41
The researchers compiled the quantitative data collected by the survey instrument and
analyzed the data using Qualtrics. Each participants’ responses were separated and organized
using the Likert-scale values 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5. The average score from each question was
calculated for each participant and included one overall average score across all participants’
questions. The researchers evaluated the responses to determine commonalities and differences.
Ethical Considerations
The research process demands that researchers think cautiously about the interaction with
others and the consequences of those interactions. Likewise, ethically responsible agents place
the voice of the oppressed at the center of inquiry and use that inquiry to reveal the change and
activism needed to help people. So, an important aspect of ethical research is the focus on respect
for the individuals and the community (Denzin, 2016; Glesne, 2011; Lochmiller and Lester,
2017; Merriam and Tisdell, 2016). The researchers followed all ethical considerations
throughout the design and implementation of this research study. All guidelines and procedures
for the University of Southern California Institutional Review Board (IRB) were reviewed and
implemented throughout the entire research study. To ensure that the researchers conducted the
study in an ethical manner, all participants were informed of the purpose of the study, and it was
clearly stated that their participation in the study was voluntary. Participants were also informed
that their identities and responses would be kept secure and confidential, and the data would be
handled carefully and safely. During the interviews, explicit permission was requested to record
the sessions. The participants were made aware that the findings would be distributed as a
dissertation in the doctoral program at the University of Southern California.
42
Summary
This chapter restated the statement of the problem, the purpose of the study, and the
research questions. The research design, which included details of the research methods,
including the sample and population, instrumentation, data collection, and data analysis were
also presented in this chapter. Data collection began after the researchers obtained approval for
IRB. This study used appropriate tools and followed all ethical standards to ensure the validity
and reliability of the study. The superintendent, principals, and assistant principals willingly
participated in this study. The research findings of this study and in-depth analysis will be
presented in Chapter Four.
43
Chapter Four: Findings
The purpose of this study is to analyze the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on K–12
Southern California school districts and understand what district and site administrators have
learned from their experiences and their decision-making responsibilities in managing the crisis.
This study brings to light the impact of the pandemic on students, families, leaders, schools, and
districts. Most importantly, this study examines how district and school leadership influences
administrative practices, student achievement, financial responsibility, union leadership, and
community/parent support as they responded to the COVID-19 crisis.
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
leaders 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. The researchers used interviews to collect data
during the study’s qualitative phase. The semi-structured interview protocol consisted of 14
questions and a series of follow-up probes. The interviews were used to gather data that reflected
the participants’ opinions, decisions, and knowledge. This study involved collecting qualitative
data from open-ended interview questions with participants and quantitative surveys completed
by the interviewees.
The survey questions were also developed around the four research questions and
designed to gather data that reflected the school leaders’ experiences, views, decisions, and
knowledge about the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on Southern California K–12 public
44
school districts. This study gathered data using three variations of the same survey (one version
was used for the superintendent, one version was used for assistant superintendents, and one
version was used for principals), distributed to all 27 participants. The surveys consisted of 5-
point Likert-scale questions (1 = strongly disagree to 5 = strongly agree.). The survey instrument
was web-accessible to all participants and was designed to capture the numeric description of the
perceptions of the district- and site-level administrators regarding district- and site-level
challenges related to the COVID-19 pandemic.
The quantitative findings, shown in Tables 5 to 8, show the average participant score for
each survey question. Chapter Four presents the findings from the research questions. The results
found in this chapter are the results of the online survey and Zoom interviews. The following
four questions guided the research study:
1. What are the financial implications of the COVID-19 pandemic on K–12 public
school districts in Southern California and how did district superintendents, assistant
superintendents, and principals address these implications?
2. What was the impact of federal, state, and local health agencies on K–12 public
school districts in Southern California, and what strategies did district
superintendents, assistant superintendents, and principals follow to address the
guidelines suggested by these agencies?
3. What was the role of union negotiations in K–12 Southern California public school
districts' response to the pandemic?
4. How did K–12 Southern California public school districts leadership teams composed
of superintendents, assistant superintendents, and principals address the parent
community’s concerns regarding safety, nutrition, distance learning, lack of
45
technology, academic standing, and how and when to reopen schools due to the
pandemic?
Participants
Nine school districts located in Southern California were contacted to participate in the
study. The nine districts were located in Los Angeles, Ventura, and San Bernardino counties. All
nine school districts serve demographically diverse students in kindergarten through high school.
All nine districts met our selection criteria which included the following:
• traditional Southern California K–12 district superintendent, assistant superintendent,
or principal;
• public schools;
• the superintendent, assistant superintendent, or principal must have worked in the
current role for at least one year;
• the superintendents, assistant superintendents, or principals served in these positions
during the 2020–2021 school year; and
• the student population of the district is at least one thousand.
The 27 school and district leaders who met the criteria completed a self-administered survey
designed around four research questions and participated in a virtual interview via Zoom. To
protect the identities of all superintendents, assistant superintendents, and principals in our study,
all participants were assigned pseudonyms.
Demographic Data
As shown in Table 2, 27 participants were chosen from nine different K–12 public school
districts in Southern California. The nine participating school districts served a total of 122,330
students, with the smallest school district (District E) serving 3,406 students and the largest
46
school district (District D) serving 24,776 students. An average of 62.9% of all enrolled students
across all nine districts were identified as socioeconomically disadvantaged (SES), with the
smallest percentage of SES students (14.6%) in District G and the largest percentage of SES
students (93.4%) in District D. Of the total student enrollments in all nine school districts, an
average of 22.7% of students were identified as English learners (EL), with the smallest
percentage of EL students (6.3%) in District I and the largest percentage of EL students (46.3%)
in District H.
47
Table 2
School District Participants: Demographic Information
District Grade
levels
Student
population
Socioeconomically
disadvantaged
Average
daily
attendance
English
learners
District A K–12 6,603 91.2% 4,765 37.2%
District B K–12 4,612 38% 2,426 7.8%
District C K–12 16,278 63% 15,755 27.3%
District D K–12 24,776 93.4% 19,393 26.3%
District E K–12 3,406 91.2% 3,176 25.6%
District F K–12 23, 699 27.5% 22,301 13.2%
District G K–8 3,502 14.6% 3,408 14.6%
District H K–8 15,370 86.9% 15,194 46.3%
District I 9–12 23,742 60.9 % 22,611 6.3%
Note: Data reflects the 2019–2020 school year (EdData, 2021)
As part of the research process, 27 participants were asked two demographic questions:
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 that research participants had experience leading their districts and schools during
the COVID-19 pandemic.
48
As displayed in Table 3, three out of the nine participating superintendents (33%) had
served in their role for just 1 to 2 years. Similarly, three participants (33%) had served in their
role for over 10 years. Two of the nine participating superintendents (22%) had served in their
role for 3 to 5 years. Additionally, as can be seen in Table 3, one of participating superintendents
(11%) had served in their position in their current district for 6 to 10 years. All nine
superintendent participants (100%) experienced leading through the COVID-19 pandemic.
Table 3
Quantitative Survey: Participant Demographic Information
Position Southern California
district
Years in position Years in position at
current district
Superintendent A1 Yes 1 to 2 Less than 1
Superintendent B1 Yes 3 to 5 3 to 5
Superintendent C1 Yes 3 to 5 3 to 5
Superintendent D1 Yes Over 10 6 to 10
Superintendent E1 Yes 1 to 2 1 to 2
Superintendent F1 Yes 1 to 2 1 to 2
Superintendent G1 Yes 6 to 10 6 to 10
Superintendent H1 Yes Over 10 Over 10
Superintendent I1 Yes Over 10 Over 10
49
As shown in Table 4, six of the nine participating assistant superintendents (67%) had
served in their position for 3 to 5 years. One of the nine assistant superintendents (11%) was
newer to the position, having served only 1 to 2 years. Two of the nine participants (22%) had
served in their position for 6 to 10 years. Eight participating assistant superintendents had served
in their current position exclusively in their current, respective districts. All nine assistant
superintendent participants (100%) experienced leading through the COVID-19 pandemic.
Table 4
Quantitative Survey: Participant Demographic Information
Position Southern California
district
Years in position Years in position at
current district
Assistant Superintendent A2 Yes 6 to 10 6 to 10
Assistant Superintendent B2 Yes 1 to 2 1 to 2
Assistant Superintendent C2 Yes 3 to 5 3 to 5
Assistant Superintendent D2 Yes 3 to 5 1 to 10
Assistant Superintendent F2 Yes 3 to 5 3 to 5
Assistant Superintendent G2 Yes 6 to 10 6 to 10
Assistant Superintendent H2 Yes 3 to 5 3 to 5
Assistant Superintendent I2 Yes 3 to 5 3 to 5
50
As indicated in Table 5, one out of the nine participating principals (11%), had served in
their role for just 1 to 2 years. Similarly, one out of nine participants (11%) served in their
position for 3 to 10 years. In contrast, three out of nine participants (33%), had served in their
position for 6 to 10 years. Four out of the nine who participated (44%), had served in their role
for over 10 years. Seven of the nine participating principals (77%) had held the position of
principal exclusively in their current, respective districts. All principal participants (100%)
experienced leading through the COVID-19 pandemic.
Table 5
Quantitative Survey: Participant Demographic Information
Position Southern California
district
Years in position Years in position at
current district
Principal A3 Yes 6 to 10 6 to 10
Principal B3 Yes 6 to 10 6 to 10
Principal C3 Yes 6 to 10 6 to 10
Principal D Yes Over 10 6 to 10
Principal E3 Yes Over 10 Over 10
Principal F3 Yes Over 10 Over 10
Principal G3 Yes 1 to 2 1 to 2
Principal H3 Yes Over 10 1 to 2
Principal I3 Yes 3 to 5 3 to 5
51
Results for Research Question 1
Research question asked the following: What are the financial implications of the
COVID-19 pandemic on K–12 public school districts in Southern California and how did district
superintendents, assistant superintendents, and principals address these implications?
The unprecedented financial implications facing K–12 school systems due to COVID-19
include but are not limited to rising costs, declining revenue due to declining enrollment, and
greater student needs; this has impacted how leaders approach their finances (Zhou et al, 2021).
Given the impacts of factors such as fluctuating revenue projections, unpredictable enrollment
numbers, the uncertainty of the ongoing costs related to COVID-19, and the greater breadth and
depth of students’ needs, it will take a transformed vision of schooling to effectively meet these
needs (Educational Research Strategies, 2021) and financial resources to support that vision. The
first question was designed to assess the financial impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on schools
and to learn how districts used the Coronavirus Aid Relief and Economic Security (CARES) Act
for the Elementary and Secondary School Emergency Relief Fund (ESSER) to respond to those
needs and if the additional funds helped mitigate the challenges school districts are facing. See
Table 6.
There were six survey questions addressing Research Question 1. The survey questions
were designed to learn about district leaders’ perceptions of the effectiveness of the ESSER
Funds given to their districts from the CARES Act as a resource to respond to and mitigate the
needs brought on by the pandemic. As seen in Table 2, there were two areas where most
superintendent respondents (77.8–100%) agreed or strongly agreed that CARES Act funds met
their district’s funding needs. The majority of superintendents (77.8%) agree that the CARES
Act met their district’s funding needs in the area of personnel. All superintendent respondents
52
(100%) agree or strongly agree that the CARES Act met their district’s funding needs for
personal protective equipment (PPE). Whether the CARES Act met the district’s funding needs
in the area of facility upgrades, superintendents responded differently, with responses ranging
from disagree to strongly agree.
53
Table 6
Quantitative Survey: Superintendents of the Nine School Districts’ Perception of Financial
Implications of COVID-19
Element Strongly
disagree
Disagree Neither
agree nor
disagree
Agree Strongly agree
The CARES Act
met my district’s
funding needs in
the area of
personnel.
0.00% 0.00% 22.2% 55.5% 11.1%
The CARES Act
met my district's
funding needs in
the area of
personal
protective
equipment
(PPE).
0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 44.4% 44.4%
The CARES Act
met my district's
funding needs in
the area of
technology.
0.00% 0.00% 33.3% 22.2% 33.3%
The CARES Act
met my district's
funding needs in
the area of
professional
learning and/or
training.
0.00% 11.1% 22.2% 55.5% 0.00%
The CARES Act
met my district's
funding needs in
the area of
facility
upgrades.
11.1% 22.2% 11.1% 33.3% 22.2%
54
There were four interview questions that directly addressed the research question and
were designed to allow respondents to discuss the financial implications more broadly. Interview
responses to the four questions provided the researchers with information to better understand
financial and fiscal decision-making made by school and district leaders during the COVID-19
pandemic crisis. The unprecedented challenges faced by K–12 school systems nationwide
required coordinated action from district, state, and federal leaders and a sustained, multi-year
effort to transform and rebuild the nation’s schools. However, federal and state education leaders
had to help districts not only with financial support, but also by removing barriers and creating
pathways that made it easier to implement strategies that were sustainable for students, teachers,
and districts (Zhou et al., 2021). There were two themes that emerged during the interviews
about financial and fiscal decision-making made by school and district leaders during the
COVID-19 pandemic crisis—government relief and the lack of incentives.
Government Relief
Schools in California were allowed to re-open for in-person instruction as long as their
districts posted a Coronavirus Safety Plan by February 1, 2021, posted a dashboard listing
COVID positive cases of their students and staff at each school site that was open, and submitted
a COVID-19 Safety Plan to their local health officer and the state’s Safe Schools for All team
(Harrington, 2021). In addition to guidelines and mandates, schools were also provided with
financial support. The Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security (CARES) Act, which
provided states with federal funds, was signed into law on March 27th, 2020 (CDE, 2021). The
$30.75 billion in emergency education funding was distributed to states through the Governor’s
Emergency Education Relief (GEER) Fund and the Elementary and Secondary School
Emergency Relief (ESSER) Fund, which provided financial support to local educational agencies
55
(LEAs) to assess and address the various ways in which COVID-19 has and may continue to
impact the educational landscape and needs of school communities (CDE, 2021). In the
interviews, K–12 school and district leaders in Southern California expressed their appreciation
for government aid amidst the pandemic and how these monies provided school districts with
opportunities to support students.
Superintendent B1 explained the way in which government relief prevented detrimental
cuts and supported the maintenance and growth of programs that support student learning.
There was sort of an ebb and a flow, rollercoaster sort of, as we started the pandemic,
because we entered March of 2020 looking at that budget going into June, and the
approval of the governor’s budget at that point, looking at a significant cut to the LCFF.
So, we were planning for what we would call a worst-case scenario, a really tragic
scenario, in terms of staffing and layoffs and program cuts and all of that. And then, the
government stepped in and provided relief and it ended up totally flipping. And so then,
there was enough money, obviously, to be able to maintain and grow programs, really in
response to COVID.
Superintendent E1 provided an example in which one-time, government funding helped
mitigate district expenses brought upon by the COVID-19 pandemic.
All the one-time money we’ve gotten from the state and the federal government has
helped really to mitigate some of the expenses tied to the COVID 19. pandemic, and
helped we needed to buy additional PPE, air filters, upgrading the filters in the H vac
systems. And you know, moving forward with some of the money to replace some of our
older H vac systems to newer ones.
56
Superintendent F1 also expressed the ways in which one-time, government funding
helped mitigate district expenses as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic.
Well, I think it’s been positive. With all the one-time funding from for COVID relief, and
the increases that people didn’t see coming with all of the, you know, the revenues at the
state level, you know, that’s going to really help here in the short term, but also kind of as
we push through this to, to mitigate some of the effects and what we’re able to provide
for students.
No Incentives
In California, Governor Newsome signed Senate Bill 86, which allocates $2 billion to
schools that submitted reopening plans by April 1 and brought elementary students back by April
15 along with other prioritized, high-needs students (Jones & Freedburg, 2021). In addition,
Senate Bill 86 also proposed that some schools may face penalties such as having their allocated
grant reopening funding cut by 1% per day if they do not open by the deadline (Jones &
Freeburg, 2021). However, in the interviews, district leaders unanimously claimed that the
additional funding did not serve as an incentive for their reopening plan. Instead, the
preparedness and readiness of their staff and students served as the main driving force behind
allowing students back into the classroom.
Superintendent H1 explained that schools in their district planned to open as soon as they
could and their timeline was not influenced by additional government funding.
Not at all. Again, from the very beginning, the mantra was, we don’t know when but we
are opening the schools. We try and you know, I got a lot of heat for that at the
beginning. When people asked me will you be waiting until … and my answer is always,
57
we are getting ready to open tomorrow. And even though tomorrow, it wasn’t literally, I
wanted people to know that as soon as we could, we will open.
Superintendent I1 clearly expressed that their decision to reopen was driven by what’s
best for students.
Zero. That wasn’t the incentive. Umm the incentive was for us to get students back in the
classroom because we believe that is the best situation for them. Umm, we do have some
students that chose not to do that, but uhh, a very very small percentage, less than 2%.
School and District leaders in Southern California K–12 schools agreed that financial
government relief helped mitigate some of the costs brought upon by the COVID-19 pandemic.
Students remained a priority when considering how money was spent and timelines for
reopening school buildings.
Results for Research Question 2
Research Question 2 asked the following: 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? In the Spring of 2020, schools were facing a
complicated array of health considerations; throughout the state, districts were navigating these
and other issues with guidance from federal and local health government agencies, organizations,
and health experts to safely prepare for the return to in-person learning (Kearney & Childs,
2021). School and district leaders grappled with inconsistent guidance and surging community
infections (Gross et al., 2021). Safety guidelines and mandates from county and state officials
provided school and district leaders with a set of criteria to safely reopen schools (Harrington,
2021). The California Department of Education (CDE) created resources for how parents can
support their children at home and a Strong Together Plan which provided a comprehensive
58
checklist for reopening schools, mental health, and well-being among other topics (CDE, 2021).
The school-reopening guidance offered by the CDC naturally focuses on public-health
considerations, leaving it to educators to devise how to keep students and staff safe while also
meeting students’ educational needs (Bailey, 2020).
The second research question was designed to understand better the impact of health and
safety guidelines on school districts’ ability to reopen schools safely. Research study participants
responded to three survey questions related to health and safety guidelines. As seen in Table 7,
all of the superintendent respondents (100%) agreed that health guidelines impacted their
district’s return to school plan in the spring of 2021. Most superintendents (66.6%) strongly
disagreed or disagreed that the federal, state, and local health guidelines were clear in providing
information to support the safe reopening of schools, while some (22.2%) agreed or disagreed on
the same element. Whether superintendents understood how to safely bring back staff during the
fall of 2020 to work sites based on the public health guidelines, superintendents also responded
differently with responses ranging from strongly disagree to strongly agree.
59
Table 7
Quantitative Survey: Superintendents of the Nine School Districts’ Perception of the Impact of
Health and Safety Guidelines
Element Strongly
disagree
Disagree Neither agree
nor disagree
Agree Strongly
agree
The federal, state, and
local health
guidelines were
clear in providing
information to
support the safe
reopening of
schools.
11.1% 55.5% 0.00% 11.1% 11.1%
I understood how to
safely bring back
staff during the fall
of 2020 to work
sites based on the
public health
guidelines.
11.1% 11.1% 0.00% 44.4% 22.2%
The health guidelines
impacted our
district’s return to
school plan in the
spring of 2021.
0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 33.3% 55.5%
Four interview questions directly addressed the research question and were designed to
provide respondents with an opportunity to discuss the impact, if any, of the health and safety
guidelines from various governmental agencies they had to implement to reopen schools safely.
Responses to the three questions provided the researcher with information to better understand
60
the collaboration between various agencies and the strategies districts used to safely implement
the guidance and reopen schools. Two themes emerged during the interviews.
Difference of Opinion of Consistent Guidance
District and school leaders disagreed on the opinion of consistent guidance for the
implementation of health and safety mandates and policies from federal and local health
government agencies, organizations, and health experts. Superintendent B1 discussed the
challenges that school and district leaders faced due to inconsistent communication from federal
and local health government agencies, organizations, and health experts.
I’m talking specifically about, let’s talk about county and state organizations, going to
talk specifically about the health departments, maybe the Governor’s office too, in that,
there just was a lack of alignment in getting the message to school leaders quick enough,
getting it where it was clear enough, where it was in print fast enough and where the
voice of the school administrators, the school district leaders was taken into account.
And, that was a big challenge. And I have to say that, looking at CDC guidelines versus
LADPH guidelines versus California Department of Health guidelines, Cal/OSHA
guidelines and all of the others, was extremely, extremely challenging. And, when one
organization doesn’t talk to the other organization, you’re left in a position where you’re
susceptible and you’re vulnerable. And, it’s hard as a leader to be vulnerable when you’re
trying to battle a pandemic and deal with all the fallout of a pandemic.
Superintendent A1 explained how inconsistent communication from federal and local
health government agencies, organizations, and health experts left district superintendents feeling
lots of pressure from schools and the communities they serve.
61
I think it was hit and miss. You know, medical people, the science people, you know,
they come out, they share information and then when it would reach down to our
Department of Public Health, sometimes it would align, sometimes it wouldn’t. You
know, as a school district, you have a lot more pressure on you, especially as a
superintendent to say, I’m sorry, I know the school down the road that’s in another
county has said, no more masks, or you don’t have to do this anymore. But we are gonna
follow the guidelines, we’re gonna stay true to this until we hear differently, and
sometimes that’s not the popular thing to do.
Superintendent D1 expressed a different opinion regarding guidance and communication
from federal and local health government agencies, organizations, and health experts.
The LCDPH did a fantastic job of providing guidance. We meet on a weekly basis to
receive updates related to state and county guidelines pertaining to COVID 19
Guidelines, mandates and recommendations. This is an ongoing process that allows us to
update our COVID 19 Protocols within our school district.
Principal D3 also mentioned that their school and district depended heavily on guidance
from federal, state, and local government agencies and community organizations to keep school
communities safe.
We also, of course, had guidance from the CDC, the Health Department, the Los Angeles
County Office of Education, and as soon as any new finding was revealed dealing with
COVID we complied and we made sure that we reassess our situation and went along
with whatever plan they had. because we understood it’s a pandemic, and we couldn’t
take it lightly. There were health issues at stake. You know, these are people’s lives at
stake. And so, we want to make sure that everyone was as healthy as possible coming
62
back and re engaging. But we always followed the agencies that I just named; we always
followed the plan.
Communication and Collaboration
Despite a difference of opinion in how various government agencies, organizations, and
health experts offered guidance to school and district leaders, superintendents agreed that
communication and collaboration played a critical role in interpreting and implementing health
guidelines and policies. Superintendent A1 shares the process of communication and how school
and district leaders collaborate to ensure there is an alignment in messaging to staff, students,
and families.
I quickly just made that decision, like, no, we’re gonna do weekly updates, you know,
even if there are no updates, just to sort of say, like, here’s our, you know, information.
So, in terms of communicating that piece, it always begins with, you know, I meet with
my cabinet, and we listen to the conversation, to the updates and guidelines and say,
okay, what changes do we need to make? Okay, this, okay, what’s a clear way to say
that? So, we’ve been tweaking, copying, from different districts that have these great
graphics, or these visuals that we can use; infographics to help. But you know, once we
sort of come up with the way we’re going to communicate it, then I communicate that to
my administrators and directors, once they give the blessing or say, hey, you know what,
maybe we should also say this, and then we communicate it to staff. And then the final
piece is communicating to parents, you know, making sure that it’s all in alignment. And
obviously, we can mitigate that in Spanish as well.
Assistant Superintendent F2 also discussed how school and district leaders collaborate to
communicate with students and families to help them understand decisions and district policies.
63
I think the biggest strategy, it certainly comes under the umbrella of communication to
why is what we like to refer to it as where it’s, it’s not just a, you know, distribution of
rules and info. And, you know, without it being a dialogue. So, I’d say, you know, we
had a lot with every phase of reopening, we had the district level, and then at the local
school level. It gave folks a chance to know and understand the why behind a decision
making, and the construction of the boundaries and, you know, restrictions that are put in
place, and how to feel assured that what we’re doing is, you know, going to be done
safely and with thorough thought.
Principal E3 discussed the ways in which their district communicated and collaborated
with health agencies to remain up to date with mandates and procedures.
I would say that, like, I know, the superintendent had, like a weekly meeting with, you
know, our LA county superintendent and health, LA County Health and so forth. So
different agencies there. And I know there was a weekly meeting, and that’s where the
updates would come in. And then our district office would relay those to us.
Some district leaders shared the challenges that school and district leaders faced as a result of
inconsistent communication from federal and local health government agencies, organizations,
and health experts. In contrast, other district leaders had a difference of opinion and felt that
agencies such as Los Angeles County Department of Public Health did a fantastic job of
providing guidance. Despite a difference of opinion, Superintendents and Assistant
Superintendents agreed that communication and collaborat
ion played an instrumental role in implementing and interpreting health guidelines and policies.
64
Results for Research Question 3
Research Question 3 asked the following: How, if at all, have union negotiations played a
role in K–12 district’s response to the COVID-19 pandemic? After the initial closures in March
of 2020, school districts were forced to quickly roll out distance learning plans and revisit the
present collective bargaining agreements (CBAs) that were negotiated between teachers’ unions
and district administration (Hemphill & Marianno, 2021). State health and educational agencies
provided guidance that helped district leaders negotiate agreements or Memorandums of
Understanding (MOUs) with certified and classified unions to determine staff members’ work
stipulations due to the pandemic. These MOUs determined compensation, work hours, non-
teaching duties, evaluation, leave, and technology (Hemphill & Marianno, 2021). COVID cases
began to decline in the spring of 2021, and schools began to reopen, which placed teacher unions
in a position to influence schools’ opening through collective bargaining agreements. The
decision to reopen schools is placed on school boards and district administrators instead of
policymakers which leaves teachers unions to influence when and how schools reopen (Hemphill
& Marianno, 2022).
The third research question was designed to help the researchers better understand the
role of labor unions in shaping districts’ response to the COVID-19 pandemic. Study participants
responded to three survey questions related to Research Question 3, as seen in Table 8.
Superintendents, assistant superintendents, and principals were all aligned in their responses.
Overall, participants felt very strongly that union negotiations with both certificated and
classified staff were important in effectively responding to the COVID-19 pandemic.
65
Table 8
Quantitative Survey: District and Site Leaders’ Perceptions of the Impact of Union Negotiation
Superintendent Assistant
superintendent
Principal
Negotiations with certificated unions
influenced the way my district
effectively responded to the COVID-19
pandemic for students and families.
3.9 2.9 4.3
Negotiations with classified unions
influenced the way of my district
effectively responding to the COVID-19
pandemic for students and families.
3.2 3.5 4.3
Negotiations with the teacher’s union
impacted the quality of instruction
offered to students during distance
learning.
3.6 3.9 3.9
Note. The online Qualtrics® survey incorporated a 5-point Likert scale response (1= strongly
disagree to 5= strongly agree).
Four interview questions directly addressed research question number three and were
designed to provide respondents with an opportunity to discuss the impact, if any, of union
negotiations on districts’ response 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. Three themes emerged during the interviews: nourishing relationships
amongst classified and certificated staff, redefining roles and responsibilities for classified and
certificated staff, and return to in-person learning.
66
Nourishing Relationships Amongst Classified and Certificated Staff
Assistant Superintendent I2 highlighted the importance of using principal and teacher
voices as a guide to making decisions.
And so, at every school site, you had school leaders just coming together to find
solutions. And then the broader picture of principals bringing these ideas together. And
then based on the feedback that we’re getting from all those schools, that really shaped
how negotiations went. So, it was really a bottom up, grassroots, teacher led initiative,
from my perspective, but obviously, as you do that, you begin to learn about certain
things begin to look at certain perspectives, and then all that becomes part of the
negotiation. They have become part of negotiations. So, I would say the leaders, the
teacher leadership, in their knowledge is what really shaped negotiations for the
instructional programs, particularly when it came to working on Zoom, and working
online. And then the district came behind that to assist in the implementation and
obviously bringing some more things that we think could augment what the teachers
wanted, and needed, wasn’t always the most fun thing to do, but I thought it’s pretty
successful in being able to pivot from being in the classroom, to going online.
Assistant Superintendent F2 highlighted the importance of collaborating with their
classified staff.
We had conditions in place that were mutually worked through and agreed upon. I’ll say
it was extremely amicable. We were, we’re very fortunate. And I think our teachers union
would say the same that, you know, we really do work collaboratively. And, and it was,
we all had the same idea in mind, you know, let’s, let’s make sure what we’re doing is
thoughtful, and that we’re doing it safely, that we understand the rules, and you know, the
67
restrictions and boundaries that are given to us by other people who are more expert in
this than us. And then let’s do everything we can to do what’s best for kids and get back
to whatever thing we can do that’s closest to normal. And that was the mindset, and I,
you know, it hasn’t changed, fortunately.
Superintendent C1 discussed the importance of having mutual agreements with the
unions:
But we have a really solid relationship with our teachers union. And so, we had
handshake agreements every step of the way. And then we followed up with those with
memorandums of understanding. And as we hit bumps in the road, we talked them
through, but there’s not been one issue that we haven’t been able to come to some level
of mutual agreement upon, because I think we philosophically agree on the need to
protect our workforce, while serving our kids.
Superintendent B1 reiterated the importance of listening to the staff and their needs.
And then, you have to be open to listening. For a lot of us who are in district leadership
positions, we’ve been out of the classroom for quite some time. So, that direct impact to teacher,
to student, we can think and think we know all we want, but the reality is, until you’re in the
classroom and dealing with the day to day, we don’t. And so, we have to listen. But we also have
to make sure that our focus is on the student. And adults need to keep adult issues to adult issues.
And so, again, to resolve it, we wanted to come up with this... My mantra always is, “let adult
problems be adult problems, and not let that impact kids.” And so, going through negotiations, as
hard as it is, is still trying to keep that center.
Principal F3 emphasized the importance of going the extra mile to hear concerns and
allowing staff to have input in the layout of their workspace.
68
It was how we’re setting up their classrooms. And also, how are we screening kids
coming in. And so, we took an extra step here, there was the healthy screening survey,
every student had to take every student coming in at the gates, I just show their green
screen. We also went all spring; we were doing temperature checks. We provided the
masks, the hand sanitizer, and the wipes, not just for the teachers, but in every classroom
students, we had boxes laid out throughout every classroom. So, we had 1000s and 1000s
of 1000s of wipes on campus. And then making sure their workspace or no student desk
was within six feet of the teachers teacher station. So those are the things that we put in
place in partnering with the teachers union.
Redefining Roles and Responsibilities Schedules for Classified and Certificated Staff
Superintendent A1 discusses how a work day for classified staff versus certificated staff
was presented and justified.
Truly, it was, you know, that bonus pay, because, you know, when everybody was able to
stay home, a lot of our classified didn’t have that option. They had to be here, like the
lunch people, right, the custodians, so making sure that they got that hero pay. So that
was another way of negotiating with our unions, you know, finding that flexibility, where
in the past, you couldn’t do something out of your classification. They basically said,
okay, because we’re shorthanded, because we need all hands-on deck, we’re gonna allow
you to do this from here to this date. So, like I said, and some, I really found that, you
know, working with unions, they were like, okay, we’ll do it, because it’s what’s best.
But there were some situations where I really do feel that it was just sort of, like, you
know, shame on you for doing that. And, and it’s unfortunate. But, you know, the whole
rationale was, there’s money, you know, why not give it to us kind of thing.
69
Assistant Superintendent H2 highlights how deciding to have classified staff onsite
impacted their relationship.
We needed to have people at our schools to open our offices to answer questions to
provide our parents services-to assist our parents with helping them just logging on and
you know, we implemented Canvas, well, if you don’t know how to access that initially,
then having a virtual video isn’t gonna get you to where you need to get, and so the
burden of that day, the responsibility of that was to a certain extent placed on our
classified staff, our outreach consultants and our office staff and being able to open our
offices. And so that was probably the most complex. Ultimately, it happened, but it didn’t
happen without some rub, that we’re still dealing with the consequences of that, right, of
those relationships, of feeling that they’re less valued because and it’s not a matter of
value, it was really a matter of, we have to continue to operate and offer our families, the
services, and teachers could teach virtually, but you know, and so we’re still dealing with
that. That relationship building, I think.
Superintendent G1 discussed the need to negotiate higher expectations for the hybrid
model in order to serve students best.
Between March of 2020, when we initially closed schools, in June of 2020, the level of
teacher time and in quality of programs was not good. And so, when we came back to
negotiate the fall of 2020 to 2021, what hybrid was going to look like? It was absolutely
necessary that we were going to have more rigor, we were going to have more teacher
time in front of the Zoom, we were going to have more student check-ins, we were going
to have social emotional learning. And so, the district took a more active role in what
virtual hybrid learning was going to look like. Because they didn’t do a very good job.
70
The first three months, what we did do well on was we literally close school and send
kids home on Friday, the 13th of March. And on Saturday, or on Monday, the 16th of
March, we reopened virtually, and every student had a device. So, we had no pause in
access, or in devices of instructional program. But the quality of what they got was not
that good.
Return to In-Person Learning
Assistant superintendent F2 discussed the teachers’ concerns regarding the conditions of
returning to work.
Well, certainly working conditions when we moved to being at home, work didn’t get
easier. Certain factors of work changed. The idea of helping students in person and
dealing with some of the distractions and nuances of behavior, and a classroom was very
different on Zoom. They asked for some training, they asked for some time to prepare, so
they could do that job well, and we were able to provide that to them. When we shifted
from one to the other, we had the terms spelled out with mutual agreement via the MOU
process specific to that, so that everybody knew and understood that regardless of what
school you worked for, what grade level you work for, when it was your turn, to come
back, and be in person with live students that we were going to allow for a transition
period to occur.
The superintendents, assistant superintendents, and principals in this study concurred that safety
was the most important topic addressed in union negotiations. Principal C3 highlighted how
negotiations informed safety procedures:
I think just make sure that we had enough of the PPE for all of our staff members,
making sure that we followed what the guidelines were from the Department of Health to
71
have lots of the Senate, a lot of hand sanitizers. Making sure that like everything is
cleaning and custodial staff UPS goes in and cleans them regularly. So, and Making sure
that if there was a positive case, then we would make sure that we have a team going in
and making sure that we can clean off the tables a little bit more doing a deep cleaning,
rather than just in general. So, so that was an impact from our work, they wanted to make
sure that that was safe for the students and staff.
Results for Research Question 4
Research Question 4 asked the following: 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? During a pandemic, the decision to close schools is tough. On the one hand, closing
schools sends a powerful message to the community about the severity of the pandemic, but
closure also means that the needs of the communities will not be met (Braunack-Mayer et al.,
2013). Closing schools impacted many social structures in the community; therefore, public
health benefits from school closures are to be weighed against life-altering costs such as the
educational, economic, and social-emotional turmoil that was imposed on students and their
families (Bailey, 2021). In a nationally representative, online poll of 1,720 educators
administered on April 7 and 8, 2020, 99% of district leaders said that they were at least doing
something to address equity during closures. They were doing this by offering pick-up/delivery
of free or reduced-price meals, providing devices, providing additional online tutoring available,
and providing online/phone therapy for students that need them (Kurtz, 2020). Amid disruptions
caused by the COVID-19 pandemic, a majority of parents of K–12 students expressed concerns
about their child falling behind (Horowitz & Igielnik, 2020). Parents with lower incomes were
72
more likely than middle-income and upper-income parents to voice concerns about their children
falling behind due to pandemic disruptions (Horowitz & Igielnik, 2020). Many students relied on
free or reduced meals provided at schools, and when schools close, nutrition was compromised.
According to Sharfstein and Morphew (2020), “There are major divides by race/ethnicity,
geography, and economic class in access to home computers and high-speed internet” (p. 133).
Successfully operating schools during the COVID-19 pandemic required sufficient resources to
implement and sustain effective mitigation strategies. School districts across the country
grappled with safely operating schools in the 2020–21 school year, they leaned on the CDC,
which provided indicators to help guide school districts to operate schools in the safest ways
possible. Rice et al. (2021) stated,
These indicators include measures of underlying community transmission and a measure
of adherence to five primary mitigation strategies:
1. consistent and correct use of masks,
2. social distancing to the extent possible,
3. hand hygiene and respiratory etiquette,
4. cleaning and disinfection, and
5. contact tracing in collaboration with the local health department. (p. 1917)
The fourth research question was designed to help the researcher better understand the
relationship between school districts and the parent community during the COVID-19 pandemic.
Research study participants responded to seven survey questions. As seen in Table 9, 88.8% of
superintendent participants agreed or strongly agreed that their districts maintained good
communication with families during the pandemic and met the needs of students and families in
nutrition and technology (computers/devices). As seen in Table 9, there were four areas where
73
superintendents believed they could have served their constituents better: in the area of meeting
students’ needs in technology (internet service), in meeting students’ academic needs, in meeting
students’ social-emotional needs, and in the area of health and safety. 66.6 % of superintendent
participants agreed or strongly agreed their district met the needs of students and families in the
area of technology (internet service) while 11.1 % of participants neither agreed nor disagreed
and 11.1 % of superintendent participants disagreed that their district met the need of students
and families in the area of technology (internet service). 33.3% of superintendent participants
disagreed that their district met the academic needs of students.
In contrast, 33.3 % of superintendent participants agreed that their district met the
academic needs of students, while 22.2 % of superintendent participants neither agreed nor
disagreed. 55.5 % of superintendent participants agreed or strongly agreed that their district met
the social-emotional needs of students in their district, while 11.1 % neither agreed nor
disagreed, and 22.2 % disagreed that their district met the needs of students’ social-emotional
well-being. 66.6% of superintendent participants agreed or strongly agreed that their district met
the needs of students and families in health & safety, while 22.2 % of superintendent participants
disagreed.
74
Table 9
Quantitative Survey: Superintendents’ of the Nine School Districts’ Perception of Parent
Concerns
Element Strongly
disagree
Disagree Neither
agree nor
disagree
Agree Strongly
agree
My district maintained
good communication
with families during
the pandemic.
0% 0% 0% 22.2% 66.6%
My district met the needs
of students and
families in the area of
nutrition.
0% 0% 0% 33.3% 55.5%
My district met the needs
of students and
families in the area of
technology
(computers/devices).
0% 0% 0% 33.3% 55.5%
My district met the needs
of students and
families in the area of
technology (internet
service).
0% 11.1% 11.1% 33.3% 33.3%
My district met the needs
of students and
families in the area of
social emotional well-
being.
0% 22.2% 11.1% 33.3% 22.2%
My district met the needs
of students and
families in the area of
health & safety.
0% 22.2% 0% 33.3% 33.3%
My district met the
academic needs of
students.
0% 33.3% 22.2% 33.3% 0%
75
Two interview questions directly addressed the research question and were designed to
provide respondents with an opportunity to learn more about the relationship between the parent
community and school districts during the COVID-19 pandemic. Responses to the two questions
provided the researchers with information about parents’ perceptions of school districts meeting
their needs during the COVID-19 pandemic. Four themes that emerged during the interviews,
safety as a priority, food insecurity, technology needs of students and their families, and
students’ academic needs.
Health and Safety Needs
Superintendent C1 discussed that parents were more involved than ever before, which
was an indication that they needed to make sure they had built-in streams of communication.
Early on, I realized that this pandemic woke up the sleeping giant, and that’s parents. I’m
not exaggerating. We’re a district of 15,000 kids. Prior to the pandemic if we called a
district-wide meeting regarding LCAP (Local Control Accountability Plan) input we got
25 parents, If so. Remember March 20, we shut down, we started our LCAP planning,
like in May, April, May, we held a Zoom LCAP meeting, I had 1,100 parents in that
meeting. I don’t think they knew that they were coming to, but they were hungry and
needing to connect with the schools. So, we realized real quick, we had to have these
avenues for connecting.
One hundred percent of superintendents, assistant superintendents, and principals in
Districts A- I shared that their community’s main concern was surrounding their children's
safety. Assistant Superintendent B2 spoke about families’ safety concerns regarding how schools
were going to maintain safety.
76
Safety first was just that. how are you going to keep distance? How are you going to
make sure people are going to wear masks? That was the first concern in October,
November, December of 2020. How are you going to make sure kids are going to wear
masks? How are you going to make sure special ed kids are going to wear masks? How
are you going to make sure teachers keep masks on? That was kind of the first thing of,
how safe are you really to come back and what are you going to do if someone gets
COVID? How do you clean? A lot of it was around that safety piece of it, of the
hesitation. Do you guys really know what you’re doing? That was part of it.
Principal C3 discussed how parent reassurance of safety made it easy to transition back
into in-person learning.
I think we do a good job of communicating with them with what we’re going to do and
how to keep their children safe.
Superintendent B1 reflected on mental health as one of the biggest safety concerns for
students and staff.
I do think that, when I look back and or evaluate where we are now today, the biggest
thing that. ... I don’t want to say I misjudged or was misjudged, but just don’t think there
was any way to quantify how bad the mental health side of this was going to be for, not
just for students. I’m talking for staff. I’m talking for parents, families, caregivers. The
level of mental health. ... I don’t know. Gosh, the level of need in the area of mental
health was so huge, and still is so huge, that there’s just not enough resources to fully
address it. I mean, you do the best you can. But I don’t think that any of us could have
guessed to the extent that this would be such a huge issue for the return. And so, I think
parents saw it more, maybe sooner.
77
Food Insecurity
Superintendent A1 expressed pride in the district’s ability to meet students’ nutritional
needs during the pandemic school closures.
Because we’re 100% free and reduced lunch there were structures and systems in place,
where our kids can pick up and go every single day. So, I think that that system, once
they got those kinks worked out, was great. After a while, not only did kids receive, their
breakfast or lunch, but they were also even given additional food to the families too. So, I
think that that was something that the state did a fantastic job. Providing those extra
resources, and nutrition. All nutrition staff, the state really stepped up to another level and
making sure that our families had food. And on some days packing it up, so that way, it
would eliminate the amount of times that our families had to go out and possibly expose
them, to their kids to, to the virus.
Principal B3 also expressed their district’s response to meet the nutritional needs of their
community.
None whatsoever. Because through the entire time, when the school was closed, families
were able to come pick up lunch. And extra too, no questions were asked. If you said I
need three, you got three. We just had to document. Also, the local high school was doing
it. So, families who really needed it, they could come here and then go there. Again, no
questions were asked. And this year, all students are getting free lunch as well. So
regardless of socioeconomic status, everybody qualifies for free lunch.
Superintendent D1 discussed having to adjust and rethink their nutritional programs to meet
students’ nutritional needs
78
Yes, the packaging and distribution of meals had to be reevaluated. We had to adjust
hours of operations and reconfigure menus. We adapted the pickup process so that
families could pick up meals during virtual learning from any site in the district during
instead of their home school. Multiple meals were sent home instead of one meal per day.
Students’ Technology Needs
Principal B3 discussed how having a one-to-one device allowed for a seamless transition
to virtual learning.
Our district, our site has always been a one-to-one device, one device per student. In
some cases, more because we have a computer lab in addition to every student having
their own device. So, students were able to take their Chromebooks home. So even right
now when a student gets exposed, if they have to quarantine for 5 to 10 days, parents, we
ask parents, “Do you need a Chromebook?” Parents will say, “No, we got it,” or yes, and
they sign it out and return it when they come back. We also have hotspots available for
families that don’t have internet at home. Luckily, we’re in a community or in an area
where I think we probably, at this school alone, only had about five spots that we shared
out during distance learning, and none this year.
Superintendent D1 shared their immediate response to the school closures by getting their
families what they needed to continue schooling.
Yes, there were. We did a pretty good job with the distribution of devices and hot spots
for all students that needed them. However, we soon found out there were dead zones
within the city. We had to adapt and supply hotspots from all 4 major carriers because
certain hot spots worked in areas where others did not. We did a pretty good job of
79
identifying which families did not have internet access in their homes and as such
supplied them with hot spots.
Superintendent C1 discussed the challenges with students being able to access technology
to participate in distance learning.
We saw like, every school district has a story like you distribute a laptop, a Chromebook.
And then the family calls and says it’s not working. So, we say, ‘Okay, bring it back, we
get a new one.’ And then the second one’s not working. ‘Okay, bring it back,’ we get the
third one. It’s not working. We realize, you know, it’s the user, you know what I mean?
So, there’s those kinds of things right. But wholesale. Now, you know, we all pivoted and
learned the technology. And so, it was bumpy in the beginning, much smoother as we got
into the 2021 school year.
Parents’ Academic Concerns
Superintendent B1 shared how parent concerns around their child’s well-being and
academic progress pushed the district to rethink their instructional programs for virtual learning.
Yes. Yes. I mean, pretty much any concern you could think of was brought up probably
at one point throughout this process. And the concerns, as I shared earlier, achievement
gap or the learning gap, social emotional gap, and how are we addressing that, and how
we’re making sure students had enough time with their teacher. Very, very big concern in
the district was, was it enough time? Is 40 minutes block period, 40 minutes of time
before a break enough? And, I think we were challenged by our community to revisit and
relook at our schedules, to make sure that we were giving enough time, to make sure we
had conversations with our teachers about the why, why do we need to provide more time
80
for students? But definitely, I say valid concerns from the community related to student
achievement, academics.
Principal A3 discussed the challenges that students had to go through when learning
virtually.
Yeah, I think everywhere, right, and not just specifically to our community, but even in
more affluent communities, we saw that parents were like, ‘What is this? What is this
Zoom thing, you know, it is so hard to stay focused via screen. Depending on the kid, you
know, some kids, that was their gig, they were going to be fine. There, there’s always
going to be some kids that are going to thrive on something. But then there’s those kids
that really need that social interaction that they’re just not going to be you are going to
lose them. And so, you had parents saying, I don’t know how to do this, you know,
there’s falling asleep when I’m checking in on them. Or some teachers were saying, you
know, the kids in their bed and the pajamas? Well, yeah, they’re at home, you know, and
then we have little control of that. Or we have the parents in the background, you know,
doing all kinds of things like cooking. And some parents live in a tiny house and so they
had four or five kids Zooming. So, the reception was horrible. Just so many stories, and
so many dilemmas than you know, I could write a book. But yeah, it was a challenge.
Superintendent A1 discussed parent concerns about their child’s support and lack of
motivation.
I think mostly our special ed families, were the biggest ones to really advocate for the
lack of live instruction, the lack of support. Because I mean, although I think all students
didn’t benefit from distance learning, and that’s just my take, because you obviously
can’t replace that day-to-day interaction and connection. But when you’re looking at
81
students with very severe learning disabilities, there’s no way that their needs could have
been met. You know, most of these kiddos, are in a classroom, they have an aide right
next to them that teacher which helps them stay engaged and super focused. And like I
said, I think, for the most part, those are the families that were heard the most from, and a
lot of our students who are, you know, learning English, it was hard for them to navigate
to not having that constant support, the scaffolding, you know, all the different supports
that are put in place. With that piece. interventions. A lot of families at the middle school
advocated for the fact that their students were just not motivated. Like, they were
disconnected.
Research Question 4 sheds light on parents’ concerns around student safety, student
health and wellness, and students’ achievement. Across all nine districts parents advocated for
students which pushed superintendents, assistant superintendents, and principals to revamp their
communication strategies and supports during the COVID 19 pandemic.
Summary
Chapter Four reported the findings of 27 southern California school leaders; nine
superintendents, nine assistant superintendents, and nine principals. Our study collected
qualitative and quantitative data through survey questionnaires and Zoom interviews that all 27
participants completed. The results from this study bring to light the impact of the pandemic on
students, families, leaders, schools, and districts. The study provides insight into how leadership
practices were influenced by the financial implications, government agencies, and concerns
among parents and unions brought on by the COVID-19 pandemic. Most importantly, this study
examined what district and school leadership learned from their experiences and their decision-
making responsibilities in managing the crisis. Based on the analysis of the responses from the
82
surveys and interviews, several common themes were identified in the leadership of participating
superintendents, assistant superintendents, and principals across all nine districts: communication
and collaboration, safety, and financial implications.
Communication and Collaboration
Collaboration and Communication With Local Agencies
Undoubtedly, the pandemic required leaders to respond quickly, efficiently, and
proactively but not alone. Because the crisis was uniquely rooted in health and safety, it was
crucial for public schools to partner with state and local health agencies. Superintendents,
assistant superintendents, and principals across all nine districts shared mixed experiences
regarding their collaboration with local agencies and implementation of COVID-19 guidelines.
Some district and school leaders shared common challenges and frustrations with not being able
to provide input into the guidance for schools issued by their local health agencies. Findings
from the data indicate that collaboration between these entities was primarily a top-down, one-
way approach, with district leaders receiving information and implementing it accordingly
without being able to put much input into the protocols and guidelines put forth by public health
agencies. Leaders also expressed how the implementation of safety protocols looks different
from one district to another because of the ambiguity of guidelines. On the other hand, other
leaders felt a strong collaboration with local agencies and felt confident in implementing the
health and safety guidelines. The responsibility put on the public-school leaders to make
decisions regarding the safety and health of all employees and students was made more difficult
by the reported challenges with collaboration.
83
Collaboration and Communication With Stakeholders
Overall, the researchers found that the superintendents, assistant superintendents, and
principals across all nine districts that participated in this study placed a high value on the
relationships between management, school staff, and certificated and classified unions, which
was leveraged during negotiations. District leaders and classified and teacher unions negotiated
throughout the pandemic to ensure that evolving working conditions were safe and that they
were also proactively planning for multiple scenarios. Findings also revealed that leaders
emphasized the importance of creating a space where staff were being given updates regularly
and being provided the opportunity to get any questions or concerns answered. One frequent
mode of communication was Zoom, which most leaders found to be efficient. It allowed them to
communicate to all stakeholders, especially with the ever-changing findings delivered by the
CDC. Leaders also took advantage of hosting meetings online to reduce anxiety amongst
families, especially when students returned to on-campus instruction. Some common practices
that superintendents, assistant superintendents, and principals participated in were updating the
school’s website regularly, posting information on social media, sending surveys home for
feedback, and mass phone calls to ensure current information was accessible to families. While
communication regarding myriad topics during COVID-19 was confusing, complex, and ever-
changing, the data suggest that associated challenges led to opportunities for district and school
leaders to strengthen, diversify, and effectively communicate with their collaborators and
stakeholders.
Safety
Overall, superintendents, assistant superintendents, and principals in the study discussed
safety as the most important priority for their decision-making during the COVID- 19 pandemic.
84
During the transition to virtual learning, districts put students’ and communities’ health and
safety at the forefront. District leaders ensured that all students, no matter their socioeconomic
status (SES), were to have access to free nutrition. Structures and systems were put in place for
families to pick up multiple lunches without question. All leaders discussed the pride in their
district’s ability to meet students’ nutritional needs during school closures. When students
transitioned back to in-person learning, leaders quickly dealt with another safety concern
surrounding students and staff’s mental health. Students’ motivation had declined, and schools
saw more absenteeism, more fights, and more substance abuse. Leaders prioritized safety from
COVID- 19 and worked collaboratively to mitigate the spread of the virus, and attempted to
create the safest learning environment for students and staff, but underestimated the extent of the
pandemic’s impact had on students’ mental health. School sites hired more school counselors
across all schools to help with students’ social-emotional learning and mental health concerns.
Responses from all nine districts indicated that leaders put all of their efforts into addressing
student safety and addressing the uneasiness of the school community.
Due to the uncertainty with the COVID-19 virus, parent involvement was at its all-time
high. Parents joined zoom meetings, met with district and school site leaders, and voiced
concerns about their child’s safety on district and site level surveys. Parents wanted to know
what the health and safety guidelines would be at their child’s school site and how those
guidelines would be enforced and maintained. Parents expressed concerns with the systems in
place to ensure student compliance with safety protocols, the privacy of their students’ COVID
status, their students’ potential exposure to the virus, and their child’s mental health.
Superintendents and assistant superintendents followed required public guidelines and
implemented safety plans to ease stakeholders’ concerns around safety surrounding the
85
reopening of schools. Findings indicated that parent and staff concerns with reopening schools
surrounded appropriate PPE, facility upgrades, masking, sanitation, physical distancing, and
contract tracing. Superintendents, assistant superintendents, and principals made sure to build in
communication streams to help ease parent concerns around safety.
Financial Implications
Throughout the interviews, researchers learned about how financial government relief
supported schools and districts in Southern California, as well as the influence on the decisions
that school and district leaders made. The Coronavirus Aid Relief and Economic Security
(CARES) Act for the Elementary and Secondary School Emergency Relief Fund (ESSER)
provided school districts with additional funds to help mitigate the challenges brought on by the
COVID-19 pandemic. The Governor’s Emergency Education Relief (GEER) Fund and the
Elementary and Secondary School Emergency Relief (ESSER) Fund both provided relief funds
to local educational agencies (LEAs) to assess and address the various ways in which the
educational landscape was and may continue to be impacted by the COVID-19 pandemic.
Student health and safety remained a deciding factor in how government relief aid was
spent. School and district leaders were also pressured to make financial decisions based on
guidance from federal, state, and local governments. This required the purchase of materials and
spending on changes made to facilities to keep the school community safe. Districts also spent
additional monies on new education programs, student technology, hot spots, and academic
support staff to adapt to the transition from in-person to remote learning. In addition, district
funding components such as average daily attendance (ADA) were negatively impacted by the
pandemic and played a critical factor in school and district spending.
86
Chapter Five: Discussion
On March 11, 2020, the World Health Organization declared COVID-19 a global
pandemic. The lives of millions of students, educators, and classified school staff throughout the
United States experienced disruption due to the COVID-19 pandemic and the mitigation policies
associated with the virus (Hinrichs, 2021). School-related crises have been historically short-
term such as active shooters or natural disasters. The disruption to education caused by the
COVID- 19 pandemic has been unique in recent history due to its lingering effects persisting for
over 2 years (Gainey, 2009). The COVID-19 pandemic was an unprecedented challenge for
school districts as they were forced to close schools on very short notice due to the lockdown
mandate, not knowing when schools would reopen. With no concrete timeline, superintendents,
assistant superintendents, and principles began facing challenges due to this crisis.
As revealed in the data from this study, this health crisis impacted public education.
Consequences of the pandemic included financial implications, the impact of agencies,
negotiations with unions, and the impact on students and the community. Examining the data
explored how COVID-19 shifted the roles and scope of schools and school leaders, beyond
instructional leaders and transformed them into “crisis managers” to lead and guide their
organizations through the COVID-19 pandemic effectively. This chapter provides a summary of
the key findings of each research question along with the implications of the study,
recommendations for future research, and a conclusion.
87
Purpose of the Study
The purpose of this study is to analyze the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on
Southern California K–12 school districts and understand what district and site administrators
have learned from their experiences and their decision-making responsibilities in managing the
crisis. This study brings to light the impact of the pandemic on students, families, leaders,
schools, and districts. Most importantly, this study examines how district and school leadership
influences administrative practices, student achievement, financial responsibility, union
leadership, and community/parent support as they responded to the COVID-19 crisis.
Participants
The 27 research participants in this study consisted of nine superintendents, nine assistant
superintendents, and nine principals across nine K–12 public school districts in Southern
California. These research participants qualified if they held their current position for at least one
year, they served in their position during the 2020–2021 school year, and the student population
of their district is at least one thousand.
Findings
The following section presents the key themes of the four research questions that guided
this study as found by the research team across all nine participating school districts.
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?”
The first research question was written to assess the financial implications of the COVID-19
pandemic on schools and to learn how districts used the Coronavirus Aid Relief and Economic
88
Security (CARES) Act for the Elementary and Secondary School Emergency Relief Fund
(ESSER) to respond to those needs. It was also asked to determine if the additional funds helped
mitigate the challenges school districts were facing. 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. According to the responses of superintendents,
assistant superintendents, and principals, the financial implications highlighted two themes,
which included government relief and the need to prioritize students’ safety over the financial
incentive of opening schools.
Theme 1: Government Relief
The first theme identified how funding from the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic
Security (CARES) Act provided relief to the districts and prevented detrimental cuts while
allowing for maintenance and growth of programs. Interviews indicated the emphasis on one-
time money being used to meet the needs of students and staff. Some leaders discussed wanting
more flexibility, while other leaders felt that the flexibility was there. Although leaders shared
that they were appreciative of the “one-time money”, some mentioned that they were limited in
their ability to create programs that would require ongoing funding.
Theme 2: No Incentives
The second theme identified was the district’s priority around student safety. Though
financial incentives seemed enticing in theory, district leaders realized that student and staff
safety was their number one priority. Findings showed that district leaders were not influenced
by incentives to reopen schools in the spring of 2021 and stood firmly on their priority of staff
and student safety.
89
Findings for Research Question 2
Research Question 2 asked, “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?” This research question was designed to create a better understanding of
the impact of health and safety guidelines on school districts’ ability to reopen schools safely.
While health and safety are always a priority in the public education system, the COVID-19
pandemic demanded an entirely new understanding and meaning of student and staff health and
safety. The research findings highlighted the significance of guidance from federal and local
health government agencies, organizations, and health experts. These guidelines were critical in
assisting schools in reopening safely. Two key themes emerged from this research question: a
difference of opinion on consistent guidance and the importance of communication and
collaboration across school and district stakeholders.
Theme 1: Difference of Opinion of Consistent Guidance
The first theme among the respondents was a difference of opinion on consistent
guidance for the implementation of health and safety mandates and policies from federal and
local health government agencies, organizations, and health experts. Guidelines were
occasionally misaligned with information issued by several state and federal agencies, creating
confusion. Responses indicated that participants in this study disagreed that communication from
government agencies, organizations, and health experts was clear and consistent. The findings
indicate that some school and district leaders faced several challenges, such as pressure from
parents and the surrounding community, resulting from inconsistent communication from
government agencies, organizations, and health experts. Responses also show that other school
90
and district leaders felt that communication from agencies, organizations, and experts was
consistent and provided clarity around COVID-19 protocols and health and safety mandates that
were easy to follow.
Theme 2: Communication and Collaboration
The second theme among respondents was the importance of communication and
collaboration across school and school district leaders. Study participants unanimously agreed
that collaboration and communication were critical when interpreting and implementing health
guidelines and policies. Respondents shared that school and district leaders collaborate to ensure
alignment in messaging to staff, students, and families. Collaboration and strong communication
also helped school and community stakeholders understand decisions and district policies.
Findings for Research Question 3
Research Question 3 asked, “How, if at all, have union negotiations played a role in K–12
Southern California 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 about working with their union to solve their
respective problems for both certificated and classified employees. Regular communication
between the Superintendents, assistant superintendents, principals, and the unions, allowed them
to meet the needs of their schools and their employees regarding safety, learning, and new
working conditions. Given these needs, three themes emerged from the participants regarding
working with unions during the COVID-19 pandemic, which focused on nourishing relationships
amongst classified and certificated staff, redefining roles and responsibilities for classified and
certificated staff, and returning to in-person learning.
91
Theme 1: Nourishing Relationships Amongst Classified and Certificated Staff
The first theme that emerged from Research Question 3 was the importance of listening
to the staff and their needs and using them as a guide when making decisions.
Changing working conditions for teachers and classified personnel prompted superintendents,
assistant superintendents, and principals to consistently nourish their relationships and meet with
their unions, teachers, and community members with a collaborative mindset. These
collaborations often required leaders to be proactive with asking for concerns prior to scheduled
meetings so that it allowed them to attend with answers. In general, leaders understood the
anxiety the school community felt, and as a result, they seized every opportunity they could to
communicate with transparency.
Theme 2: Redefining Roles and Responsibilities for Classified and Certificated Staff
The second theme that emerged was redefining employees’ roles and responsibilities. As
schools closed due to the COVID-19 pandemic, for some employees’ their work could be done
online, and for others, it required them to be onsite. As a result, research participants indicated
negotiations were vital in temporarily redefining roles and responsibilities as new working
conditions demanded. The participants in this study concurred that teacher unions played a
crucial role in representing the views of frontline education workers during a period of
unprecedented difficulty. Therefore, consistent collaboration was a need amongst unions,
superintendents, assistant superintendents, and principals.
Theme 3: Return to In-Person Learning
The third theme that emerged was teachers’ concerns regarding the conditions of
returning to work. As education leaders announced their plans to return students to classrooms,
some teachers and teachers’ unions pushed back, often citing fears for their own or their
92
students’ safety. The superintendents, assistant superintendents, and principals in this study
concurred that safety was the most important topic addressed in union negotiations.
Superintendents, assistant superintendents, and principals highlighted the importance of
reassuring and educating families on how the school will implement layered prevention
strategies (PPE Equipment, sanitizing areas frequently) in alignment with CDC
recommendations in order safely reopen for in-person learning.
Findings for Research Question 4
Findings Research Question 4 asked, “How, if at all, have K–12 Southern California
public school districts leadership teams comprised of superintendents, assistant superintendents,
and principles 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 researcher
better understand the relationship between school districts and parents during the COVID-19
pandemic. Four themes that emerged from the research participants’ perceptions included themes
around health and safety, food insecurity, student technology needs, and parents’ concerns
around students’ academics. Research Question 4 sheds light on parents’ concerns around
student safety, student health and wellness, and student’s achievement, which pushed
superintendents, assistant superintendents, and principals to revamp their communication
strategies and supports during the COVID 19 pandemic.
Theme 1: Health and Safety Needs
The first theme from Research Question 4 revealed an increase in parent participation
which led superintendents, assistant superintendents, and principals to create consistently
streamlined communications with families and the community. Parents’ main concern was
93
surrounding their child’s safety and the ability of the respective schools to keep their children
safe as students returned to in-person schooling. District and sight leaders shared their reflections
on how they were not equipped to support the mental health concerns that arose due to the
pandemic.
Theme 2: Food Insecurity
The second theme revealed that 100 % of districts and schools in this research study met
the student’s nutritional needs during the school closures. The interviews highlighted that while
some districts felt the pressure to prioritize this need, other districts offered nutritional services,
but it was not a pressing need in their respective communities.
Theme 3: Student’s Technology Needs
The third theme that emerged was the importance of technology for the continuation of
learning during school closures. Findings indicated that 100% of districts could distribute the
appropriate technology such as laptops and hotspots for students in their respective districts.
Some districts were able to have a seamless transition as their student population had a one-to-
one computer prior to the pandemic. Other districts discussed the challenges with transitioning to
virtual learning due to the digital divide in the student and families that their districts serve.
Theme 4: Parents’ Academic Concerns
The fourth theme that emerged was parent concerns around their child’s academic
progress, lack of student motivation, and the lack of support, which pushed districts to rethink
their instructional programs and how students were receiving support and accommodations.
Implications for Practice
This research study examined the impact that the COVID-19 pandemic has on K–12
public school districts in Southern California. Through this mixed-methods study, the three
94
members of this research study were able to collect surveys and conduct interviews to collect
data for this study. The research team was able to understand better what superintendents,
assistant superintendents, and principals have learned from their experiences and their decision-
making process and responsibilities when managing the ongoing COVID-19 crisis. This study
sheds light on COVID-19’s impact on stakeholders such as students, families, staff, leaders, and
their respective schools and districts. Most importantly, this study examines how district and
school leadership administrative practices and financial responsibility impact student
achievement, union leadership, and community/ parent support as they respond to the COVID-19
crisis. The use of relevant literature and data collection for this study led the research team to
three implications for practice regarding school district and site leaders becoming crisis
managers, the need for leaders to collaborate, and the need for clear communication during the
COVID-19 pandemic. The conceptual framework in Figure 1 utilized for this research study was
based on three theoretical frameworks. The three frameworks assist in developing an
understanding of the theories that impact school leadership and how they can be adapted to the
current situation of managing the COVID-19 pandemic crisis. When compared to the findings of
this study, the three theories used to develop the conceptual framework present important
implications for leaders and their changing roles throughout this crisis.
The first implication for practice by superintendents, assistant superintendents, and
principals, as they became crisis managers during the pandemic, is utilizing appropriate
leadership frames to enact unpredictable guidelines during a crisis to keep the school community
safe (Bolman & Deal, 2017). The four frames, political, structural, human resources, and
symbolic, described by Bolman and Deal (2017) provide school leaders at both site and district
levels the roadmap to navigate the different aspects of leadership and how leader actions and
95
habits can impact the organization. Because of the ever-changing challenges teachers
encountered due to the pandemic, ranging from layoffs, pay cuts, and fear of COVID-19
exposure, it became crucial for leaders to communicate with their stakeholders accurately
(Nicosia, 2020). Because superintendents, assistant superintendents, and principals were
continually shifting between roles as they navigated unpredictable and rapidly changing
guidelines, it became crucial to increase communication, which resulted in strengthening
meaningful partnerships with local community organizations that helped their organizations
navigate this pandemic.
The second implication the three research team members found for leadership practice
during a crisis is the need for clear communication. The school leaders interviewed utilized a
variety of focused but far-reaching communication strategies (e.g., Zoom meetings, town halls,
surveys) and frequently collaborated with outside entities to ensure they were receiving the most
up to date information, which allowed them to enact change (Fullan, 2014). Further, leaders
highlighted the importance of being proactive in listening to the community and attending
meetings with answers. Educational leaders must create dedicated time to solicit feedback,
whether virtually or in-person.
The third implication for practice by superintendents, assistant superintendents, and
principals is the need for leaders to be teaching leaders to help their organizations best manage
an unpredictable situation like the pandemic. Westover’s (2020) framework provides the guiding
principles that districts can enact to create an organization that can move together through
change and creates continuous improvement systems. The school leaders interviewed highlighted
the importance of creating spaces where they can lean on other leaders, share ideas, and build
collective expertise.
96
Future Research
The literature review provides context for the study of school leadership as they took on
the role of crisis managers during the COVID-19 pandemic. At the time of this study, the
pandemic continues to impact school communities and district leaders. Due to the current and
ongoing pandemic, there are many unknowns about the long-term impact on students, staff, and
school leaders. These unknown long-term consequences of the pandemic present several
opportunities for future research to assess how COVID-19 has created lingering implications for
school communities.
Recommendation 1
The first recommendation for future research is to examine the long-term effects of the
COVID-19 pandemic on K–12 students’ mental health, especially those living in historically
socioeconomically disadvantaged communities. The American Psychological Association
(APA) reports that 81% of teens, ages 13–17 experienced more intense stress during the
COVID-19 pandemic (2021). This presents itself in many ways, including increased diagnoses
of anxiety and stress and increased reports of self-harm and suicide (Golberstein et al., 2020).
Furthermore, low-income and marginalized communities are negatively affected by multiple
determinants of health while also battling the coronavirus pandemic, including housing
instability, homelessness, and lack of access to healthcare or mental health services (Benfer et
al., 2020). Future research can help determine if school closures and isolation have added to
mental health concerns and can also provide guidance for treating and preventing the impacts of
future crises.
97
Recommendation 2
The second recommendation for future research will be to examine and provide guidance
for how school and school district leaders can support students, families, and staff across
socioeconomically diverse communities in navigating technology and technology platforms and
access to high-speed internet. According to Benton Institute, up to 12 million K–12 students
experience a lack of connection to high-speed internet due to limitations of poor broadband
mapping data, current infrastructure, and supply chains, insufficient marketing and adoption
support, and inadequate funding (2021). The need for closing the digital divide, even after the
pandemic, goes beyond distributing laptops to students. Technology plays a critical role in
providing students with a high-quality education experience. This presents an opportunity for
future research to provide information that will help construct systems and implement strategies
for technology that will benefit student learning experiences for future generations.
Conclusions
Due to the COVID-19 pandemic, K–12 schools were disrupted, causing many ripple
effects in our education system. Gaining insight into the experience of K–12 leaders can allow us
to reimagine and revolutionize a new educational landscape during a time of a crisis. During the
COVID-19 crisis, superintendents, assistant superintendents, and principals became responsible
for managing the pandemic’s impact on school sites. This requires leaders to shift into crisis
managers and prioritize collaboration and clear communication to better serve staff, students, and
their families. The research participants relied on the power of nourishing relationships, both
new and ongoing, to ground their decision-making in their values in prioritizing the safety and
needs of their staff, students, and parents. District and site leaders quickly realized that
collaborating and sharing resources was the only way to move forward. These practices will help
98
improve the school system and student learning experiences during the pandemic and, in future
attempts, provide a more equitable landscape for students and staff. The data collected through
this study supports how K–12 Public School District leaders in Southern California became crisis
managers during the COVID-19 pandemic by focusing on safety, clear communication, and
relationships.
99
References
Bailey, J. (2021). Is It Safe to Reopen Schools? An Extensive Review of the Research. American
Enterprise Institute.
Benfer, M. S., Wiley, L. F., & Yearby, R. (2020). Health justice strategies to combat the
pandemic: eliminating discrimination, poverty, and health disparities during and after
COVID-19. Yale Journal of Health Policy, Law, and Ethics, 19(3), 122–.
Braunack-Mayer, T. (2013). Understanding the school community’s response to school closures
during the H1N1 2009 influenza pandemic. BMC Public Health, 13(1), 344–344.
https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2458-13-344
Bolman, L. G., & Deal, L. G. (2017). Reframing organizations: Artistry, choice and Leadership
(6th ed.). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Calderon, V.J. (June 16, 2020). U.S. Parents Say COVID-19 Harming Child's Mental Health.
GALLUP. https://news.gallup.com/poll/312605/parents-say-covid-harming-child-mental-
health.aspx.
California Department of Education. (2021). California Safe Schools for All.
https://schools.covid19.ca.gov/
California Department of Education. (2021, February 2). Distance learning - Curriculum and
instruction resources. https://www.cde.ca.gov/ci/cr/dl/.
CA Safe Schools for All (2021). Definitions. Retrieved August 28, 2021 from
https://schools.covid19.ca.gov/pages/definitions
California School Employees Association (CSEA) (2021). About us.
https://www.csea.com/about-us.
California Department of Education (CDE) (2020). CDE Website. https://www.cde.ca.gov/
100
California Department of Public Health (CDPH). (2021). Retrieved August 8, 2021, from
https://www.cdph.ca.gov/Pages/About.aspx
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. (2017, December 6). Severe acute respiratory
syndrome (SARS). Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
https://www.cdc.gov/sars/about/fs-sars.html.
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. (2019, June 11). 2009 H1N1 Pandemic
(H1N1pdm09 virus). Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
https://www.cdc.gov/flu/pandemic-resources/2009-h1n1-pandemic.html.
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. (2020, September 1). About COVID-19. Centers for
Disease Control and Prevention. https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-
ncov/cdcresponse/about-COVID-19.html.
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. (2021, March 25). Coronavirus disease 2019
(COVID-19). Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-nCoV/index.html.
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). (2021). Mission, role and pledge.
https://www.cdc.gov/about/organization/mission.htm
Cheatham, J. P. (2020a, July 21). Confronting the challenges of restarting school. Harvard
Graduate School of Education. https://www.gse.harvard.edu/news/uk/20/07/confronting-
challenges-restarting-school.
Creswell, J. W., & Creswell, J. D. (2018). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed
methods approaches. SAGE Publications, Inc.
Denzin, N. K. (2016). Critical qualitative inquiry. Qualitative Inquiry, 23(1), 8–16.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1077800416681864
101
Direen, G. (2017). School leadership in a post-disaster setting. Teaching and Learning, 2, 9–15.
https://doi.org/10.18296/SET.0078
Dorn, E., Hancock, B., Sarakatsannis, J., & Viruleg, E. (2021, March 1). COVID-19 and
learning loss--disparities grow and students need help. McKinsey & Company.
https://www.mckinsey.com/industries/public-and-social-sector/our-insights/covid-19-
and-learning-loss-disparities-grow-and-students-need-help#.
EdData: Education Data Partnership (2021). Negotiating teachers’ contracts in California.
www.ed-data.org/article/Negotiating- Teachers%27-Contracts in-California.
Edglossary.org (2021). The Glossary of Education Reform: Cohort. Retrieved August 25, 2021
from https://www.edglossary.org/cohort/
Edglossary.org (2021). The Glossary of Education Reform. Retrieved August 16, 2021 from
https://www.edglossary.org/.
Education Data Partnership. (n.d.). Retrieved from http://www.ed-data.org/.
Education Week. (2020, July 1). The coronavirus spring: The historic closing of U.S. schools (A
timeline). https://www.edweek.org/leadership/the-coronavirus-spring-the-historic-
closing-of-u-s-schools-a-timeline/2020/07.
Exceptional Lives (September 14, 2019). Special Education: A Glossary of Terms and
Acronyms. www.exceptionallives.org/blog/special-education-a- glossary-of- terms-and-
acronyms
Fensterwald, J. (2021, January 14). Newsom opens one-stop Covid information 'hub' on
reopening schools. EdSource. https://edsource.org/2021/newsom-opens-one-stop-covid-
information-hub-on-reopening-schools/647075.
102
Fensterwald, J., Burke, M., Stavely, Z., and Johnson, S. (2021, June 26). Lawmakers, Newsom
cut deal on state budget: Record spending on pre-K through college. EdSource.
https://edsource.org/2021/lawmakers-newsom-cut-deal-on-state-budget-record-spending-
on-prek-through-college/657001.
Fullan, M. (2014). The principal: Three keys to maximizing impact. Ch 3, 4. Jossey-Bass.
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
Glesne, C. (2011). Chapter 6: But is it ethical? Considering what is right. Becoming qualitative
researchers: An introduction, 4, 162-183.
Golberstein, E., Wen, H., & Miller, B. F. (2020). COVID-19 and mental health for children and
adolescents. JAMA Pediatrics, 174(9), 819–820.
http://jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?doi=10.1001/jamapediatrics.2020.1456
Gross, B., Opalka, A. (2020, June). Too many schools leave learning to chance during the
pandemic. Center for Reinventing Public Education.
https://www.crpe.org/sites/default/files/final_national_sample_brief_2020.pdf
Harrington, T. (2021). Quick Guide: What California’s color coded county tracking system
means for schools? (February 2, 2021. EdSource. Retrieved on February 2, 2021, from
https://edsource.org/2021/quick-guide-what-californias-color-coded-county-tracking-
system-means-for-schools/639357
Hemphill, A. A., & Marianno, B. D. (2021). Teachers’ unions, collective bargaining, and the
response to COVID-19. Education Finance and Policy,16(1), 170–182.
https://doi.org/10.1162/edfp_a_00326
103
Hinrichs. (2021). COVID-19 and Education: A Survey of the Research. Economic Commentary
(Cleveland), 2021-4, 1–6. https://doi.org/10.26509/frbc-ec-202104
Horowitz, J. M., & Igielnik, R. (2020, October 29). Most Parents of K–12 Students View
Learning Online Worry About Them Falling Behind. Pew Research Center’s Social &
Demographic Trends Project. https://www.pewresearch.org/social-
trends/2020/10/29/most-parents-of-K–12 -students-learning-online-worry-about-them-
falling-behind/
Jones, C. and Freedberg, L. (March 4, 2021). California Legislature approves plan to encourage
schools to reopen for in-person instruction. EdSource.
https://edsource.org/2021/california-legislature-approves-plan-to-encourage-schools-to-
reopen-for-in-person-instruction/650493
Kearney, C. A., & Childs, J. (2021). A multi-tiered systems of support blueprint for re-opening
schools following COVID-19 shutdown. Children and Youth Services Review, 122,
105919.
Kurtz, H. (2020, April 10). 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
Lee, S.J., Ward, K.P., & Chang, O.D. (2020). Research brief: Parents’ perceptions of the shift to
home-based education during the Covid-19 pandemic. University of Michigan Parenting
in Context Research Lab. https://bit.ly/2Ra5Q2R
Lochmiller, C.R. & Lester, J. N. (2017). An introduction to educational research: Connecting
methods to practice. Sage Publications.
104
Malkus, N. (2020). Too little, too late: A hard look at Spring 2020 remote learning. American
Enterprise Institute. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED610307.pdf
Hemphill, A. A., & Marianno, B. D. (2021). Teachers’ unions, collective bargaining, and the
response to COVID-19. Education Finance and Policy, 16(1), 170––182.
https://doi.org/10.1162/edfp_a_00326
Maxwell, J. A. (2013). Qualitative research design: An interactive approach. (3
rd
ed.). SAGE.
Merriam, S. B., & Tisdell, E. J. (2016). Qualitative research: A guide to design and
implementation (4th ed.). Jossey-Bass.
Nichols, C., Trendler, C., & Hayden, S. C. (2021, February 1). 4 Behaviors that help leaders
manage a crisis. Harvard Business Review. https://hbr.org/2020/04/4-behaviors-that-
help-leaders-manage-a-crisis.
Nicosia, M. (2020, September 1). How Is COVID-19 impacting the teacher workforce?
Education Writers Association. https://www.ewa.org/blog-educated-reporter/how-covid-
19-impacting-teacher-workforce.
Rice, Miller, G. F., Coronado, F., & Meltzer, M. I. (2021). Estimated resource costs for
implementation of CDC’s recommended COVID-19 mitigation strategies in pre-
kindergarten through grade 12 public schools—United States, 2020–21 School Year.
MMWR. Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report, 69(50), 1917–1921.
https://doi.org/10.15585/MMWR.MM6950E1
Sharfstein, & Morphew, C. C. (2020). The Urgency and Challenge of Opening K–12 Schools in
the Fall of 2020. JAMA: the Journal of the American Medical Association, 324(2), 133–
134. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2020.10175
105
Singer, B.J., Thompson, R.N. & Bonsall, M.B. (2021). The effect of the definition of ‘pandemic’
on quantitative assessments of infectious disease outbreak risk. Sci Rep 11, 2547 (2021).
https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-021-81814-3
The American Journal of Managed Care. (n.d.). A timeline of COVID-19 developments in 2020.
AJMC. https://www.ajmc.com/view/a-timeline-of-covid19-developments-in2020.
The Education Trust. (2020, May 20).Poll: WA parents very concerned about their children
falling behind during school closures. https://edtrust.org/press-release/poll-wa-parents-
very-concerned-about-their-children-falling-behind-during-school-closures/.
Terada, Y. (2020, June 24). Covid-19’s impact on students’ academic and mental well-being.
Edutopia. https://www.edutopia.org/article/covid-19s-impact-students-academic-and-
mental-well-being.
U.S. Department of Education (May 2021). U.S. Department of Education Website.
https://www.ed.gov.
United States Department of Labor (2021). Personal Protective Equipment -Overview |
Occupational Safety and Health Administration. Retrieved August 16, 2021 from
https://www.osha.gov/personal-protective-equipment.
Varela, D., & Fedynich, L. V. (2020). Leading schools from a social distance: Surveying South
Texas School District leadership during the COVID-19 pandemic. National Forum of
Educational Administration and Supervision Journal, 38(4), 1–10.
https://doi.org/http://www.nationalforum.com/Electronic%20Journal%20Volumes/Varela
,%20daniella%20Surveying%20South%20Texas%20School%20District%20Leadership
%20NFEASJ%20V38%20N4%202020.pdf
106
Westover, J., Fullan, M., & Quinn, J. (2020). Districts on the move: Leading a coherent
system of continuous improvement. Corwin.
World Health Organization (2021). Who we are. Retrieved August 16, 2021 from
www.who.int/about/who-we-are.
World Health Organization Coronavirus Dashboard (2021). World Health Organization
Coronavirus Dashboard. Retrieved April 16, 2021 from https://covid19.who.int.
Xiong, J., Lipsitz, O., Nasri, F., Lui, L., Gill, H., Phan, L., Chen-Li, D., Iacobucci, M., Ho, R.,
Majeed, A., & McIntyre, R. S. (2020). Impact of COVID-19 pandemic on mental health
in the general population: A systematic review. Journal of Affective Disorders, 277, 55–
64. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jad.2020.08.001
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.
107
Appendix A: Superintendent Survey
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
2. 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
3. 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
4. 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
5. 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
6. 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
108
Survey items Response choices
7. 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
8. 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
9. 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
10. 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
11. 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
12. 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
13. 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
109
Survey items Response choices
RQ4: Community concerns
14. 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
15. 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
16. 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
17. 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
18. 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
19. My district met the needs of students and
families in the area of health & safety.
1 = strongly disagree
2 = disagree
3 = neither agree nor disagree
4 = agree
5 = strongly agree
20. My district met the academic needs of
students.
1 = strongly disagree
2 = disagree
3 = neither agree nor disagree
4 = agree
5 = strongly agree
Overarching
110
Survey items Response choices
21. 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
22. 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
23. 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
24. 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
25. 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
26. 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
27. I recommend the following assistant
superintendent from my district to participate
in this study:
[open-ended response]
28. I recommend the following principal from my
district to participate in this study:
[open-ended response]
111
Closing
We appreciate your willingness to participate in the survey. Your responses will help us
better understand the perspectives of district Superintendents during the COVID-19 Pandemic
and experiences as crisis-managers.
We will be in touch to invite you to take part in a virtual 35-minute interview to be
scheduled at your convenience.
Thank you for participating in this survey.
112
Appendix B: Assistant Superintendent Survey
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
2. 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
3. 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
4. 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
5. 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
6. 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
113
Survey items Response choices
7. 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 and safety guidelines
8. 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
9. 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
10. 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
11. 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
12. 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
114
Survey items Response choices
13. 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
14. 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
15. 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
16. 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
17. 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
18. 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
115
Survey items Response choices
19. My district met the needs of students and families
in the area of health & safety.
1 = strongly disagree
2 = disagree
3 = neither agree nor disagree
4 = agree
5 = strongly agree
20. My district met the academic needs of students. 1 = strongly disagree
2 = disagree
3 = neither agree nor disagree
4 = agree
5 = strongly agree
Overarching
21. 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
22. 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
23. 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
24. 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
25. 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
116
Survey items Response choices
26. 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
Closing
We appreciate your willingness to participate in the survey. Your responses will help us
better understand the perspectives of district assistant superintendents during the COVID-
19 pandemic and experiences as crisis-managers.
We will be in touch to invite you to take part in a virtual 35-minute interview to be scheduled at
your convenience.
Thank you for participating in this survey.
117
Appendix C: Principal Survey
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
2. 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
3. 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
4. The CARES Act met my school’s funding
needs in the area of personal protective
equipment (PPE).
1 = strongly disagree
2 = disagree
3 = neither agree nor disagree
4 = agree
5 = strongly agree
5. 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
6. 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
118
Survey items Response choices
7. 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
8. 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
9. 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
10. 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
11. 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
12. 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
13. 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
119
Survey items Response choices
RQ4: Community concerns
14. 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
15. 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
16. 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
17. 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
18. 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
19. My school met the needs of students and
families in the area of health & safety.
1 = strongly disagree
2 = disagree
3 = neither agree nor disagree
4 = agree
5 = strongly agree
20. My school met the academic needs of students. 1 = strongly disagree
2 = disagree
3 = neither agree nor disagree
4 = agree
5 = strongly agree
Overarching
120
Survey items Response choices
21. 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
22. 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
23. 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
24. 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
25. 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
26. 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
121
Closing
We appreciate your willingness to participate in the survey. Your responses will help us
better understand the perspectives of school principals during the COVID-19 Pandemic and
experiences as crisis-managers.
We will be in touch to invite you to take part in a virtual 35-minute interview to be
scheduled at your convenience.
Thank you for participating in this survey.
122
Appendix D: Research Participants 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. In addition, I am also requesting your permission to administer
a survey and conduct an interview with an assistant superintendent and principal in your district.
Within the survey is a place for you to recommend an assistant superintendent and a principal
from your district to participate in this research. Collecting data from highly effective leaders
such as yourselves 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
123
Appendix E: 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?
A. What, if any, are the financial implications that the COVID-19 pandemic has had on
K–12 districts and how have district leaders addressed these implications?
1. What have been the biggest financial implications of the pandemic on your
district?
2. In what ways, if any, would more spending flexibility/structure have benefitted
your district?
3. In what ways has COVID-19 related funding been used to meet student needs in
your district?
4. To what extent, if any, did financial incentive influence your district’s reopening
plan/timeline?
B. 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?
5. In what ways did your district collaborate with federal, state, and local
government agencies and community organizations to support your school district
during COVID?
124
a. PQ- What agencies or organizations?
6. To what degree, if any, did the various agencies align COVID-19 guidance for
schools?
7. What strategies have been effective for your district in implementing health
guidelines/policies?
8. Who in your district was primarily in charge of interpreting and implementing the
health guidelines/policies?
C. How, if at all, have union negotiations played a role in K–12 district’s response to
the COVID-19 Pandemic?
9. What were the most important issues negotiated with your teachers union and
how were they resolved?
10. What were the most important issues negotiated with your classified union and
how were they resolved?
11. In what ways, if any, were instructional programs influenced by union
negotiations in your district?
12. In what ways, if any, were safety protocols influenced by union negotiations in
your district?
D. 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?
13. In what ways did your district gather input from and communicate to the
community?
14. What were the biggest concerns from your district’s community and how were
they addressed?
a. PQ - Were there any safety concerns?
b. PQ - Were there any nutrition concerns?
c. PQ - Were there any academic concerns?
d. PQ - Were there any technology concerns?
e. PQ - Were there any re-opening concerns?
Conclusion
Thank you for your time and willingness to meet with me and for all the valuable
information you provided for this study.
125
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?
A. What, if any, are the financial implications that the COVID-19 pandemic has had on
K–12 districts and how have district leaders addressed these implications?
1. What have been the biggest financial implications of the pandemic on your
district?
2. In what ways, if any, would more spending flexibility/structure have benefitted
your district?
3. In what ways has COVID-19 related funding been used to meet student needs in
your district?
4. To what extent, if any, did financial incentive influence your district’s reopening
plan/timeline?
B. 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?
5. In what ways did your district collaborate with federal, state, and local
government agencies and community organizations to support your school district
during COVID?
126
a. PQ - What agencies or organizations?
6. To what degree, if any, did the various agencies align COVID-19 guidance for
schools?
7. What strategies have been effective for your district in implementing health
guidelines/policies?
8. Who in your district was primarily in charge of interpreting and implementing the
health guidelines/policies?
C. How, if at all, have union negotiations played a role in K–12 district’s response to
the COVID-19 Pandemic?
9. What were the most important issues negotiated with your teachers union and
how were they resolved?
10. What were the most important issues negotiated with your classified union and
how were they resolved?
11. In what ways, if any, were instructional programs influenced by union
negotiations in your district?
12. In what ways, if any, were safety protocols influenced by union negotiations in
your district?
D. 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?
13. In what ways did your district gather input from and communicate to the
community?
14. What were the biggest concerns from your district’s community and how were
they addressed?
a. PQ - Were there any safety concerns?
b. PQ - Were there any nutrition concerns?
c. PQ - Were there any academic concerns?
d. PQ - Were there any technology concerns?
e. PQ - Were there any re-opening concerns?
Conclusion
Thank you for your time and willingness to meet with me and for all the valuable
information you provided for this study.
127
Appendix G: 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?
A. What, if any, are the financial implications that the COVID-19 pandemic has had on
K–12 districts and how have district leaders addressed these implications?
1. What have been the biggest financial implications of the pandemic on your
school?
2. In what ways, if any, would more spending flexibility/structure have benefitted
your school?
3. In what ways has COVID-19 related funding been used to meet student needs in
your school?
4. To what extent, if any, did financial incentive influence your school’s reopening
plan/timeline?
B. 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?
5. In what ways did your school collaborate with federal, state, and local
government agencies and community organizations to support your school during
COVID?
128
PQ- What agencies or organizations?
6. To what degree, if any, did the various agencies align COVID-19 guidance for
your school?
7. What strategies have been effective for your school in implementing health
guidelines/policies?
8. Who at your school was primarily in charge of interpreting and implementing the
health guidelines/policies?
C. How, if at all, have union negotiations played a role in K–12 district’s response to
the COVID-19 Pandemic?
9. What were the most important issues negotiated with your teachers union and
how were they resolved?
10. What were the most important issues negotiated with your classified union and
how were they resolved?
11. In what ways, if any, were instructional programs influenced by union
negotiations at your school?
12. In what ways, if any, were safety protocols influenced by union negotiations at
your school?
D. 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?
13. In what ways did your school gather input from and communicate to the
community?
14. What were the biggest concerns from your school’s community and how were
they addressed?
a. PQ - Were there any safety concerns?
b. PQ - Were there any nutrition concerns?
c. PQ - Were there any academic concerns?
d. PQ - Were there any technology concerns?
e. PQ - Were there any re-opening concerns?
Conclusion
Thank you for your time and willingness to meet with me and for all the valuable
information you provided for this study.
129
Appendix H: Alignment of the Survey Protocol to the Research Questions and Conceptual
Framework
Instrument RQ1:
Financial
implications
that the
COVID-19
pandemic has
had on K–12
public school
districts in
Southern
California
RQ2:
Impact of
federal, state,
and local health
agencies on K–
12 public school
districts in
Southern
California?
RQ3:
Role of union
negotiations
played a role in
K–12 Southern
California public
school districts’
response to the
COVID-19
pandemic?
RQ4:
Role of public-school
district leadership
teams comprised of
superintendents,
assistant
superintendents, and
principals in
addressing issues of
concern and safety
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–12school districts and understand what district and site administrators have learned from their experiences and their decision-making responsibilities in managing the crisis. This study brings to light the impact of the pandemic on students, families, leaders, schools, and districts and examines how district and school leadership influences administrative practices, student achievement, financial responsibility, union leadership, and community/parent support as they responded to the COVID-19 crisis. More specifically, this study set out to determine: (a) 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; (b) the impact of federal, state and local health agencies on K–12 public school districts in Southern California, and what strategies district superintendents, assistant superintendents, and principals followed to address the suggested guidelines; (c) how union negotiations played a role in K–12 Southern California public school districts’ response to the COVID-19 pandemic; and (d) how 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 study implemented a mixed-methods approach in which nine Southern California K–12 district superintendents, assistant superintendents, and principals completed a survey and participated in a structured interview. Through this process of mixed-methods data collection, the study’s findings indicate that district and site administration relied on the power of nourishing relationships, both new and on-going, to ground their decision making in their values in prioritizing safety and needs for their staff, students, and parents. In addition, K–12 superintendents, assistant superintendents, and principals acknowledged that collaboration and the sharing of resources played a critical component in moving forward during the COVID-19 pandemic crisis. These practices will not only help improve the school system and student learning experiences during the pandemic, but also in future attempts to provide a more equitable landscape for students and staff. Ultimately, this study provides guidance for district and site administrators decision-making responsibilities in managing future crises.
Linked assets
University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses
Conceptually similar
PDF
Analyzing the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic On K-12 southern California public school districts and understanding what district and site administrators…
PDF
The impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on K-12 public school districts in southern California: responses of superintendents, assistant superintendents, and principals
PDF
The impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on K-12 public school districts in southern California: responses of superintendents, assistant superintendents, and principals
PDF
The impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on K–12 public school districts in southern California: responses of superintendents, assistant superintendents, and principals
PDF
The impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on K–12 public school districts in southern California: responses of superintendents, assistant superintendents, and principals
PDF
The impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on K–12 public school districts in southern California: responses of superintendents, assistant superintendents, and principals
PDF
The impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on K–12 public school districts in southern California: responses of superintendents, assistant superintendents, and principals
PDF
The impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on K–12 public school districts in southern California: responses of superintendents, assistant superintendents, and principals
PDF
The impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on K–12 public school districts in southern California: responses of superintendents, assistant superintendents, and principals
PDF
The impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on K-12 public school districts in southern California: responses of superintendents, assistant superintendents and principals
PDF
The impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on K–12 public school districts in southern California: responses of superintendents, assistant superintendents, and principals
PDF
The impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on K-12 public school districts in southern California: responses of superintendents, assistant superintendents, and principals
PDF
The impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on K–12 public school districts in southern California: responses of superintendents, assistant superintendents, and principals
PDF
The impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on K–12 public school districts in southern California: responses of superintendents, assistant superintendents, and principals
PDF
The impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on K-12 public school districts in southern California: responses of superintendents, assistant superintendents, and principals
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
Granados, Valerie Monique
(author)
Core Title
The impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on K-12 public school districts in southern California: responses of superintendents, assistant superintendents, and principals
School
Rossier School of Education
Degree
Doctor of Education
Degree Program
Educational Leadership
Degree Conferral Date
2022-05
Publication Date
05/16/2022
Defense Date
04/11/2022
Publisher
University of Southern California
(original),
University of Southern California. Libraries
(digital)
Tag
assistant superintendents,COVID-19,leadership crisis,OAI-PMH Harvest,principals,superintendents
Format
application/pdf
(imt)
Language
English
Contributor
Electronically uploaded by the author
(provenance)
Advisor
Castruita, Rudy (
committee chair
), Cash, David (
committee member
), Franklin, Gregory (
committee member
)
Creator Email
valeriemgranados@gmail.com,vg47997@usc.edu
Permanent Link (DOI)
https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-oUC111313287
Unique identifier
UC111313287
Document Type
Dissertation
Format
application/pdf (imt)
Rights
Granados, Valerie Monique
Type
texts
Source
20220517-usctheses-batch-942
(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
assistant superintendents
COVID-19
leadership crisis
principals
superintendents