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
Kristan Lee Bruce
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 Kristan Lee Bruce 2022
All Rights Reserved
iii
The Committee for Kristan Lee Bruce certifies the approval of this Dissertation
Gregory Franklin
John Roach
Rudy Castruita, Committee Chair
Rossier School of Education
University of Southern California
2022
iv
Abstract
The purpose of this study was to analyze the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on Southern
California K–12 school districts and understand what district and site administrators have learned
from their experiences and their decision-making responsibilities in managing the crisis. This
study has brought to light the impact of the pandemic on students, families, leaders, schools, and
districts. Most importantly, this study examined how district and school leaders influenced
administrative practices, student achievement, fiscal responsibility, union leadership, and
community/parent support as they responded to the COVID-19 crisis. The study implemented a
mixed methods approach to establish triangulation. This study utilized surveys and semi-
structured interviews to gather data from nine school superintendents, nine assistant
superintendents, and nine principals from nine public school districts. The study highlights
unique leadership roles administrators, superintendents, and principals assumed and the qualities
they enacted. Findings from this study have demonstrated how the COVID-19 pandemic has
impacted all facets of schooling and how Southern California K–12 public school
superintendents, assistant superintendents, and principals transitioned into “crisis managers” and
relied on relationship-building, clear communication, grounded decision making, and focused
goal setting. As the pandemic continues to disrupt schooling at the time of this study, there are
several considerations and areas for future study: the impact of the crisis on students, staff, and
school leaders’ well-being and education, the unknown regarding the current state of the virus
and pandemic, current school crisis plans and administrative preparedness programs.
Keywords: COVID-19 pandemic, crisis, leadership, K–12 school districts, school
administration, mixed methods, superintendent, assistant superintendent, principal, district
responses to COVID-19, pandemic, learning loss, fiscal impact, unions, COVID-19 guidance,
v
health, safety, social-emotional, technology, nutrition, academic concerns, spending flexibility,
agencies, CARES Act, ESSR Funding
vi
Dedication
To my husband Scott and my children Lexie, Matthew, Ryan, and Jack, without whom this
would not have been possible. Thank you for supporting me through every step of this journey;
for accepting when dinner was not made, understanding when games went unattended, and
helping me stay focused on achieving this goal even when it meant making sacrifices on your
part. Thank you for being my biggest cheerleaders and most fervent supporters. I hope that
experiencing this accomplishment alongside me has taught you to work hard, dream big, and
never stop learning. Everything I do, I do with you all in my mind and my heart. Always.
vii
Acknowledgements
Many people helped to make this accomplishment possible. I acknowledge my
dissertation chair, Dr. Rudy Castruita, for his invaluable leadership, guidance, and expertise. I
thank him for encouraging me from the beginning of this dissertation journey to my final
dissertation defense. Next, I acknowledge my dissertation committee, Dr. Greg Franklin and Dr.
John Roach, for giving their time and support for my study. Their words of encouragement
fueled me for the final stretch. Thank you to the participating principals, assistant
superintendents, and superintendents, who were generous with their time and insights to inform
this study.
This journey was made possible and even enjoyable with an incredible Wednesday
cohort; especially David S., Heather B., and Jaclyn S. I appreciate their camaraderie, support,
and friendship through this entire shared experience.
Thank you to my best friends, Erica H., and Liz C., who have supported and encouraged
me not just through this process, but through everything life has given me over the past 13 years.
I treasure our friendship and am thankful for the bond we share.
Thank you to Kerri B., who’s friendship has evolved from professional to personal. You
inspire me to be a better educator and I have learned so much from you over the course of our
friendship. You have been a tremendous influence on me and I am so grateful to have you in my
life.
Thank you to Laura M., who has been an influential mentor and whose guidance and
advice has helped me find my place in the world as an educational leader.
Thank you to Arpy C., and Jaclyn S., for being wonderful partners and collaborators.
Working with you both made this journey more bearable.
viii
Thank you to my family, Jim, Valerie, Susie, Mel, TJ, and Luce for cheering me on
through this endeavor. I always feel your love and pride in everything I pursue, even from afar.
“Together forever, never apart; maybe in distance, but never in heart.”
And finally, my most heartfelt and humble gratitude goes to my husband Scott and my
children Lexie, Matthew, Ryan, and Jack. None of this would have been possible without you. I
am eternally grateful for your patience and support through this journey. You are my biggest
inspiration and greatest joy. Thank you.
ix
Preface
Some of the chapters of this dissertation were co-authored. While jointly authored
dissertations are not the norm of most doctoral programs, a collaborative effort is reflective of
real-world practices. To meet their objectives of developing highly skilled practitioners equipped
to take on real-world challenges, the USC Graduate School and the USC Rossier School of
Education have permitted inquiry to conduct this shared venture.
This dissertation is part of a collaborative project between the doctoral candidates:
Kristan Bruce, Arpy Cherkezian, and Jaclyn Spangler. We three doctoral students met with
district leaders with the aim of learning about their response to the COVID-19 pandemic.
However, the process for dissecting and acquiring a thorough constructivist perspective from the
selected participants was too large for a single dissertation. As a result, the three dissertations
produced by our inquiry team collectively examined the topic: COVID-19 Impact on Southern
California School Districts.
x
Table of Contents
Abstract .......................................................................................................................................... iv
Dedication ...................................................................................................................................... vi
Acknowledgements ....................................................................................................................... vii
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 ........................................................................................................... 3
Research Questions ............................................................................................................. 3
Significance of the Study .................................................................................................... 4
Limitations and Delimitations ............................................................................................. 5
Definition of Terms............................................................................................................. 5
Organization of the Study ................................................................................................. 11
Chapter Two: Review of the Literature ........................................................................................ 13
History of Pandemics Affecting Schools .......................................................................... 13
Leadership in Crisis Situations ......................................................................................... 15
Preparation and Training of School Staff Facing the COVID-19 Pandemic .................... 19
Access to Technology ....................................................................................................... 20
Effects of the Pandemic on School Children .................................................................... 23
Effects of the Pandemic on Marginalized Groups ............................................................ 25
Impact of Local and State Agencies on Schools During the Pandemic ............................ 29
Reopening Plans for Schools ............................................................................................ 32
xi
Theoretical Framework ..................................................................................................... 34
Conceptual Framework ..................................................................................................... 40
Chapter Summary ............................................................................................................. 40
Chapter Three: Research Methodology ........................................................................................ 43
Research Design and Methods .......................................................................................... 44
Research Team .................................................................................................................. 45
Population and Sample ..................................................................................................... 45
Access and Entry............................................................................................................... 46
Instrumentation ................................................................................................................. 47
Data Collection ................................................................................................................. 47
Credibility and Trustworthiness ........................................................................................ 48
Ethical Considerations ...................................................................................................... 48
Chapter Summary ............................................................................................................. 49
Chapter Four: Findings ................................................................................................................. 50
Participants ........................................................................................................................ 52
Demographic Data ............................................................................................................ 52
Research Question 1 Findings .......................................................................................... 59
Research Question 1 Survey Questions ............................................................................ 60
Research Question 2 Findings .......................................................................................... 88
Research Question 2 Survey Questions ............................................................................ 89
Research Question 3 Findings .......................................................................................... 95
Research Question 3 Survey Questions ............................................................................ 96
Research Question 4 Findings ........................................................................................ 101
Research Question 4 Survey Questions .......................................................................... 102
Summary ......................................................................................................................... 108
xii
Chapter Five: Summary, Implications, and Conclusion ............................................................. 114
Statement of the Problem ................................................................................................ 115
Purpose of the Study ....................................................................................................... 115
Participants ...................................................................................................................... 115
Key Findings ................................................................................................................... 115
Implications for Practice ................................................................................................. 121
Recommendations for Future Study ............................................................................... 126
Conclusion ...................................................................................................................... 128
References ................................................................................................................................... 129
Appendix A: Research Participants’ Invitation Email ................................................................ 144
Appendix B: Principal Survey .................................................................................................... 145
Appendix C: Assistant Superintendent Survey ........................................................................... 150
Appendix D: Superintendent Survey .......................................................................................... 155
Appendix E: Principal Interview Protocol .................................................................................. 161
Introduction ..................................................................................................................... 161
Conclusion ...................................................................................................................... 162
Appendix F: Assistant Superintendent Interview Protocol ......................................................... 163
Introduction ..................................................................................................................... 163
Conclusion ...................................................................................................................... 164
Appendix G: Superintendent Interview Protocol ........................................................................ 165
Introduction ..................................................................................................................... 165
Conclusion ...................................................................................................................... 166
Appendix H: Question Alignment Matrix .................................................................................. 167
xiii
List of Tables
Table 1: Demographic Information: School District Participants 54
Table 2: Quantitative Survey: Superintendent Demographic Information 55
Table 3: Quantitative Survey: Assistant Superintendent Demographic Information 57
Table 4: Quantitative Survey: Principal Demographic Information 58
Table 5: Quantitative Survey: District and Site Leaders' Mean
Agreement Scores Regarding Financial Implications of COVID 19 61
Table 6: Quantitative Survey: District and Site Leaders' Mean Agreement Scores
Regarding the Impact of Health and Safety Guidelines 90
Table 7: Quantitative Survey: District and Site Leaders' Mean Agreement Ratings
Regarding the Impact of Union Negotiations 97
Table 8: Quantitative Survey: District and Site Leaders' Mean Agreement Ratings
of Parent Concerns 103
xiv
List of Figures
Figure 1: Conceptual Framework of the Study 41
1
Chapter One: Overview of the Study
In March 2020, the world came to a sudden halt with the outbreak of the COVID-19
pandemic. COVID-19 impacted society in ways that the world was not prepared to handle.
Hospitals were overflowing, businesses were closing, and life in quarantine proved to be a
challenge that was magnified the longer it went on (Haleem et al., 2020). The education system
was not immune to the effects of the pandemic. Schools were forced to adapt in ways that had
few precedents to learn from, ever-changing guidelines that were difficult to follow, and
situations that made decision-making an extremely challenging task. The pandemic prompted
schools to close on very short notice under “hold harmless” guidelines from state agencies
overseeing education with the expectation of school closures lasting several weeks (California
Department of Education [CDE], 2020). However, the school closures, whether full or partial,
caused by COVID-19 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). The closing of schools over a long period of time not only contributed
negatively to students, but also unmasked further inequities to marginalized groups and lower
socioeconomic populations.
This chapter contains the background of the problem, statement of the problem, the
purpose of the study, significance of the study, research questions, assumptions, limitations,
delimitations, and definition of terms.
Background of the Problem
Over the last century, schools throughout the United States have faced various public
health crises that have impacted schooling for K–12 students. One of the deadliest pandemics in
human history was the Spanish Flu of 1918 (H1N1, Influenza A), which lasted 2 years, infected
2
approximately 500 million people, and left behind a death toll of an estimated 20 to 50 million
(Stern, 2009). Some 80 years later, the world saw Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome (SARS)
circle the globe from 2002 to 2004, which infected over 8,000 people from 29 different countries
and caused a death toll of 774 (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention [CDC], 2005). In
2009, the swine flu (another H1N1 virus similar to the Spanish flu of 1918) broke out worldwide,
lasted just under 8 months, and caused an estimated 284,000 deaths (Braunack-Mayer, 2013;
Stern, 2009). COVID-19 was not the first time that American schools closed their doors as a
result of a flu pandemic. The deadly second wave of the 1918-1919 Spanish flu pandemic caused
many urban K–12 public schools to close their doors, in some cases for up to 15 weeks (Stern,
2009). The difference in the most recent pandemic as it relates to school closures is that the
previous closures occurred as preventative public health measures for the disease at-hand, not as
a response to massive community spread, as in the case of COVID-19.
The most recent and current pandemic, COVID-19, was first identified in December
2019, and has resulted in over 32 million confirmed cases and over 578,000 documented deaths
in the United States alone as of May 2021 (CDE, 2021). Worldwide, this pandemic has resulted
in over 156 million confirmed cases and over 3.2 million documented deaths (World Health
Organization [WHO], 2021a). While COVID-19 has yet to rival the statistics of the Spanish Flu
from 100 years ago, the U.S. education system’s response to the current COVID-19 crisis is
historically unparalleled (Malkus et al., 2020a, 2020b; Stern, 2009).
Statement of the Problem
The COVID-19 pandemic presented a disruption in Southern California K–12 school
districts, causing unforeseen consequences within the education system and highlighting
financial implications, the impact of agencies, negotiations with unions, and the consequences
3
for students and communities. COVID-19 shifted the roles and scope of schools and their
administrators, beyond instructional leaders and transforming them into “crisis managers.”
Purpose of the Study
The purpose of this study was to analyze the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on
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
influence administrative practices, student achievement, financial responsibility, union
leadership, and community/parent support as they responded to the COVID-19 crisis.
Research Questions
The study was guided by four research questions:
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, has been the impact of federal, state, and local health agencies on K–12
public school districts in Southern California, and what strategies have district
superintendents, assistant superintendents, and principals followed to address the
suggested guidelines?
3. How, if at all, have union negotiations played a role in K–12 Southern California
public school districts’ responses to the COVID-19 pandemic?
4
4. How, if at all, have K–12 Southern California public school district leadership teams,
comprised of superintendents, assistant superintendents, and principals, addressed the
concerns of the parent community regarding safety, nutrition, distance learning, lack
of technology, academic standing, and how and when to re-open schools during the
COVID-19 pandemic?
Significance of the Study
This study is significant as it will add to the body of knowledge about the evolving roles
and responses of Southern California public K–12 school superintendents, assistant
superintendents, and principals during the COVID-19 pandemic. COVID-19 shifted the roles and
scope of schools and school leaders, beyond instructional leaders by transforming them into
“crisis managers.” This unprecedented event in history forced educational leadership to quickly
make changes in strategic ways 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 a myriad of student needs throughout school closures. By
analyzing the effective practices and shortcomings that occurred during this crisis from the
perspectives of leaders on the frontlines, superintendents, assistant superintendents, and
principals, the researchers hope to gain insight about prevention and implementation as future
crises occur in education. If a pandemic ever arises again, this study will support how the crisis
would be addressed through the systems in place by school leaders, educators, boards of
education, and community stakeholders that are meant to reimagine and revolutionize a new
educational landscape committed to building a culture of equity in order to repay the educational
debt that has been inflicted on today’s students.
5
Limitations and Delimitations
There are some boundaries of the study beyond the control of the research team that may
affect internal validity. Limitations of this study include the following: the ongoing disruptions
caused by the COVID-19 pandemic on public education; the participants are only from Southern
California public schools; self-reporting surveys are included; interview questions may contain
researcher bias; interviews were conducted virtually; and the sample may not accurately
represent all school districts in California. Next steps would include using a similar process to
include a larger representation from different districts throughout California or the United States.
In addition, the delimitations of the study relate to generalizability of the findings and are
associated with availability of time and resources. To narrow the focus of this study, the
superintendents, assistant superintendents, and principals selected are current leaders in 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:
• California assembly and senate bill 86 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 whether they met the timetable called for by Governor
Gavin Newsom in his “Safe Schools for All” plan (Jones & Freedberg, 2021).
6
• California assembly and senate bill 129 is a landmark state budget agreement that
added a year of school for all 4-year-olds, significantly expanding Cal Grants and
middle-class scholarships for college students and provides record funding for PK–12
schools anxious to use billions in one-time money to bounce back from a 15-month
pandemic (Fensterwald et al., 2021).
• Asynchronous learning occurs without direct, simultaneous interaction of participants
such as videos featuring direct instruction of new content that students watch on their
own time (CDE, 2020).
• California department of education (CDE) is the governmental body that oversees the
state’s diverse public school system, which is responsible for the education of more
than 6 million children and young adults in more than 10,000 schools with 300,000
teachers. Specifically, this agency is in charge of enforcing education law and
regulations and continuing to reform and improve public school programs (CDE,
2020).
• California department of public health (CDPH) is a public agency that focuses on
infectious disease control and prevention, food safety, environmental health,
laboratory services, patient safety, emergency preparedness, chronic disease
prevention, health promotion, family health, health equity, vital records, and statistics
(CDPH, 2021a).
7
• California school employees association (CSEA) is the largest classified school
employees’ union in the United States, representing more than 250,000 school
support staff throughout California. CSEA members perform a wide range of
essential work in public schools and community colleges, including security, food
services, office and clerical work, school maintenance and operations, transportation,
academic assistance and paraeducator services, library and media assistance,
computer services, and more (CSEA, 2021).
• Coronavirus aid, relief, and economic security (CARES) act was passed by the U.S.
Congress on March 27, 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).
• Centers for disease control (CDC) is the nation’s health agency that “conducts critical
science and provides health information” (para. 2) and responds to health crises
(CDC, 2021)
• Cohort “refers to a group of individuals who have something in common” (para. 1)
such as the same grade level, or specific student groups such as English Learners.
(EdGlossary, 2013a).
8
• Collective bargaining agreement (CBA) is the primary activity of a union to represent
the teachers in negotiating the terms of employment contracts. 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, such as 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 is a novel strain of coronaviruses that shares 79% genetic similarity with
SARS-CoV from the 2003 SARS outbreak that was declared a global pandemic by
WHO in March 2020 (WHO, 2021a; 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) was established in the
CARES Act and further funded under the Coronavirus Response and Relief
Supplemental Appropriations (CRRSA) Act and the American Rescue Plan (ARP)
Act, under which the U.S. Department of Education awarded emergency relief funds
to address the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on elementary and secondary
schools across the Nation (U.S. Department of Education, 2021).
9
• 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) is the law that ensures 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 is a combination of in-person and distance learning (CDE,
2020).
• In-person learning occurs when students are receiving face-to-face instruction for at
least part of the instructional day for the full school week (CA Safe Schools for All,
2021).
• Learning loss “refers to any specific or general loss of knowledge and skills or to
reversals in academic progress, most commonly due to extended gaps or
discontinuities in a student’s education” (EdGlossary, 2013b, para. 1).
• Pandemic, as defined in the International Epidemiology Association’s Dictionary of
Epidemiology, is “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, para. 4).
10
• Personal protective equipment (PPE) is equipment worn to minimize exposure to
hazards that cause serious workplace injuries and illnesses. These injuries and
illnesses may result from contact with chemical, radiological, physical, electrical,
mechanical, or other workplace hazards. PPE may include items such as gloves,
safety glasses and shoes, earplugs or muffs, hard hats, respirators, or coveralls, vests
and full body suits (United States Department of Labor, 2021).
• Social emotional learning (SEL): reflects the critical role of positive relationships and
emotional connections in the learning process and helps students develop a range of
skills they need for school and life (CDE, 2020).
• Stakeholders “refers to anyone who is invested in the welfare and success of a school
and its students, including administrators, teachers, staff members, students, parents,
families, community members, local business leaders, and elected officials such as
school board members, city councilors, and state representatives. Stakeholders may
also be collective entities, such as local businesses, organizations, advocacy groups,
committees, media outlets, and cultural institutions, in addition to organizations that
represent specific groups, such as teachers unions, parent-teacher organizations, and
associations representing superintendents, principals, school boards, or teachers in
specific academic disciplines (e.g., the National Council of Teachers of 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, 2014, para. 1).
11
• 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 refers to the 2000 Eliezer Williams, et al. vs. State of
California, et al. (Williams) case, which was a class action suit against the state of
California and state its 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) is a team of more than 8,000 professionals
including the world’s leading public health experts, doctors, epidemiologists,
scientists, and managers. Together, WHO coordinates the world’s response to health
emergencies, promotes well-being, prevents disease, and expands access to healthcare
(WHO, 2021b).
Organization of the Study
This research study is organized into five chapters. Chapter One provides an introduction
to the study, Statement of the Problem, Purpose of the Study, Significance of the Study, four
12
research questions, Limitations, Delimitations, and the definitions of key terms. Chapter Two
reviews the existing literature relevant to the problem. Chapter Three presents the methodology
of the research design, sampling and data collection procedures, instruments designed for data
collection, and data analysis procedures. Chapter Four details the findings and major themes of
the research along with an analysis of the data. Chapter Five provides a summary of the study’s
findings, a conclusion, and an examination of possible implications for further research as well
as recommendations for future research.
13
Chapter Two: Review of the Literature
The COVID-19 pandemic impacted society in ways that the world was not prepared to
handle. Hospitals were overflowing, businesses were closing, and life in quarantine proved to be
a challenge that was magnified the longer it went on (Haleem et al., 2020). The education system
was not immune to the effects of the pandemic, and schools were forced to adapt in ways that
had few precedents to learn from, ever-changing guidelines that were difficult to follow and
situations that made decision-making an extremely challenging task. The closing of schools over
a long period of time not only contributed negatively to students but unmasked further inequities
to marginalized groups and lower socioeconomic populations.
This chapter provides a review of the relevant literature in the field of school leadership
throughout crisis situations including past pandemics and other emergencies that were a major
disruption to the education system. It is organized with the literature related to the history of
pandemics affecting schools, leadership in crisis situations, closure of schools, the preparation
and training of schools facing the pandemic, the effects on children in schools, the impact on
various marginalized groups during the pandemic, equitable grading challenges, the impact of
local and state agencies on schools, reopening plans for schools, the impact of teachers’ unions,
and post-quarantine response.
History of Pandemics Affecting Schools
Throughout the past century, the world has been impacted by several different pandemics
of varying degrees. The Spanish flu, SARS, and the H1N1 swine flu all impacted society and
forced school districts to make decisions that significantly affected their communities (Carlo &
Chung, 2009; Goodwin et al., 2010). The resulting school closures led to questions regarding
disparities within the educational system including the impending effects on mental health,
14
inequities with schools in lower socioeconomic settings, and the potential long-term effects that
these closures would have on students and their communities.
Carlo and Chung (2009) reported on a variety of studies on the effectiveness of school
closures during the Spanish flu. Some studies found a strong correlation between early measures
of control and lower mortality rates. These studies also discovered lower mortality rates in cities
that enforced isolation/quarantine, school closures, and bans on large social gatherings.
Conversely, Carlo and Chung noted other studies that refuted these results and found a lack of
significant impact of school closures on the reduction of disease transmission. The researchers’
conclusion was that these conflicting data were inconclusive as to the effectiveness of school
closures.
In the summer of 2009, the H1N1 flu, also known as the swine flu, was declared a
pandemic by WHO (Cauchemez et al., 2009). While cases were still relatively low, health
officials began to review their pandemic mitigation protocols, including school closures as a non-
pharmaceutical intervention. Children were considered more infectious and susceptible than
adults, which warranted the closure of schools in order to slow or stop the transmission of the
virus. Common concerns related to the H1N1 flu outbreak involved community reactions and
mental wellbeing. Goodwin et al. (2010) studied the key predictors of concern and behavioral
responses in the early stages of the swine flu pandemic. Participants reported feeling worried
about family members contracting the virus and having great difficulty focusing on everyday life
and work. This study demonstrated a strong correlation between family and friends’ fears and
personal anxieties.
15
Leadership in Crisis Situations
There are many historical examples of crisis situations affecting school campuses and
districts. Crises can be in the form of natural disasters or caused by people and could be an event
that only impacts a small group of students, or it could be a large-scale disaster that affects the
entire community. Fires, floods, school shootings, and death of a student or teacher are just a few
examples of different crises that can have a major impact on a school community.
In the fall of 2010, wildfire burned through the town of Paradise, CA. It devastated most
of the town, including five of its nine elementary schools. Lardieri (2019) reported in a U.S.
News and World Report article that approximately 5,000 students and 540 teachers in the county
lost their homes, the school district experienced 154 closure days that year, and thousands of
people did not have homes to return to and were forced to relocate, leading to a dramatic drop in
the county’s population and therefore a steep decline in enrollment. This natural disaster invoked
different leadership responses from multiple sources. It was reported that the Superintendent of
Paradise Schools responded by relocating schools to empty campuses, portable buildings in strip
malls, and even an empty warehouse near the airport, requiring permits and permission from the
Federal Aviation Administration. Additionally, the state of California responded by coordinating
mental health and trauma support, making arrangements to facilitate the moving of students into
portable classrooms, office buildings, and on a temporary basis, offering independent study.
Executive Order B-58-18 was also coordinated with Jerry Brown, the sitting Governor of
California, to temporarily waive school requirements (Lardieri, 2019). The response to this crisis
was an example of Northouse’s (2019) situational approach to leadership, in which “different
situations demand different kinds of leadership. From this perspective, to be an effective leader
requires that a person adapt his or her style to the demands of different situations” (p. 95).
16
Leaders must evaluate the situation and change the degree to which they are directive or
supportive to meet the changing needs of their community in that specific instance.
Hurricane Katrina, a natural disaster that ravaged the city of New Orleans, LA, in August
2005, killed over 1,800 people and left hundreds of thousands homeless. School districts and
leaders were forced to shift their priorities away from student achievement and instead prioritize
the welfare of the children, families, and communities they served. Gouwens (2008) described
school superintendents who formed a community among themselves and looked for guidance
from other districts that had been successful during and after Hurricane Katrina. She noted that
“each of the superintendents acted–decisively, creatively, and in ways that they had never acted
before–to lead their school districts through the changes brought about by Katrina” (p. 294).
Superintendents were tasked with taking the leadership responsibilities beyond the those of their
official roles during and after Hurricane Katrina. The actions of these school officials
demonstrated the presence of a moral authority that allowed them to not only lead their school
districts, but also the communities they served.
In recent history, there has been an uptick in school shooting incidents, which has also
forced leaders into crisis response situations. In April 1999, two students stormed Columbine
High School in Littleton, CO, killing 13 people and then themselves. At the time, it was the
deadliest school shooting in U.S. history. Columbine High School, as well as other surrounding
schools, looked to their leadership teams for directives and guidance on how to function and
recover from such a tragedy. Fein and Isaacson (2009) described some effective practices that
were exhibited in the early days after this tragedy, including leaders’ efforts to gain a sense of
order and control that was driven by their sense of responsibility, using their personal definition
of leadership as a compass while taking action, engaging in self-talk to remind themselves of
17
their highest priorities, and prioritizing existing systems over emotional reactions. DeMatthews
and Brown (2019) discussed schools in the surrounding areas in the aftermath of the tragedy.
Leaders in these districts gained a heightened awareness that violence was possible in their own
respective settings, which led them to focus on more proactive measures. Specifically,
DeMatthews and Brown (2019) studied principals’ responses to catastrophic events and
described several effective practices to leadership during these times, including collaborating
with school counselors to advance partnerships with community mental health organizations,
expanding school mental health programs to help address the effects of community violence, and
reframing the role of principals as community leaders.
In crisis and catastrophic situations, whether naturally-occurring or manmade, effective
leadership is a critical component to ensuring that a community can survive and overcome.
Smith (2012) noted several attributes of crisis leadership, including decisive decision making,
intuition and flexibility, creativity and lateral thinking, tenacity and optimism, and community
and media skills. When a community has effective leadership that embraces these attributes, they
are more likely to band together in the early days after a crisis and rebuild their community in the
long-term.
School Closures
In times of a pandemic, schools face the difficult decision of whether to remain open and
serve the community or close their doors in order to do their part in limiting the spread. The
decision to close schools involves more than just pressing pause on instruction; it impacts many
social structures in communities as well. Closing schools means that students may not have
access to many basic needs such as nutrition, adult supervision, and a safe environment. School
closures require consistent and clear communication between school officials and health
18
agencies, and effective collaboration is a crucial component not only in the initial decision to
close, but also in the logistical planning of re-opening the schools when deemed safe.
Braunack-Mayer (2013) investigated closure of schools in Australia in response to the
2009 H1N1 flu. School staff, students, and community members from schools that were fully or
partially closed were interviewed to gauge response to the closures. Using an ethical framework,
it was discovered that while health officials and school leaders were fully committed to the
wellbeing of the community, there was variation between the amount of communication and
transparency between all stakeholders. Trust and collaboration were the most important
components in successful responses and justification for school closures. Stern (2009) reported
on school leaders’ use of information from school closures during the 1918-1919 Spanish flu
pandemic to guide decision-making processes during the 2009 H1N1 influenza outbreak. In this
article, the policies in 43 major U.S. cities were analyzed and led to the conclusion that when
authoritarian roles are defined and communication between policymakers and community
officials is transparent, proper procedures for school closures can be effectively followed and
implemented efficiently (Stern, 2009).
The Lancet Child and Adolescent Health (2020) discussed the risks and benefits of
school closures on student wellbeing. Closing schools results in a lack of access to school
resources such as food and healthcare, leaving students with little to no support during a critical
time. This group pointed to the 2009 Ebola outbreak in Western Africa, where school closures
put students at further risk of domestic violence and neglect, and rates of adolescent pregnancy
were on the rise. This situation was compared to the level of risk that COVID-19 has on children;
in that respect, the symptoms are minor, and the morbidity rate is minimal. The Lancet Child and
19
Adolescent Health (2020) suggested that the greatest risk to children lay not in the virus itself but
in the societal shifts that were created as a result of the virus.
Herold (2020a) detailed how the COVID-19 pandemic caused the closure of at least
124,000 school buildings thus affecting 55 million children. He described how teachers utilized
whatever distance communications resources were available, such as Zoom and Instagram Live.
In seven states, school districts partnered with their local PBS affiliate allowing teachers to
utilize television for instruction. He also noted that the use of education material delivery
platforms like Canvas and Google Classroom created equity issues such as lack of technology
devices, digital resources for English language learner students, access to the high-speed internet
required for virtual class streaming.
Preparation and Training of School Staff Facing the COVID-19 Pandemic
Distance Learning
In order to meet the instructional needs of students during the COVID-19 pandemic, it
was necessary to modify the delivery of curriculum due to the stay-at-home orders and school
closures. This included a shift to distance learning in the spring of 2020 and later included a
hybrid model of instruction in the fall such that some students continued to stay at home and
others returned to the classroom. It also included a mix of synchronous and asynchronous
instruction, where students met virtually or in-person with their teachers for new content, and
asynchronous, or independent, work was assigned to be completed at each student’s discretion.
Within the realm of online instruction, Malkus et al. (2020b) described three levels of distance
instruction: rigorous, moderate, and perfunctory. Rigorous instruction relied primarily on online
platforms and expected all students to participate; moderate instruction required teachers to grade
on completion or performance and expected 1:1 contact between teachers and their students;
20
perfunctory instruction relied primarily on instructional packets with no attached accountability
for completion or grading, explicitly stated that student participation was not required, and that
attendance would not be taken (Malkus et al., 2020b).
Lieberman (2020) reported on the various models of instruction (in-person, remote,
hybrid) in six schools in Texas, New Mexico, Michigan, Pennsylvania, and New Jersey. District
size ranged from 1,000 to 14,000 students. Educators and administrators discussed their
successes and challenges in adjusting to their new models. They reported being overwhelmed by
increased demands, technology issues, district cyberattacks, instructional design shifts, student
involvement/engagement, effective tracking of student progress, increased parent contact,
needing more staff to ensure student mastery, greater collaboration amongst colleagues, and
unique safety measures taken. Lieberman also offered insights into each district by discussing
their chosen model, challenges, benefits, small victories, and the takeaway, essentially listing the
positive and negative indicators in these six cases.
Access to Technology
According to Diliberti et al. (2020), districts and schools with multiple preparedness
indicators in place prior to the pandemic were more likely to be successful in the transition to
distance learning. These preparedness indicators included providing technology devices to
students in need, effectively utilizing an online learning management system, providing fully
online or blended course options, and having an established plan in place to deliver instruction
during an extended school closure. Needs assessments in the form of technology surveys were
conducted in order to determine device and internet accessibility, technology infrastructure was
reprioritized, and those in leadership roles took on new responsibilities from multiple entities
(Fotheringham et al., 2020; Malkus et al., 2020a).
21
Nutrition
In regard to nutrition services, meal distribution was one of the most urgent changes that
school leaders had to address at the onset of school closures in March 2020. With food-insecure
students nationwide relying on meals from school, districts and schools had to plan and
implement food distribution systems for students to have access to meals (Kinsey et al., 2020).
Social distancing guidelines forced school districts to produce new and innovative meal
distribution systems that provided access to nutrition in an equitable manner. This included “grab
and go” pickups, drop off meal stations at school bus stops and homes, as well as expanded
services meals which provided food 7 days per week to children up to the age of 18, as well as
disabled students up to the age of 26 (Kinsey et al., 2020; Malkus et al., 2020b; McLoughlin et
al., 2020).
Homeschooling
This drastic change in instruction also put an added stress on parents who were quickly
forced into the role of homeschool teachers. Parents were put in the challenging situation of
working from home while also assisting their children with schoolwork. Bhamani (2020)
described these stressors as disruptions in routines, difficulty providing creative activities,
struggles with technology support, and overall concerns with their child’s social development.
Professional Development
In regard to preparation and training, new protocols needed to be developed to ensure
success in the transition to distance learning. Campuses and districts needed to rely on
information and resources from a variety of different sources in order to adequately prepare
teachers with the specific set of skills necessary to be effective in this new instructional model
(Castelo, 2020). Research by Shaw (2020) highlighted some best practices for leaders to help
22
their organizations navigate the pandemic crisis affecting their schools. The importance of
instructional professional development support was crucial in increasing teachers’ collective
efficacies. Research also indicated that tailored and responsive professional learning can promote
mastery experiences (Goddard, Hoy, & Hoy, 2000). A teacher’s sense of efficacy is crucial for
effective online teaching.
Health and Safety
In addition to instructional preparation and training, there was also a need for training and
guidance to implement new health and safety protocols for the closing and re-opening of schools
as required by local, state, and federal regulations. At the federal level, the CDC was the guiding
force in regard to logistical planning, contact tracing, hygiene, cleaning, etc. In California, at the
state level, school districts looked to the CDE for guidance on funding, testing, safety guidance,
and vaccines. At the local level, school districts relied on their respective county Offices of
Education for guidance on workplace policies and practices, physical distancing, infection
control, communication, and equitable access to services.
Communication
Communication was also a critical factor in implementing successful systems for schools
and school districts to follow during the COVID-19 pandemic. Canlé (2020) described the
importance of implementing strategies that would work toward restoring a sense of stability and
collaboration by consistently checking in with staff members and seeking input and feedback in a
manner where the information was not being disseminated too quickly. Staying positive and
maintaining staff morale were critical. Communication with all school stakeholders is crucial
during times of crisis. Leaders are looked upon to help create a sense of normalcy and maintain a
positive culture for the community. Canlé (2020) discussed strategies such as frequent check-ins
23
with staff members and leading with inquiry in order to gain a sense of need and morale. In
addition, leaders needed to be aware of the dangers of information overload and to be cognizant
of when and how often new information was being shared. Finally, the importance of staying
positive, since leaders are the ones who set the tone for the staff, had to be top priority.
Communication that is clear, purposeful, and positive is the key component to keeping staff
feeling supported. It can also help maintain a sense of normalcy and aid in building strong
relationships and respect within the school community.
Hermann (2020) discussed the importance of feedback to effective communication.
When a culture of accepting productive feedback has been established, tremendous growth can
occur. There are several ways of establishing a culture of feedback, including creating feedback
routines, interpreting feedback thoughtfully, learning from experiences, sharing that learning,
and learning to love feedback (Hermann, 2020). However, without a culture of feedback,
accepting others’ criticism can trigger negative responses. Shonk (2020) described three
feedback triggers: truth triggers, which cause us to make judgments about the feedback;
relationship triggers, which are potentially more impactful based on who is offering the
feedback; and identity triggers, which may implicate aspects of how we see ourselves.
Understanding our own personal triggers can help us process feedback more productively.
Effects of the Pandemic on School Children
When the COVID-19 pandemic hit the world in the spring of 2020, schools were forced
by government agencies to close their buildings and offer online instruction instead. This new
world of quarantine and online school meant that students’ daily routines were disrupted, and
many were isolated from their social circles. Their normal lives became anything but normal.
These enormous changes took a toll on their overall mental health and wellbeing. Additionally,
24
the stress of quarantine had a significant effect on families, teachers, and administrators. Parents
were forced to work from home while simultaneously assisting their children with online
schoolwork. The pressures of online instruction with little to no precedent on successful,
effective instructional strategies to be used in distance learning were challenging for teachers,
parents, and students alike.
Cowie and Myers (2021) studied the effects of the pandemic on mental health in children,
indicating that pandemics have an extremely negative impact on mental health, with children and
young people being especially at risk due to their limited understanding of the event. This led to
an exceptional increase in anxiety and other mental health problems among children and young
people with an accompanying decrease in emotional wellbeing. In addition, those from lower
income families had high levels of emotional difficulties such as feeling unhappy or worried,
being clingy and experiencing physical symptoms associated with anxiety, more so than those
from high income households. Additionally, Cowie and Myers (2021) found that reports of
children being abused at home surged by almost one-third after lockdown was imposed. In some
cases, fears about the virus were exploited by the perpetrators to withhold access to children, cut
off contact to family and friends, and monitor movement under the pretext of keeping them safe
from the virus. Those affected said this made it difficult to leave home and speak out about their
situations.
The Lancet Child and Adolescent Health (2020) discussed the correlation between the
effects of quarantine and self-isolation on one’s mental health. Separation from loved ones, loss
of freedom, boredom, and uncertainty can cause a deterioration in an individual’s mental health
status. To overcome this, measures at the individual and societal levels are required. Similarly,
Javed et al. (2020) discussed the negative relationship between quarantine and mental health.
25
They argued that in a global pandemic situation, both children and adults experience a mixture of
emotions. They can be placed in a situation or an environment that may be new and potentially
damaging to their health. Javed et al. (2020) also noted the behavioral changes that children can
exhibit in times of anxiety, distress, social isolation, and an abusive environment. These
indicators could include excessive crying and annoying behavior, increased sadness, depression,
or worry, difficulties with concentration and attention, changes in, or avoiding, activities that
they enjoyed in the past, unexpected headaches and pain throughout their bodies, and changes in
eating habits. These behaviors can have both short- and long-term effects on their mental health.
DeFigueiredo et al. (2021) also discussed evidence of the multiple negative psychological
impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic on children and adolescent quarantined populations. It was
discovered that persistent and enhanced stressful events during early life, such as experiencing
life during a global pandemic, can drive physiological responses by the immune, endocrine, and
nervous systems. Additionally, behavioral changes such as feelings of distress and hopelessness,
irregular food intake, abuse and trauma (domestic violence), interpersonal and environmental
restraint, and sleep deprivation and neglect were observed. Longer term consequences observed
included underdeveloped brain circuitry, obesity, substance abuse, lack of emotional processing,
psychiatric disorders, and suicidal thoughts.
Effects of the Pandemic on Marginalized Groups
Baptiste et al. (2020), Ghosh et al. (2020), Kantamneni (2020), and Walters (2020) all
studied how the COVID-19 pandemic affected marginalized K–12 students and their families.
These studies described how the pandemic exacerbated inequalities that already existed in our
nation’s educational system. Disadvantaged families experienced economic hardships, food
insecurity, and lack of access to technology, all of which hindered their learning, especially
26
during remote learning. Minority populations also experienced limited access to quality
healthcare and the medical insurance necessary for services if they fell ill. School expenditures
per student in marginalized areas resulted in not only a lack of educational resources, but also in
the societal assistance that schools often provide to many families in need. The result is an
increased need for more interventions to help close the achievement gap and reduce the
inequities that these marginalized communities are experiencing
Borman (2020) and Herold (2020b) also studied how students from low socioeconomic
backgrounds, including foster children, were impacted greatly by the COVID-19 pandemic and
school shutdowns. Several factors contributed to this problem including uneven access to
technology, lack of high-speed internet, and highly distracted living situations like households
with a lack of workspace and/or working parents, especially working parents classified as
“essential workers.” Gross and Opalka (2020) noted that social-emotional wellbeing was also of
concern for marginalized students. Many schools lacked adequate support systems, teachers and
counselors were ill-prepared and did not have materials congruent to student need, and there was
a lack of consistency in distance learning that the physical school normally provided. These
exacerbated social-emotional issues greatly impacted student success and achievement.
The COVID-19 pandemic has had an enormous impact on historically marginalized
students of color. In terms of academic loss, Fofaria (2021) and Education Trust (2020) reported
that these students have fewer synchronous interactions with teachers and live in households
where parents are more likely to work outside the home and struggle to be present to support
remote learning. The digital divide creates gaps in access to devices and the internet, which
makes online instruction extremely challenging, and schools in these neighborhoods are less
likely to provide adequate remote learning experiences. From a health standpoint, these
27
marginalized families have higher rates of pre-existing comorbidities for COVID-19 including
diabetes, obesity, asthma, and pulmonary diseases, and lack access to nutritional services. Many
families work in fields that are classified as essential and experience infections at higher rates
(Gaylord-Harden et al., 2020; Warrior et.al, 2020).
English Language Learners (ELLs) are another population who have had widely varying
experiences with a broad range of educational, physical, and health-related needs due to the
pandemic. This article discussed how teachers are struggling to recreate language-rich
classrooms, and second language students therefore face setbacks in their language development
without consistent opportunities to listen, speak, read, and write in English during online
instruction. The article explains that while educational organizations are providing resources
translated into multiple languages, low-incidence language families are often left out.
Additionally, other challenges include ELLs approaching high school graduation may find
themselves under familial obligation to halt their studies and look for work in order to support
their families. Additional complications for ELLs include the suspension, delay, and even
cancellation of assessments and accountability requirements. These testing mandates, exams,
benchmarks, and reclassifications mark critical junctures for ELL students to access higher level
courses and receive critical civil rights protections (Institute of Education Sciences, 2020).
Special education students have also experienced augmented challenges throughout the
pandemic. Many students have more success with in-person learning in small groups rather than
distance learning, and they miss the interactions and collaboration of in-person learning in
inclusion environments. Additionally, teacher collaboration is reduced, resulting in less
coordination of services for these students with special needs (Parmigiani et al., 2020). Sider
(2020) asserted that special education instruction does not translate into the virtual environment,
28
and inclusion was not happening with the same fidelity. In order to provide better remote
instruction, special materials are needed for equitable access including assistive technologies and
manipulatives, and attaining these resources is an added stressor. Finally, the state and federal
guidelines designed to serve special education students are rapid and ever-changing, making
providing services extremely challenging.
Equitable Grading Challenges
Feldman and Reeves (2020), two leading grading reform advocates, discussed their views
on equitable grading and assessment practices stemming from the pandemic. Their 2020 study
examined the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on K–12 students and discovered a surge in
students failing or nearly failing classes during distance learning. Though the issues and
conversation have always been important, these researchers argued that the pandemic highlighted
the need for local educational agencies to re-examine and reimagine grading practices to ensure
they are equitable and designed to assess students’ progress toward mastery of standards. The
Feldman and Reeves’s (2020) study presented considerations for equitable grading practices
during and after the pandemic including accurate and equitable grading with a clear purpose,
providing equitable access to supports during the school day despite children’s home context,
eliminating zeros, and providing meaningful feedback. Similarly, Fisher et al. (2020) noted the
importance of specificity of feedback within grading that is constant and progressively closes the
gap between present and desired performance. Additionally, formative evaluation strategies that
can be presented in a distance learning setting and competency-based grading in summative
assessments are crucial in the quest for more equitable grading systems.
Wong (2020) reported that the failing grades were mostly concentrated among low-
income students of color as well as those who were still learning to speak English or had
29
disabilities. A similar report by Sawchuk (2021) stated that the reason for the increase in Ds and
Fs was the result of lack of reliable internet connectivity or technology devices for students,
sporadic attendance, and disengagement. All of these factors contributed to an increase in late or
missing assignments. This same researcher found that distance learning hindered teachers’
abilities to build relationships with students and assess their learning. In one school, a team of
teachers analyzed the causes of failing grades. The main findings defined three groups of
students: those who were not attending at all, a second group of those who are logging in but not
engaging, and the third group of those who were trying to engage but not turning in quality work
or enough work.
Impact of Local and State Agencies on Schools During the Pandemic
Local and state government and health agencies were also forced to create balancing acts
between securing the health and safety of their staffs and students while providing equity and
access to quality instruction throughout the COVID-19 pandemic. The state of California (2020)
implemented frequent COVID-19 testing for all school staff and students, including weekly
testing at schools in communities with high rates of transmission. Governor Newsom also
instituted a requirement for all staff and students in school to be required to wear masks and
ensured that school staff would be prioritized in the distribution of vaccines through the spring of
2021. Finally, the Office of the Governor developed the School Portal for Outbreak Tracking to
improve collaboration between school and health officials, and members of the state contact
tracing workforce were deployed to improve communication between schools (California, 2020).
Another instrumental agency in the planning of California schools through the pandemic
was the CDPH (2021b). This agency designed the Blueprint for a Safer California, which was
designed to reduce the spread of the virus within the state. In partnership with Governor Newsom
30
and the state legislature, they also developed the CA Safe Schools for All Plan (2021), which
focused on ensuring careful implementation and building confidence to support schools and
bring students back to campuses safely. Other programs included the COVID-19 Guidance for
Schools, which assisted districts with the planning process for the safe reopening of schools for
in-person instruction for the fall of 2020, and the School Reopening Framework, which assisted
school communities in determining when and how to implement safe in-person instruction for
the upcoming school year, including guidance for small cohorts/groups of children and youth,
guidance for necessary in-person child supervision and limited instruction, targeted support
services, and facilitation of distance learning following current CDC guidelines for
quarantine/isolation and return to work or school.
The CDE (2020) was also instrumental in assisting schools and districts in decision-
making protocol related to the safety of staff and students. They created the CA Safe Schools for
All (2021) resource, which consolidated key COVID-19 resources and information for school
administrators, staff, and parents. Tony Thurmond, the State Superintendent of Public
Instruction, frequently held news conferences and released correspondence related to COVID-19,
and the Stronger Together Guidebook for the Safe Reopening of California Public Schools was
created to provide a comprehensive checklist for re-openings schools, and mental health, and
wellbeing for all.
Finally, the Los Angeles County of Education (n.d.) worked to protect and improve the
health, safety, and wellbeing of its residents. This group was instrumental in providing
information and guidelines for all Los Angeles County stakeholders during the pandemic. This
agency tends to be more restrictive, but not less restrictive than the CDPH. It provided guidelines
to ensure the health and safety of students, staff, and community by providing best practices in
31
the areas of guidance, recommendations, and directives from CDPH; provided health and safety
information regarding physical distancing and infection control practices; provided guidelines for
proper classroom, meal, and cleaning practices; and guided health office practices in the areas of
personal protective equipment, and the management and isolation of students who arrived at
school with signs of illness.
State and county health departments have not only been integral in the health and safety
of schools, but have also provided an abundance of guidance in terms of distance learning and
frameworks to help schools adjust to shifting instruction online in the most effective and efficient
ways possible. The CDE (n.d.) designed distance learning considerations that included guidelines
for ensuring equity and access for all students, as well as a continuum of options for students
with disabilities and ELLs. The Los Angeles County Department of Education (n.d.) set
standards to provide a high-quality instructional program by following best practices in the areas
of curriculum selection and instructional delivery models, assessment practices and policies
including local and statewide assessments; services to special populations including students
with disabilities, socioeconomically disadvantaged students, and ELLs; and accessing and using
instructional technology.
California Executive Order N-26-20 (2020) was ordered by the governor, which allowed
the physical closure of schools by local educational agencies in response to the COVID-19
pandemic. The order provided that even if schools closed temporarily because of the pandemic,
local educational agencies would continue to receive state funding for those days in order for
schools to continue delivering high-quality educational opportunities to students through distance
learning and/or independent study. It also ensured that school meals would continue through the
Summer Food Service Program and Seamless Summer option, provided funding for the
32
supervision of students during normal school hours, and enabled districts to continue to pay
employee salaries.
Reopening Plans for Schools
State and county health departments along with the governor were also instrumental in
assisting schools and districts with guidelines for re-opening schools in the safest manner
possible. The Pupil Instruction: In-Person Instruction: Distance Learning (AB-10; 2021) was
passed by the California legislature and included guidance on opening schools for in-person
instruction within 2 weeks of local or state public health orders, provided all state and public
health standards could be met. AB-10 also included written procedures for the tiered re-
engagement strategies for all students absent from distance learning for more than 3 school days,
as well as procedures for students who were performing significantly below grade-level,
prioritizing students in the primary grades and those at risk of not graduating high school. In AB-
10, significant funding was also allocated for the safe reopening of schools; $2 billion was
invested in schools with a priority for returning to in-person instruction. Funds were also
weighted for districts serving students from low-income families, ELLs, and foster youth.
Finally, the bill provided oversight and assistance by developing the CA Safe Schools for All
team, provided school visits and walkthroughs, webinars and training materials, and ongoing
technical assistance.
The CDPH (2021b) also released guidelines pertaining to the safe reopening of schools.
In compliance with AB-10 (Pupil Instruction: In-Person Instruction: Distance Learning, 2021),
the CA Safe Schools for All Plan was developed with a focus on ensuring careful
implementation of safety standards on school campuses. CDPH (2021b) also provided guidance
for small cohorts/groups of children for necessary in-person child supervision, targeted support
33
services, and facilitation of distance learning in small group environments. Finally, it referenced
guidance for outdoor and indoor youth sports programs and activities.
Locally, the Los Angeles County of Education (n.d.) also provided frameworks for the
safe reopening of schools. This framework consisted of five focus areas: instruction, safety and
health, social and emotional support, family and community, and maintenance and operations.
The Los Angeles County Department of Public Health (2021) also assisted in the planning of
reopening schools by creating protocols that had to be followed to offer in-person learning.
These protocols included five key areas including workplace policies and practices, physical
distancing and infection control measures, communication regulations, and measures to ensure
equitable access to critical services. Schools were required to implement all applicable measures,
and any measure not implemented had to be explained if it was deemed not applicable to the
setting.
Impact of Teachers Unions
The COVID-19 pandemic forced schools into closure in the spring of 2020, and labor
unions quickly stepped in to ensure that contracts were not being violated, and that the health,
safety, and rights of their members were being respected and represented. Hemphill and
Marianno (2020) sought to unpack the impact of COVID-19 on urban school systems collective
bargaining agreements that would make way for learning under this new environment. The study
reviewed contract changed related to COVID-19 in 101 urban school districts around the
country. They discovered that 25 of those districts returned to the bargaining table with teachers’
unions to negotiate short-term fixes to collective bargaining agreements that allowed for more
flexibility to implement distance learning. These contract changes focused on several areas of the
agreements, including compensation, workload, non-teaching duties, evaluation, leave, and
34
technology. The implications of these changes would carry over into the 2020-2021 school year.
Districts and unions need to work together to set teacher expectations under changing
circumstances. By proactively planning for multiple scenarios with labor partners involved in
conversations from the beginning, school districts can mitigate any late “surprises” from labor
groups that might occur when it comes time to implementing or changing learning plans in
response to crises like COVID-19.
Post-Quarantine Response
Javed et al. (2020) discovered that people recently released from quarantine can
experience stigmatization and develop a mixture of emotions. Everyone may feel differently and
have a different welcome back by society when they come out of quarantine. People who
recently recovered may have to exercise social distancing from their family members, friends,
and relatives to ensure their family’s safety because of the unprecedented viral nature of COVID-
19. Different age groups respond to this social behavior differently, which can have both short-
and long-term effects.
Theoretical Framework
The researchers utilized three frameworks to develop an understanding of the
transformation and skill transfer from K–12 school organization leadership to meet the needs of
leading through the crisis of the COVID-19 pandemic. In Reframing Organizations: Artistry,
Choice, and Leadership, Bolman and Deal (2014) analyzed the four frames, or four significant
functions, of a leader, which include the structural, political, human resource, and symbolic
frames for leadership. This framework gives an overall understanding of the complex nature of
the leadership role within the K–12 educational system. The next framework utilized is found in
Fullan’s (2014) The Principal: Three Keys to Maximizing Impact. This framework analyzes the
35
specific leadership skills and strategies as they fall into three key categories of learning leader,
leader as district and system player, and leader as change agent. The final framework comes
from Westover’s (2020) Districts on the Move: Leading a Coherent System of Continuous
Improvement. This work reveals how the unique culture of each K–12 school district will present
diversions along the journey of implementing coherent systems for continuous improvement.
Westover’s (2020) four main aspects to leading a coherent path of progress include clarity of
district goals, collective expertise, shared leadership and systematic collaboration, and evidence-
based inquiry cycles for continuous improvement.
Reframing Organizations: Artistry, Choice, and Leadership
Bolman and Deal’s (2017) four frames analyze the work of leaders within complex
educational organizations like K–12 school districts. This framework seeks to make the work of
school leaders more comprehensible by simplifying aspects of leadership into four categories
that can assist leaders in determining the importance of the multifaceted nature of their roles.
First, the structural frame views an organization as an entity formed to accomplish goals
and focuses on the role of the leader ensuring an adequate environment in which employees can
fulfill their roles with clear understanding of positions and responsibilities. The role of the leader
is to guarantee that the structure is engineered to support the specific and unique needs and
objectives of the organization. Within the leadership structural frame, the priority is to lead with
rational and systematic thinking, rather than personal preference (Bolman & Deal, 2017). Next,
the human resource frame reveals how employees bring value to an organization and, in turn,
how the organization can support and empower its employees. Bolman and Deal’s (2017) work
on the human resources frame emphasized the importance of the organization’s role in
supporting employees and building capacity for growth.
36
Thirdly, the political frame shows the importance of leaders managing conflict and
disagreement in order to build capacity within the organization. This frame emphasizes the
leader’s ability to build coalitions to accomplish broader organizational goals. Political leaders
understand that their most vital role is to allocate scarce resources and to comprehend the power
balance involved with this task, including a determination of who would be perceived to be the
winners and losers in each resource allocation decision. Therefore, the political leader makes
decisions and creates goals through bargaining and negotiation to engage the competing
stakeholders. Finally, the symbolic leadership frame appreciates the key leader qualities of vision
and charisma in emphasizing culture. A symbolic leader values tradition and ceremony and takes
an active role in seeking opportunities to display the culture of the organization. A symbolic
leader takes special care to create and glorify al that the organization represents (Bolman & Deal,
2017).
Bolman and Deal’s (2017) four frames of leadership provide context for the leadership
work within complex educational organizations like K–12 school districts. These frames provide
leaders within districts a comprehensible system of analysis to meet the demands of their
positions and to utilize the relationships developed with stakeholders to serve the larger goals of
the organization.
The Principal: Three Keys to Maximizing Impact
In The Principal: Three Keys to Maximizing Impact, Fullan (2014) analyzed the three
primary elements of the work of a successful principal. Fullan’s impetus in developing the keys
was the increased stress and decreased job satisfaction of school principals. Fullan noted that
50% of school principals feel stress frequently, about 60% of principals are satisfied with their
position (a decrease of 10% in the past decade), and 75% of principals deem the job as too
37
complex. As a result of these factors, Fullan developed three keys for principals to maximize
their work and increase their satisfaction in the position.
Fullan’s (2014) first key is for the principal to be the lead learner as creating a culture of
learning is the first priority for a principal. The principal must ensure that learning and
instructional improvement are at the heart of everything that a school does. Campus leaders
cannot do this work alone and should develop a team of teachers and leaders to support the work
of instructional improvement. The culture created by a principal allows the school to maximize
its impact provide a coherent academic program. The principal’s role includes developing the
professional capital of the team, which is the human capital, social capital, and decisional capital
of the staff. Human capital is the quality of the teaching force in a school and their abilities as
instructors, interventionists, and mentors to children. Social capital refers to the relationships
formed by administrators and their interactions with staff and community members. A strong
social relationship forms a culture of a school and encourages the development of a common
cause among the staff as well as an obligation to perform. The decisional capital of the leader is
his or her ability to engage the social and human capital of an organization and the knowledge
required to effectively utilize that human capital. Decisional capital refers to the leader’s ability
to make sound professional decisions and utilize professional judgment in his or her work. The
first key requires a leader to develop a school-based team committed to learning and to serve as a
model for this initiative.
Fullan’s (2014) second key is being a district and system player. A sound school
administrator must ensure that his or her school is functioning as a component of the district and
the larger initiatives and methods employed at the system level. In an era of increased scrutiny
and accountability, the role of the administrator as a system player is increasingly challenging. In
38
contrast, the ability to engage and collaborate across districts and schools provides a structure for
continuous improvement. The work across a district, the district coherence, builds the capacity of
the district as an entity and the individual schools within the district. This work also leads to the
long-term development of a district’s mission and capacity for change and accountability. This
second key supports principals in understanding their role within the larger context of a school
system and the benefits and challenges of developing a systemwide mission. The third key is
becoming a change agent, which refers to the principal’s ability to lead passionately and with
professional mastery. An effective principal must gracefully charter a path for the staff to change
and support team members as they adopt refined thinking regarding instructional roles and
obligations. Leaders must find a balance in their change efforts between supporting those who
adapt to change quickly and nudging resistant staff in the direction of the organization. Leading
through change requires principals to have confidence and resilience when their efforts flounder
and an understanding that their mastery of the position and passion for excellence enable
organizational gains.
Districts on the Move: Leading a Coherent System of Continuous Improvement
Every district has a unique culture, and its people and structures have an existing
capacity. When districts seek to transform themselves into creating a coherent system of
continuous improvement, there will be various diversions along the journey. Westover (2020)
delved into the key benchmarks of capacity and the leadership competencies necessary for
districts to progress in creating a system that ensures and monitors continuous improvement.
Westover (2020) argued that the culture of leadership in a school district is the most critical
factor for both advancing progress and sustaining improvement efforts. The major challenges to
success are developing leadership at every level to create a collaborative culture of improvement,
39
while the “key for long-term success is maintaining a focus on creating coherence in spite of the
daily urgent demands in schools that constantly pull leaders away from the important work of
improving teaching and learning” (Westover, 2020, p. 8). There are four aspects of creating
coherent systems for continuous improvement within school districts.
Westover (2020) noted the importance of clarity of district goals and priorities. School
districts must first analyze the underlying causes of areas where improvement is needed and
align improvement strategies that specifically address these issues. Only high-impact strategies
should be implemented, those that have been proven effective and that will, in turn, guide district
actions and provide the support needed. Next is the creating of a culture of shared leadership and
systematic collaboration. Districts should create formal structures and processes so that
employees can engage in systemic collaboration and co-learning among and between colleagues
at all levels of the organization to promote a culture of leading from the middle. Everyone in an
organization can be a lead learner by gaining expertise in their area, which results in more
successful navigation of any process of change.
Westover (2020) next asserted the importance of a coherent instructional framework for
developing collective expertise. A coherent instructional framework integrates resources,
strategies, and assessments that are implemented within short, three or four-week cycles. At the
end of each cycle, feedback or results are gathered to determine the level of success of the
strategy and to determine what next steps are needed. Finally, Westover pointed to the value of
evidence-based inquiry cycles for continuous improvement. District leaders should set annual
growth targets that can be measured internally to inform the district progress toward goals.
Through evidence-based cycles of collaborative inquiry, educational organizations like K- 12
school districts can create feedback loops to track the continuous improvement of practice.
40
Conceptual Framework
The research team in the current study adopted a conceptual framework (Figure 1) that is
derived from three theoretical frameworks that aid in the knowledge of the theories that impact
school leadership and how this impact can be adapted to the situation of managing the COVID-
19 pandemic crisis. The four frames described by Bolman and Deal (2017) provide guidance to
school leaders at both site and district levels in navigating the different aspects of leadership and
how a leader’s actions and habits can impact the organization. Fullan’s (2014) work The
Principal: Three Keys to Maximizing Impact goes deeper into the specific roles of principals as
enacting change at the site level through being a lead learner, district and system player, and a
change agent. Westover’s (2020) framework provides the guiding principles that districts can
enact to create an organization that can move together through change and create systems for
continuous improvement. These frameworks together provide K–12 school districts with the
steps to persist, at all levels of leadership, through crises of varying degrees of intensity.
Chapter Summary
Schools and school districts were greatly impacted by the COVID-19 pandemic, forcing
decisions regarding the closure of schools, distance learning expectations, and re-opening plans.
There are only a few historical incidences of similar crises affecting education that leaders had to
draw upon for guidance and experience. This chapter was a review of the literature relevant to
the study of leadership through a pandemic and provided a context for the purpose of the study.
41
Figure 1
Conceptual Framework of the Study
This chapter identified the history of pandemics affecting schools, leadership in crisis
situations, closure of schools, the preparation and training of schools facing the pandemic, the
effects on children in schools, the impact on various marginalized groups during the pandemic,
equitable grading challenges, the impact of local and state agencies on schools, reopening plans
for schools, and the impact of teachers’ unions. The chapter closed with information on post-
quarantine response.
Chapter Three presents the methodological approach used to address the research
questions for this study. It outlines the methodology, Design of the Study, participants,
42
instruments, protocols and procedures used for data collection and analysis, and the ethical
considerations that informed the study.
43
Chapter Three: Research Methodology
The COVID-19 pandemic had an enormous impact on every aspect of society on a global
scale, and the education system was not exempt from being forced to make a complete overhaul
of the processes and procedures under which they operate. Campuses, districts, site staff,
students, and community members needed to adapt to the constantly changing guidelines coming
from federal, state, and local agencies in order to continue the business of teaching and learning.
Throughout this period, inequities that affected marginalized populations were amplified and
systems were interrogated as to their relevance and effectiveness. This forced many changes to
be made in the field of education, and educational leaders were faced with unprecedented
responsibilities in decision making and implementation that greatly impacted schools and
communities.
The purpose of this study was to examine the various leadership challenges and dynamics
of directing K–12 schools in a global pandemic. In Chapter Two, literature was reviewed on the
history of pandemics affecting schools, leadership in crisis situations, closure of schools, the
preparation and training of schools facing the pandemic, the effects on children in schools, the
impact on various marginalized groups during the pandemic, equitable grading challenges, the
impact of local and state agencies on schools, reopening plans for schools, the impact of
teachers’ unions, and post-quarantine response. This chapter describes the current study’s
Research Questions, Research Design Methods, Sample and Population, Access and Entry,
Instrumentation, Data Collection, Data Analysis, and Ethical Considerations.
Research Questions
In a qualitative study, research questions are the guiding force that drives the work into
discovering the information sought by the researcher. The research questions are critical
44
components to focusing the work and guiding the stages of inquiry, data analysis, synthesizing,
and reporting (Robinson & Leonard, 2019).
The purposes of the research questions used in this study were to gather information
related to school district finances, adherence to requirements dictated by outside agencies, the
effects of union negotiations, and addressing how the needs of parents and community members
affected decision-making processes. This study was guided by the following research questions:
1. What, if any, financial implications did the COVID-19 pandemic have on K–12
public school districts in Southern California and how have district superintendents,
assistant superintendents and principals addressed these implications?
2. What, if any, has been the impact of federal, state and local health agencies on K–12
public school districts in Southern California, and what strategies have district
superintendents, assistant superintendents, and principals followed to address the
suggested guidelines?
3. How, if at all, have union negotiations played a role in K–12 Southern California
public school districts’ response to the Covid-19 pandemic?
4. How, if at all, have K–12 Southern California public school district leadership teams
comprised of superintendents, assistant superintendents, and principals addressed the
concerns of the parent community regarding safety, nutrition, distance learning, lack
of technology, academic standing, and how and when to re-open schools due to the
Covid-19 pandemic?
Research Design and Methods
This qualitative study utilized both surveys and interviews of district superintendents,
assistant superintendents, and site principals. Instrumentation included both surveys and
45
interviews in order to explore how superintendents, assistant superintendents, and principals
prepared and provided leadership during the COVID-19 pandemic crisis, including factors such
as financial responsibilities, communication, personnel dealings, and social-emotional
implications.
Using qualitative methods such as surveys and interviews allows researchers to
understand how people interpret experiences, understand participants’ perspectives, and evaluate
human behavior through a particular situation (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). A qualitative approach
was appropriate for the purpose of this study due to the varying experiences of school leaders
throughout the COVID-19 pandemic. By utilizing surveys and interviews, the research team was
able to collect information related to the specific experiences of school leaders at varying levels,
and also allowed for the analysis of any similarities and differences between the experiences of
the participants.
Research Team
The research team for this study consisted of 22 doctoral students from the University of
Southern California’s (USC) Rossier School of Education, with Dr. Rudy Castruita as the lead
researcher and supervisor of the study. The team met on a weekly basis to collaborate, receive
guidance, instruction, and feedback. Together, the team established research questions, created
survey and interview questions, and helped to formulate the conceptual framework used to shape
the study. As a result of this approach, there are similarities among dissertations.
Population and Sample
The purpose of this study was to examine the various leadership challenges and dynamics
of directing K–12 schools during a global pandemic. In order to study the subject effectively, the
research team focused on a sample of district superintendents, district assistant superintendents,
46
and school site principals in the state of California serving K–12 public school districts. To
produce the most accurate data, it would have been beneficial to collect information from the
entire population of K–12 school leaders in California; however, time constraints created a
limitation to the research team.
During the spring and summer of 2021, the research team, along with the support of
dissertation chairs Dr. Escalante and Dr. Castruita, worked to identify a purposive sampling of
contacts at the superintendent, assistant superintendent, and school site principal level throughout
K–12 public school districts in California as potential participants. Once a sampling was
identified, survey and interview questions were crafted and evaluated for effectiveness.
Access and Entry
Prior to conducting the research for this study, the research team received approval from
the USC Internal Review Board (IRB). IRB approval is a required component to ensure not only
the informed consent of the research participants, but also that participants have the knowledge
necessary to understand the nature of the research, are aware of any potential risks involved, and
understand that there is no forced participation and that they are able to withdraw their
participation in the study at any time (Glesne, 2011; Rubin & Rubin, 2012).
To gain access to the participants for this study, the researchers first sought potential
participants by targeting former USC graduates who were actively serving in the positions of
superintendent, assistant superintendent, and school site principal. While it was not a
requirement to be a USC graduate, the researchers felt that their best chance of success would be
to reach out to people who had been in the research position themselves and would be willing to
give back to the USC community.
47
After targeting potential subjects, the researchers invited them to participate in the study
using the informed consent process. Participants granted permission to use an audio recording
device in order to facilitate the capturing of data (Bogdan & Biklen, 2007).
Instrumentation
The research team for this study developed the instrumentation tools collaboratively. The
construction of the data-collecting instruments and formation of the research questions used
concepts from the conceptual framework. The surveys and interview protocols were designed to
reflect the research questions. Using both surveys and interviews provided a clear and direct
connection to the responses to the research questions in order to best understand the challenges
of leading school campuses and districts through a global pandemic.
Data Collection
Each participant received a survey and participated in an interview. Survey responses
consisted of a 5-point Likert scale and were collected using Qualtrics. Interviews were conducted
1:1 between the researcher and the participant.
To facilitate the process, interview times were arranged with the participants at a time
that was deemed most convenient according to their schedules. Prior to their interview time, an
informed consent form was signed notifying the participant of the potential risks as well as the
option to opt-out at any time, and permission was granted to use an audio recording device for
the researchers’ coding purposes.
The research team agreed on a time frame for the collection of participants’ information.
Once complete, the team analyzed the collective data in order to determine any similarities
between responses or recurring themes that arose throughout the process. During the interview,
the researcher followed the standard interview protocol utilizing the questions predetermined by
48
the research team. Once the interview was completed, the researcher coded the data using the
audio recording.
Each interview lasted approximately 35 minutes in order to maximize the time spent with
the participant while still respecting their valuable time. The researcher took notes to capture
behaviors not observable through an audio recording, such as body language, facial expressions,
and other behaviors of nonverbal communication (Fiore, 2016). These approaches to data
collection and analysis were deemed most appropriate by the research team to effectively answer
the research questions for this study.
Credibility and Trustworthiness
The credibility and trustworthiness of a study lies with the research team as they design
the survey and interview instrumentation. An important consideration is recognizing that the
biases brought to the study by each of the researchers could potentially skew any data or the
interpretation of results (Miles et al., 2014). In order to maintain credibility and trustworthiness,
the research team conducted cognitive interviews “strategies such as think-aloud interviewing
and probing to expose respondents’ thought processes to support survey revision” (Robinson &
Leonard, 2019, p. 173). These cognitive activities served to ensure that communication was
clear, and questions were unlikely to be misinterpreted.
Ethical Considerations
Researchers must closely attend to ethical considerations as the researcher’s credibility
and ethics can affect the validity and reliability of a study. To that end, dilemmas concerning
ethics are common during the data collection and analysis of a qualitative study (Merriam &
Tisdell, 2016). In the current study, each member of the research team completed all six modules
of the Collaborative Institutional Training Initiative through USC’s IRB process. The focus of
49
these modules was to ensure complete understanding of the implications of ethics throughout a
research study. Once successfully completed, the research team drafted a proposal that was
submitted to the IRB for approval before the data collection period.
The interview process included an informed consent that provided transparency for
participants and fully articulated that their participation was voluntary, and they were free to
dissociate themselves from the study at any time. Participants were also informed that all data
would be kept secure and remain anonymous. Any questions that caused uncertainty,
apprehension, or discomfort were optional. The researchers aimed to ensure that the study did
not cause harm or hardship of any kind to the participants and made every effort to maintain the
integrity of the study.
Chapter Summary
The purpose of this chapter was to elaborate on the process that the researchers used in
addressing the research questions guiding the study. The goal of this study was to understand the
myriad of challenges faced by school leaders during the COVID-19 pandemic through a
qualitative methods approach. Throughout the data collection, analysis, and presentation of
findings, ethical practices were utilized.
Qualitative interview findings were triangulated with the data collected from the surveys
as well as the literature review and included the perspectives of superintendents, assistant
superintendents, and school site principals from K–12 public school districts in California. Data
were analyzed using the theoretical framework and tailored to answer the research questions.
These findings are discussed in Chapter Four.
50
Chapter Four: Findings
This mixed-methods study, The Impact of the COVID-19 Pandemic on K–12 Public
School Districts in Southern California: Responses of Superintendents, Assistant
Superintendents, and Principals, was designed to investigate how the COVID-19 pandemic has
affected the public school system. Study findings illuminate what district and site administrators
have learned from their lived experiences and their decision-making responsibilities in managing
the crisis. The research study’s conceptual framework was based on three theoretical
frameworks: Four Frames, Three Keys to Maximizing Impact, and Coherent Systems. The three
frameworks provide an understanding of the theories that impact the leadership of district
superintendents, assistant superintendents, and principals and how this leadership can be adapted
to manage the COVID-19 pandemic crisis.
The 27 research participants in this study consisted of nine superintendents, nine assistant
superintendents, and nine principals across nine unique K–12 public school districts in Southern
California. These research participants qualified because they held their current position for at
least 1 year, they served in their position during the 2019–2020 school year, and the student
population of their district was at least 1,000.
This study was designed as a mixed-methods study, utilizing both qualitative and
quantitative methods to collect and analyze data. A total of 27 Southern California K–12 district
and school leaders - nine superintendents, nine assistant superintendents, and nine principals -
participated in the study. A mixed-methods approach was selected to establish triangulation for
more accurate findings and make the study more holistic (Maxwell, 2013). Qualitative methods
allowed for examining how school leaders made decisions and addressed challenges during the
COVID-19 pandemic. Interviews were used in the study’s qualitative phase. The semi-structured
51
interview protocol consisted of 14 questions and a series of follow-up probes. The interviews
served to gather data that reflected the participants’ opinions, decisions, and knowledge. Thus,
this study yielded qualitative data from open-ended interview questions and quantitative data
from surveys completed by the interviewees.
Quantitative data were captured utilizing three variations of the same survey (one version
for superintendents, one version for assistant superintendents, and one version for principals),
which were distributed to all 27 participants. The three survey versions each contained a total of
26 closed-ended questions addressing the study’s four research questions by gathering data that
reflected the participating school and district leaders’ experiences, views, decisions, and
knowledge about the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on Southern California K–12 public
school districts. The survey was created using the Qualtrics® online software and incorporated a
Likert scale for responses to all questions (1 = strongly disagree to 5 = strongly agree). The
following descriptors were used for each of the 26 survey items: 1 indicated strongly disagree, 2
indicated disagree, 3 indicated neither agree nor disagree, 4 indicated agree, and 5 indicated
strongly agree. The survey instrument was web-accessible to all participants and was designed to
capture district- and site-level administrators’ perceptions regarding district- and site-level
challenges related to the COVID-19 pandemic.
Chapter Four presents the findings gathered through the online surveys and interviews.
The quantitative findings, shown in Tables 5 to 8, show the average participant score for each
survey question. The following four research questions guided the study:
1. What, if any, are the financial implications of the COVID-19 pandemic on K–12
public school districts in Southern California, and how have district superintendents,
assistant superintendents, and principals addressed these implications?
52
2. What impact, if any, have federal, state, and local health agencies had on K–12 public
school districts in Southern California, and what strategies have district
superintendents, assistant superintendents, and principals used to address the
suggested guidelines?
3. How, if at all, have union negotiations played a role in Southern California K–12
public school districts’ responses to the COVID-19 pandemic?
4. How, if at all, have Southern California K–12 public school districts’ leadership
teams comprised of superintendents, assistant superintendents, and principals
addressed the parent community’s concerns regarding safety, nutrition, distance
learning, lack of technology, academic standing, and how and when to re-open
schools due to the COVID-19 pandemic?
Participants
For this study, 27 Southern California K–12 public school district superintendents,
assistant superintendents, and principals across nine districts were chosen because they met the
following selection criteria: (a) employed as a superintendent, assistant superintendent, or
principal at a traditional Southern California K–12 district; (b) employed at a public school; (c)
worked in their current roles for at least 1 year; (d) served in their positions during the 2019–
2020 school year; and (e) the district’s student population was approximately 1,000. All 27
school and district leaders who were selected for meeting the criteria agreed to respond to the
survey and participated in the interview. In an effort to protect the identities of the school and
district leaders involved and ensure anonymity, school districts and participants were assigned
pseudonyms.
Demographic Data
53
As shown in Table 1, 27 participants were chosen from nine different K–12 public school
districts in Southern California. The nine participating school districts served a combined total of
132,946 students, with the smallest school district (District E) serving 998 students and the
largest school district (District I) serving 46,501 students. An average of 54.19% of all enrolled
students across all nine districts were identified as socioeconomically disadvantaged (SES), with
the smallest percentage of SES students (17.6%) in District G and the largest percentage of SES
students (87.8%) in District D. Of the total student enrollments in all nine school districts, an
average of 14.48% of students were identified as English learners (EL), with the smallest
percentage of EL students (1.4%) in District E and the largest percentage of EL students (37.6%)
in District D.
54
Table 1
Demographic Information: School District Participants
District
Grade
levels
Student
population
Average
daily
attendance
Socioeconomically
disadvantaged
English
learners
Foster
youth
A P–12 11,713 95.4% 69.6% 9% 0.6%
B P–12 25,789 95.7% 51.9% 23% 0.1%
C P–8 6,072 95.8% 78.2% 15.6% 0.9%
D P–Adult 45, 215 96.5% 87.8% 37.6% 0.5%
E K–12 998 93.1% 76.7% 1.4% 1.2%
F
K–Adult 7,106 96.6% 31.2% 9.7% 0.3%
G
K–12 9,697 97.3% 17.6% 2.4% 0.1%
H
P–Adult 25,070 95.1% 48.1% 21.8% 0.5%
I
K–12 46,501 95.9% 26.6% 9.8% 0.2%
Note. Data reflect the 2019–2020 school year (EdData, 2021).
As part of the research process, two demographic questions were asked of all 27
participants:
1. How many years have you served in the leadership role?
2. How many years have you served in your current role within the school district?
It was critical to the study that all research participants had actual experience leading their
districts and schools during the COVID-19 pandemic.
As displayed in Table 2, two out of the nine participating superintendents (22%), had
served in their role for only 1 to 2 years. The majority of participating superintendents (66%) had
served in their role for over 6 years. Additionally, as can be seen in Table 2, four out of nine
55
participating superintendents (44%) had served in their position in their current, respective
districts for over 3 years. All nine superintendent participants (100%) had experience in their
leadership roles during the COVID-19 pandemic.
Table 2
Quantitative Survey: Superintendent Demographic Information
Position
Years in position
Years in position at
current district
Superintendent A 1 to 2 years 1 to 2 years
Superintendent B 3 to 5 years 3 to 5 years
Superintendent C 6 to 10 years Less than 1 year
Superintendent D 6 to 10 years 6 to 10 years
Superintendent E Over 10 years 1 to 2 years
Superintendent F
6 to 10 years 6 to 10 years
Superintendent G Less than 1 year Less than 1 year
Superintendent H 1 to 2 years 1 to 2 years
Superintendent I Over 10 years Over 10 years
56
As shown in Table 3, six of the nine participating assistant superintendents (66%) had
served in their position for over 3 years. Two of the nine assistant superintendents (22%) were
new to the position and had served for less than 2 years. Only one assistant superintendent had
served in his or her current role for less than 1 year (11%). All participating assistant
superintendents had served in their current position exclusively in their current, respective
districts. All nine assistant superintendent participants (100%) had experience leading during the
COVID-19 pandemic.
57
Table 3
Quantitative Survey: Assistant Superintendent Demographic Information
Position
Years in position
Years in position at
current district
Assistant Superintendent A 1 to 2 years 1 to 2 years
Assistant Superintendent B 6 to 10 years 6 to 10 years
Assistant Superintendent C
1 to 2 years 1 to 2 years
Assistant Superintendent D 3 to 5 years 3 to 5 years
Assistant Superintendent E 1 to 2 years 1 to 2 years
Assistant Superintendent F 3 to 5 years 3 to 5 years
Assistant Superintendent G Over 10 years Over 10 years
Assistant Superintendent H Over 10 years 3 to 5 years
Assistant Superintendent I Over 10 years Over 10 years
As indicated in Table 4, one out of the nine participating principals (11%) had served in
their roles for less than 1 to 2 years. In contrast, the majority of principals who participated
(66%) had served in their roles for over 6 years. Seven of the nine participating principals (77%)
had held the position of principal exclusively in their current, respective districts. Two principals
58
(22%) were new to their current school district, having served less than 1 year. All principal
participants (100%) had experience leading through the COVID-19 pandemic.
Table 4
Quantitative Survey: Principal Demographic Information
Position
Years in position
Years in position at
current district
Principal A 1 to 2 years Less than 1 year
Principal B 6 to 10 years 3 to 5 years
Principal C Over 10 years Less than 1 year
Principal D 6 to 10 years 6 to 10 years
Principal E Over 10 years 6 to 10 years
Principal F 3 to 5 years 3 to 5 years
Principal G 6 to 10 years 3 to 5 years
Principal H Over 10 years 6 to 10 years
Principal I
3 to 5 years
3 to 5 years
59
Research Question 1 Findings
The first research question was, “What, if any, are the financial implications of the
COVID-19 pandemic on K–12 public school districts in Southern California, and how did
district superintendents, assistant superintendents, and principals address these implications?”
The literature exploring COVID-19 finances on K–12 school districts has identified a variety of
funding streams that school districts received during turbulent contexts such as COVID-19. The
literature has also highlighted that education leadership is undergoing significant changes
(Fullan, 2020) and that key leadership attributes are necessitated at this time. School leadership
requires that effective school administrators should engage in collaborative goal setting and
include all relevant stakeholders, including central office staff, building level administrators, and
board members in establishing goals for their district (Waters & Marzano, 2006). Boin and
Renaud (2013) articulated that joint sensemaking is “particularly important to effective crisis
management: if decision makers do not have a shared and accurate picture of the situation, they
cannot make informed decisions and communicate effectively with partners, politicians, and the
public” (p. 41).
The literature has indicated that varying forms of relief funds and grants were distributed
to schools. In response to the 2019 Novel Coronavirus (COVID-19), the U.S. Congress passed
the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security (CARES) Act, which was signed into law
on Friday, March 27, 2020. This relief package provided states with both funding and
streamlined waivers to give state educational agencies (SEAs) necessary flexibility to respond to
the COVID-19 pandemic. The relief package included $30.75 billion in emergency education
funding. Various other funds, such as the Elementary and Secondary School Emergency Relief
Fund (ESSER I Fund) and the Governor's Emergency Education Relief Fund (GEER I Fund),
60
provided local educational agencies with emergency relief funds to address the impact COVID-
19 has had, and continues to have, on elementary and secondary schools across the nation.
Additionally, the California Legislature provided $6.6 billion in the Assembly Bill 86
COVID-19 relief package, including $2 billion for In-Person Instruction (IPI) Grants and $4.6
billion for Expanded Learning Opportunities (ELO) Grants. To be eligible for full funding for
the in-person instruction grants, LEAs must have offered in-person instruction, as defined in
Education Code (EC) Section 43520.5, including hybrid models, by April 1, 2021 for specified
student groups. IPI Grants were reduced by 1% for each calendared instructional day that an
LEA did not offer in-person instruction for all required groups. IPI Grants were forfeited if an
LEA did not offer in-person instruction for all required groups by May 15, 2021.
Research Question 1 Survey Questions
The research participants answered five survey questions related to Research Question 1,
which are shown in Table 5. These five survey questions were designed to lend insight into
leaders’ perceptions regarding the COVID-19 funding provided through the CARES Act, with
higher mean scores indicating stronger agreement that the funding was effective in meeting a
specific need. Two questions garnered the highest agreement ratings among superintendents,
assistant superintendents, and principals and revealed that the CARES funds were impactful in
meeting the needs for personal protective equipment (PPE) and technology. Survey responses
also revealed two areas where participants’ ratings were relatively low, reflecting how
superintendents, assistant superintendents, and principals did not agree that COVID funding was
adequate in meeting their district and/or site needs: personnel and facility upgrades. It is also
interesting to note that the smallest discrepancy in participants’ mean agreement ratings was in
the area of professional learning or training. Although superintendent participants had higher
61
agreement scores on average than principles, all participants tended to feel neutral (neither agree
nor disagree) that CARES funding met district needs in the area of professional learning and/or
training.
Table 5
Quantitative Survey: District and Site Leaders’ Mean Agreement Scores Regarding Financial
Implications of COVID-19
Survey question Superintendent
Assistant
superintendent Principal
The CARES Act met my district's/school's
funding needs in the area of personnel.
3.33 3.89 4.67
The CARES Act met my district's/school's
funding needs in the area of personal
protective equipment (PPE).
4.33 4.11 4.78
The CARES Act met my district's/school's
funding needs in the area of technology.
4 3.67 4.11
The CARES Act met my district's/school's
funding needs in the area of
professional learning and/or training.
3.67 3.44 3.33
The CARES Act met my district's/school's
funding needs in the area of facility
upgrades.
3.0 2.89 3.56
Note. The online Qualtrics® survey incorporated a 5-point Likert scale response, where
1 = strongly disagree, 2 = disagree, 3 = neither agree nor disagree, 4 = agree, and 5 = strongly
agree.
62
There were four interview questions that directly addressed Research Question One:
1. What have been the biggest financial implications of the pandemic on your district?
2. In what ways, if any, would more spending flexibility/structure have benefitted your
district?
3. In what ways has COVID-19-related funding been used to meet student needs in your
district?
4. To what extent, if any, did financial incentive influence your district’s reopening
plan/timeline?
The questions were designed to provide researchers with an opportunity to gain an understanding
of the financial implications school districts faced during the COVID-19 Pandemic. According to
the superintendents, assistant superintendents, and principals who participated in this research,
financial implications were uncovered across five major themes.
1. A wide range of funding priorities existed among school districts. Spending plans and
financial implications encompassed everything from summer school programs and
expanded staffing, to HVAC upgrades and technology purchases, as well as some
scattered items, like furniture that may test the federal government’s intentions to
help schools recover from the effects of the pandemic. Some districts were investing
big money in initiatives that do not appear at first glance to be strictly COVID-
related. Other districts spent nearly all funds on technology upgrades and purchases.
Varying districts held on to the sums for future use.
2. Uncertainty reigned, and there was a lack of clarity regarding the scope of funding
available. District leaders and school business officials scrambled to allocate
significant, and in some cases unprecedented, sums of money during these uncertain
63
times. An influx of expiring emergency funds, dips in average daily attendance, and
reimbursement uncertainty created chaos.
3. Sustainability was preferred over flexibility of CARES funds. Timelines,
accountability, personnel shortages, COVID outbreaks, political disputes over
masking and vaccination, and the academic emotional upheaval wrought by many
months of pandemic-era schooling are among the issues that truly weighed on
districts’ wallets. Districts had to navigate complex bureaucratic hurdles and a public
health crisis to better understand and potentially use these funds. Leaders mentioned
they had broad flexibility with the use of the relief funds, but meeting spending
deadlines and accountability measures was a burden. A common theme among
district leaders was the overall desire for effective use of funds.
4. Financial incentives were not the primary drivers to reopen schools in the spring of
2021; rather, it was the students, teachers, and overall well-being and safety of the
constituents.
5. Despite the many uncertain financial implications of the COVID funds, the funding
created some “silver linings” and positive outcomes, including advanced technology,
much needed facilities upgrades, and creation of new roles and communication
methods.
Theme 1: Fiscal Priorities and Varied Spending
Districts responded to the influx of funds in varying ways, but mainly as a means to
mitigate the impact of the virus. Decision-makers and leaders had to weigh competing priorities
that included the pressures of different constituent groups, the need to reopen schools to facilitate
parents’ full-time return to the workforce, beliefs and perceptions around the importance of
64
school for student’s social-emotional and academic well-being, the labor demands from staff
members working in schools, looming fiscal constraints, and parents’ health and safety concerns.
Beyond this complex set of priorities, district leaders had to make sense of how to use COVID
relief funds for everything from expanded instructional programming and curriculum materials
to increased salaries and recruitment bonuses for educators. Decisions also needed to be made
regarding financing new Chromebook computers and Wi-Fi hotspots for students, as well as
masks and other PPE to prevent the spread of COVID-19. The findings highlighted that there
were some commonly cited categories of spending and investments. However, most looked very
different from one district to the next.
In District A, the superintendent noted how every area of schooling was financially
impacted:
So, it has had a significant fiscal impact, in pretty much every area that we have, whether
it be staffing facilities, personal protective equipment, educational services curriculum
software, structures of schools. We are replacing air conditioning units, installed water
fountains, water bottle fillers and every school. Hand sanitizer, Plexiglas. We have almost
doubled our substitute teacher rate just so that we can have substitutes available. So, it’s a
challenge, and a blessing in the sense that we have received some federal funds to help
out.
In District B, the assistant superintendent’s priority was creating an environment where teachers
and students felt comfortable and secure. Hence, the schools were “swamped” with PPE:
Financially, there are a few different pockets of work that we had to do. There are
definitely some facilities upgrades that were very necessary in order to return our
students safely. That was upgrading our filters for HVAC systems. Making sure windows
65
that weren't opening were able to open. You know, changing out drinking fountains to
make them hand washing stations. So really looking at what had to happen physically to
our schools and our classrooms to increase safety. And that doesn’t happen cheaply. But
thankfully we did get COVID relief funds from the state and federal government.
Another pocket of money was just the equipment, supplies and equipment that we needed
to purchase and purchase at levels we never anticipated. The sheer number of how many
masks, how many gloves, how many HEPA filter units. How many hand-sanitizing
stations or bottles of hand sanitizer? And really, financially, making sure that there was
never a point in time where students or staff felt that they had to do without. Because
confidence in safety goes a long way. If there’s any sense of not having access to
something, that really can diminish their confidence or their belief in how safe they are at
school. So, really swamping our schools in our system with all of those supplies and
equipment that we needed to purchase.
In District G, the assistant superintendent highlighted the main priority was “closing the
digital gap” and procuring testing kits to mitigate the risk of exposure:
It also goes to closing the digital gap with laptop hotspots. What can we buy as fast as we
could get them to make sure that our students had access when we were distance
learning? And now continuing to have access, because at a moment's notice they may
have to go out on quarantine. To have some continuity and instruction. You know, we
had to overnight get Chromebooks into the hands of every kid and close the digital divide
for our families that didn't have internet access by getting them hotspots and paying for
those hotspots for them. Testing has been a huge financial commitment, and commitment
and providing access to testing for our employees and for our families, to make sure that
66
the mandatory testing that we have to do, as well as the voluntary testing that we have to
do, so that people feel confident that cases are being identified and responded to. Testing
capacity has been an issue across schools, but we’ve had a commitment where we have
increased nursing staff at every campus, testing at every campus, and processing those
tests.
Echoing similar sentiments on technology, testing, food services, necessary childcare services,
and unemployment insurance as a major expense, Superintendent G stated the following:
Other major expenses, obviously the food services aspects, serving lunches to everyone.
Our childcare. And the reason I talk about childcare is also that both food services and
child care probably took negative hits to their budgets. Our preschool as well. And yet
that was something important to us. We tried to reduce the rates for our families because
in the hybrid setting now, they need more, they need childcare for longer periods of the
day. So, while the cost is still higher to families, we tried to reduce the rates and so we
operate at a loss there, but wanted to be able to provide that as a service. Even just the
uninsured, unemployment insurance was a significant increase that has hit the districts.
The COVID time, the additional leave time that people must be sick to be out for
personnel necessity if they could cover it, if they were supporting a family member, etc.
Obviously, all of the employee testing we’re self-insured and so for our medical benefits,
which is a little bit different than some districts where all of those tests were a direct cost
to our plan or cost us resources. The shade structures, water drinking fountains, water
bottle filling stations, all that kind of stuff were probably the biggest amplifications and
then trying to do what we can do with ventilation. We’ve done a lot of spending in that
area of social emotional learning. We have a contract with Sports for Learning, which are
67
coaches coming on weekly that work with all our elementary kids with sports and social
emotional lessons and that was a big expense. We spent money on facilities, drinking or
going to bottle filling stations, shade structures so we can do outdoor education, keeping
kids out of the classroom. We’ve done HEPA filters in all rooms and spent a lot on
facilities. We’ve done a lot of professional development in the area of technology and the
technology itself buying because of the pandemic. Last year, we went one-to-one with all
our students, and I’m sure every district was in the same kind of space where we’re just
buying any laptop we could to get out to our kids. Technology spending, televisions in
the classroom for projection and sound systems.
In District H, the superintendent spent “millions of dollars” to hire paraprofessionals to
address learning loss and make facilities upgrades as necessary expenditures:
We’ve hired instructional assistants for our group instruction to deal with some of the
issues for learning loss, mainly for the K through three or TK. And we’ve used the
money, of course, for facilities upgrades, things like water filling stations, things that
would help in distribution, and air filters. We bought HEPA filters. We’ve done a lot of
facility upgrades on one time purchase, like flexible furniture, just a lot of one-time
technology. We just spent millions of dollars on 80-inch flat screens with amplification
systems, maps and everything. It’s really good for them to have these amplification
systems. We’re a one-to-one district now as a result of the pandemic. I think there’s been
some good outcomes with the money that we spent on, of course, all the personal
protective equipment, all the hand sanitizer, all the cleaning protocols, and everything
that goes along with the pandemic that we have to open safely. We bought all those
things.
68
Theme 2: Ambiguity
Participants consistently noted in this study that uncertainty reigned, both in funding
sources, timelines, declining enrollments, and the parameters of funding resources available.
Boin and Renaud (2013) stipulated that joint sensemaking is “particularly important to effective
crisis management: if decision makers do not have a shared and accurate picture of the situation,
they cannot make informed decisions and communicate effectively with partners, politicians, and
the public” (p. 41). For many school leaders, policymakers often lacked an accurate picture of
what was occurring or failed to share what they knew with others in ways that enabled effective
leadership responses and partnerships (McLeod & Dulsky, 2021).
The findings from this question revealed ways district leaders needed to make sense of
the changing landscape and thrived on uncertainty. The interviews highlighted that many
district leaders dithered about what to do, either making huge purchasing decisions right away
or keeping money for a later time. Some districts committed to investing in salaries for people
that would only be fully paid out by the end of the school year. Others mixed federal funds with
other sources to piece together investments and hoped for reimbursement and credits. Overall,
the majority of district leaders expressed feeling wary of using federal funds for ongoing
initiatives or positions, which they might have to cut or downsize when the funds run out.
Another common response highlighted the uncertainty and potential financial
implications of a loss in average daily attendance (ADA). Nearly all district leaders confessed
they are projecting major declines in both enrollment and ADA and fear that the reductions
could result in significant funding costs for the new school year. California school districts had
some early awareness of declining enrollment and forthcoming fiscal challenges prior to the
69
COVID-19 pandemic; however, the COVID-19 crisis has exacerbated some of these fiscal
challenges (Warren & Lafortune, 2020).
District leaders expressed varying concerns about the financial implications of the
COVID-19 pandemic timelines, deficits, declining enrollments, and overall sustainability of one-
time jobs and roles. Superintendent A remarked how funds have been a blessing, but the
timelines posed a challenge:
It’s a challenge and a blessing in the sense that we have received some federal funds to
help out. The problem with that is that they have timelines to be spent there for certain
things. And then when you’re negotiating, it looks like you have more money. That’s up
for teacher salary raises off the table, with declining enrollment and structural deficits.
We are underfunded as a state. We don’t really have that luxury. So, it made it really
challenging.
Assistant Superintendent H insinuated that the delay in information and not knowing the
“limitations or restrictions” of funds were stifling:
The problem that we have is that there’s a delay in information to us about what these
funds are intended for. I’ve been doing this for 33 years. This past couple of years, I have
seen the greatest level of support for education than in the last 30 years. And I think
there’s true interest from our legislature, from our governor, from our administration
about supporting education. But the problem is that the details of how that works or the
fact that we don’t know for several months about the implementation, about the
limitations, about the restrictions. … And I think part of that is just because we were
caught unexpectedly with the situation, so they didn’t have plans of how to deal with this
because no one dealt with this before. So, I think some of that is just natural, but I think
70
looking forward there needs to be some support for them because we can’t wait 3 or 4
months to decide, can we spend the money or not? And that’s what we’ve been dealing
with continuously and still continue with even to this day.
Assistant Superintendent H held similar sentiments about uncertainty and fears on how to
“sustain current operations” when “we’ve never gone through this”:
We’re developing a committee to look at how we can sustain our current operations
based on our given priorities and then how we are going to sustain those services as we
look in the future with the revenues that we’re anticipating receiving. How we could
continuously run these programs within the funding sources that we had without tapping
our other resources or our reserves. So, just the uncertainty of what we have right now,
which in some cases is because we may not know for a year or two the full impact to our
students … issues with our students that are going to be ongoing beyond our current
temporary funding. The other factor is that no one anticipated the impact to our decline in
attendance percentages, like what we’ve experienced, because all the other emergencies
that we’ve experienced, you have a temporary reduction of ADA that’s more than 10%,
but then it gets back to normal after a certain period of time. That's not the case in this
situation. … So, it’s been quite a different experience because we’ve never gone through
this. And anything that you have in legislative action, like with the exclusions that you
can get from the state for temporary support, like if there’s an earthquake, fire, or any
emergency action, those are all temporary. Those are things that happen. They may be in
effect for a few days a week, but none of them are intended to be in place for 2 years as
we've experienced this pandemic.
71
Superintendent H worried over the ambiguity with funding coming from ADA and how
the governor had yet to decide on whether the district will be impacted by declining enrollment
and attendance:
The biggest issue for our district is that we’re funded through ADA and it’s just the sheer
number of absences that we’ve been unable to address through independent study or
other means. Most districts are down about 5% their usual. We usually have about 97%
attendance and we have about 92%. And so that’s 1 year. And that’s ongoing money
we’re losing. That’s a problem. It’s the attendance impact of the COVID illnesses. Both
quarantine isolation workers have to go home. And the reality is, last year we had a
whole army, but this year we don’t. And the legislation, they haven’t made a decision.
The governor hasn’t made a determination if he’s going to refund us again. The biggest
issue is ADA.
The leaders of Districts A, B, C, and G also noted confusion with spending and fund accounting.
For example, Superintendent G stated the following:
The implications have been significant, and even initially before we were able to know if
we were going to receive any funding, but something as large as, obviously, the low
hanging fruits, all the PPE, the masks. If you think about last year, how we invested in
things we’d never heard of before, these fogger machines of having to spray down the
desks every night. I think for a while there was over $20,000 a month just on alcohol on
the sanitation pads because we were wiping the desks down every period in the second
area. And then in between lunches at the elementary level, just all the overtime for staff
having to be able to create the outdoor learning environments. I mean, something as
simple as air purifiers, that wasn’t simple. Sound amplification systems, all the
72
thermometers that we had to buy for each classroom teacher, the outdoor learning
structures, additional tables. And then last year, really, the overhead cost for all the
technology as well. And so, when I talk about technology, I’m talking, obviously about
Chromebooks, about hot spots for families that are in need, video cameras. We ran a
separate program, so that was another big investment to our master schedule. It gets very
confusing. There are now multiple different pots of money, both from the federal agency
and the state agency. And they all have slightly different in-person learning grants, etc.
These are all obviously all the different funding grants. They all have different criteria for
what you can and cannot use them for. In fact, many of them require plans as well. … I
think, has been extremely burdensome to try to keep track and monitor. You can spend
the expense here on this, but you can’t spend it on this, etc.
Superintendent C expressed concerns about the declining enrollment and overall “voids”
and fears schools will be “left holding the bag” and unaccounted for:
However, I think the most lasting impact of COVID is not going to be what we did in the
immediate, it’s going to be the impacts on declining enrollment throughout the state and
people’s reticence to come back and I don’t know that I see the same impetus from the
state and federal government to help us longitudinally looking forward. And that story is
yet to be written. I think the largest impacts are going to be on the back end when kids are
gone. Money returns to kind of normal, and we’ve got declining enrollments and there
was this sense that we need to spend more money to educate kids during COVID. The
learning loss and those voids that are created are going to stay with our kids for years to
come and we’re going to have fewer kids with much greater needs and less money to
continue to kind of carry out education moving forward and I think that at some point, the
73
state and federal government is going to move on. They’re going to be tired of spending
money on this. Their attention will be turned to something else and schools will be left
kind of holding the bag.
Theme 3: Sustainability over Broad Flexibility
Leaders faced pressures to address the ripple effects of the unprecedented crisis. They
had to simultaneously make smart investments with short-term funds and broad spending
flexibility while contending with other challenges, such as product unavailability, labor
shortages, and declining ADA enrollments. When asked about spending flexibility and structure,
a theme emerged among the school district leaders: It is a labor-intensive process and not
sustainable. District leaders unanimously agreed they had broad discretion with the CARES
funds, as long as they indicated spending was geared toward recovering from the pandemic.
District leaders overall made use of COVID funds to mitigate the pandemic’s impact on their
schools. However, they brought to light the challenges associated with state monitoring of
districts’ spending, mandated spending timelines, lack of clarity, and overall effective use and
distribution of funds. The theme of broad flexibility is in line with the literature:
Districts are scrambling to make hasty spending decisions on goods and services that fall
outside their usual scope. Those are all piling atop the usual challenges of providing
adequate services for disadvantaged students, working through a backlog of building
maintenance needs, hiring and retaining qualified employees, and expanding services to
meet society’s increasing expectations for K–12 schools. (Lieberman, 2021)
Assistant Superintendent C described making purchasing decisions based on
“competition,” “limited information,” and having to plan “6 months out”:
The biggest financial crunch and the biggest hurdle being that we were competing with
74
everybody to buy technology at the same moment. And in that planning, it required us to
think far ahead and make decisions on purchases, without fully getting each product and
just having to go on recommendations because the information available was limited and
you are out 5 or 6 months on your purchasing deadline so you’d order things down and
they wouldn’t be available for a really long time. We’re still waiting on some things that
we ordered a year ago.
Leaders expressed concern that funding plans were constantly changing because they
could not find enough job candidates to realize their ambitions for current expenditures on
social-emotional support or tutoring, for example. Superintendent G found that positions may no
longer be sustainable and that this poses a real challenge:
The difficulty lies in having to have those positions laid off down the road if we can’t
sustain those positions. But it’s been difficult to fill those positions. So, we’ve tried a
number of different ways and still have not been able to really add to that.
Assistant Superintendent H also admitted widespread angst about the temporary use of funds:
The biggest challenge is that we have temporary funding, and we have challenges that we
need for our students that it’s not going to be temporary, it’s going to be long lasting. So
how do we align our resources with the funding augmented with other program funding
that we must provide the adequate level of support? We have a problem with the
workforce and being able to fill all our vacancies so there are challenges that we’re
having about how are we meeting the kids needs today, but more so how are we going to
meet the needs of the kids in the future when there’s no sustainable ongoing funding and
as long as the funding model is tied to the number of kids we serve, not the needs of the
students, then what’s happening? And we’re all experiencing this throughout the county
75
and throughout the state. We must reprioritize what monies we have to meet the students’
needs, which means that we’re going to have to look at some serious changes in our
budget to help cover those ongoing costs for which there is no ongoing funding. We have
been having those discussions.
Superintendent H shared frustration that the money is quite limiting in the sense that it
does not provide for the required staff:
We got a lot of CARE money. We got a lot of money. We have all this categorical
funding for the pandemic, but that doesn’t really help us long term because we have
social-emotional mental health issues and we really need to hire additional counselors,
psychologists, and we need more staff. And with one-time money, we can’t do that. So,
we can still provide services, contracts. But now we’re looking at the impact on children
for many years to come. And the one-time money doesn’t address that. I mean, we have
technology, we work with our facilities, but hopefully we get more staff to meet the
needs of our students.
District leaders across the study confessed that the funds to a degree were flexible.
Superintendent G discussed the accountability measures:
So, I think the flexibility would have been key when really talking as I was kind of
sharing, they just become cumbersome and burdensome trying to figure out where you
can and can’t spend money. And so, we’re spinning our wheels when we’re already
spending so much of our time trying to address the pandemic, trying to enforce contact
tracing, trying to support staff, etc. And then it’s all these other burdensome things. And
so, I think it would have just made it much easier because the funds are clearly there.
And I get that there has to be some level of accountability.
76
Assistant Superintendent A called for more flexibility and compared the funding overall to a
“puzzle”:
The biggest challenge is the puzzle piece of the budget during COVID and what we see
is that, you know, putting all these pieces together and these different funds that come
through that are restricted in nature. Spending flexibility will give us the ability to really
plan long term and really know what we’re going to be year in, year out, and it would
also help us determine our needs as a school district to then have the ability to meet our
needs as we see them. We’re also seeing that even though we’re getting along a lot of
one-time funds we’re not really getting any addition to the base funding.
Principal A expressed there was an “unbelievable strap on resources and more time and
manpower would have been appreciated”:
So probably the biggest implication is the requirements placed upon us for testing, for
providing PPE to staff and students, even for that matter, having available masks, all of
that cost is a huge cost, even though there was the COVID money that was given to us as
a district. It still eats into a lot of time on that end. Like we were given money for the
supplies, but not necessarily for the manpower that it takes. On a given day of my 12 to
14 hours on campus, eight to ten of them are dedicated to COVID. And that’s not
uncommon across my other two administrators on campus. My secretary, my AP
secretary, everybody’s spending 80% plus of their day dealing with COVID, especially
right now more than anything. And earlier in the pandemic, when the students were not
on campus, it was more manageable. But now that students are back on campus and
trying to keep the campus as safe as possible, I’m doing all of the contact tracing and the
testing that’s required. It’s just an unbelievable strap on resources, which means now
77
things need to be done outside of work hours just to do what our normal job is. So, our
day-to-day work gets pushed into the night. What we really need is more staff to be able
to still do our jobs and do all what’s required of us due to COVID and we don’t have that.
So, it’s a strap financially, and then it's a strap just from a staffing standpoint.
Superintendent A revealed how they were bogged down in paperwork and accountability:
We’re all accountable for the work that we do. When there’s a lot of paperwork that we
do, it takes time and energy away from serving our community to compliance. For
example, compliance around independent study. At the height of the surge, we had 900
students on independent study and all that is required to be accounted for and completed.
Superintendent C compared the funds to a “worthless gift card.”
The other thing is if you give me a gift card for the grocery store and there's no food on
the shelves, the gift card is worthless. You give me money to buy a bunch of additional
stuff to do things and you can't find the people to do the work, it’s kind of a worthless gift
card. And there is a little bit of that reality that if you give us money, then we're required
to go find the people, and we’re competing against a society that's struggling getting
some people back to work. And we're dealing with just a scarcity of counselors,
additional teachers, bus drivers, more instructional paraprofessionals and so yes, the cash
was great, I would have preferred you to send me people, but they didn't have access to
people and sometimes we struggled on that same front.
Assistant Superintendent C mentioned that the funds were flexible but were like “putting
together pieces of a puzzle… creating stumbling blocks” for administrators:
I think that there was a great deal of flexibility in how some of the subsets of money
could be used, although that became a bit of a changing landscape as information
78
continued to be delivered and as we planned forward with ever-changing deadlines of
when those funds expired. So it’s a bit of a puzzle game when you are receiving funds on
an ongoing basis because, you know, similarly when you’re at a school site, you’re trying
to fund things with money that’s going to be most restrictive and expires first in order to
maintain that flexibility because while there was a lot of money and a lot of opportunity,
there were certain distinguishing factors for each funding source that were either
committed to a certain percentage must be sent spent in this manner, or that they had a
scaffolded timeline of when it needed to be spent. So, I think that there was both an
urgency because at first glance, some of the money expired really quickly. And there was
doubts whether we be able to take delivery of product in advance of that deadline which
is when you can actually take it off your accounts; you can’t simply charge it because you
have made the request for the funds. It’s upon delivery of that item that you can actually
remove it and pay for it out of the budget and encumber that funds and show fiscally that
you have used those funds. So, it’s that interchange that became difficult in receiving
additional money and that many times that additional money came with additional
accountability to account for that so then it became the issue of how do you accurately
communicate to your teachers, to your labor partners, to your board of trustees and come
to a common understanding amongst your leadership on why we are in a bit of a
changing landscape, what it seems like constantly. So that I think is the barrier when it
comes to flexibility, how it is advantageous to us and how it also, you know, works to
create stumbling blocks for us.
Assistant Superintendent G agreed that flexibility is key but that using the current
accountability structure of the CARES funds relied on both the LCFF model for spending and
79
categorical spending. He lamented, “The pendulum swung backwards on this…and your hands
get tied … and you’re not able to address the needs”:
I think flexibility is key there. I feel like when we went to this LCFF model for spending,
the whole idea behind that would take away some of those categorical costs. We get into
where we can only spend money on certain things, but then suddenly, with all of the
COVID money, it feels like not only are we doing that LCFF spending with the LCAP,
now we’re going back to categorical spending, which is what the LCAP was kind of…
the reason for that was to reduce that categorical spending. So, I feel like the pendulum
swung backwards on this and it’s becoming challenging to spend some of the money that
they’re giving us because you have to spend it in such a way that your hands get tied
sometimes where you’re not able to maybe address the need that is there with the money
that you have a lot of because of the way they want it.
The leaders of Districts A, B, C, F, and G stated that the funds just were not sustainable
given the lack of personnel and cited staffing shortages as limiting the use of the CARES funds:
Assistant Superintendent A
I mean, from a pure finance standpoint we had to increase our substitute rate of pay.
We’re having difficulty hiring and finding people to do the work, which again impacts
us overall. We’re seeing people leaving the profession and leaving the district and not
coming back to work and so I think there are negative implications for that when we
have people not working when we have some costs that we have. We are seeing people
out on extended leave of absence and sick days so that’s happening a lot now the point
the state and the federal government provide additional lead, that’s gone. So, during the
surge a lot of people are out. I don’t know if that’s the bottom-line issue for us.
80
Assistant Superintendent B
And then the other pieces are really personal. So fiscally, how do we cover gaps and
staffing. You know, if someone is out sick or if someone is taking a leave. You know,
there’s not as many bodies of people willing to come in and work. So, you know,
working with different agencies, contracting out, also working with our labor partners on
incentives to cover the gap, you know, to acknowledge their hard work and really how
they’ve put themselves out there and how we can give stipends or give opportunities
financially to recognize really what they’ve done from the beginning of the crisis. But all
of that again comes at an extremely high cost.
Superintendent C
We kind of have the flexibility we need. There just aren’t the people to spend the money
on. I don’t know if it’s even more flexibility, it’s money to be flexible, but what you
really need are more nurses. You need more instructional paraprofessionals. You need
more teachers. You need to build an online school program. You need to do all these
things, but there was an assumption if we give them the money, that people will be there
and that just hasn’t been the reality. So, there are some districts, they’ve got unspent
dollars and they’ve got great plans that they’ve written. They haven’t been able to
execute them because they haven’t been able to manifest the workers to carry out the
work.
Principal C
If we just had additional staffing for the short term, we could have addressed a lot of the
needs of our students and our staff for that matter.
81
Superintendent F
Either way, the structural weak point is personnel. We just can’t find enough teachers and
staff and on top of that, existing teachers are exhausted. We can’t just keep asking for
people to give when they themselves are starving.
Superintendent G
Because we’re having difficulties staffing, we’ve created new paraprofessional positions.
It’s always difficult to use one-time dollars on ongoing costs with personnel. And so also
the difficulty of having to have those positions laid off down the road if we can’t sustain
those positions. But it’s been difficult to fill those positions. We’ve tried a number of
different ways and still have not been able to really add to that.
Theme 4: Safety as a Decisive Factor, Not Money
In February 2021, California Governor Newsom signed SB 86, which tackled one of the
most contentious issues in schooling: reopening (Jones & Freedberg, 2021). It provided $2
billion as incentive for schools that had not already done so to offer in-person instruction
beginning April 1, 2021, starting with the earliest grades. The legislation also allocated $4.6
billion to all school districts, regardless of whether they met the timetable Governor Newsom
called for in his “Safe for All” plan. To get the extra funding, districts were expected to offer in-
person instruction to a range of students with special needs—such as those in special education
or others in “prioritized groups,” such as English learners, homeless students, those in foster
care, and even “disengaged” students. For those districts that did not open on April 1, the
amount of incentive funding they would receive would be reduced by 1% each day through
May 15, which was viewed as a penalty (Fensterwald, 2021).
82
The participants in this study made collective decisions not entirely influenced by the
economic incentives or penalties to reopen schools in the spring of 2021. Leaders noted that
financial decisions were first guided by overall perceived “safety” rather than incentives or
penalties. Leaders’ desire to have students back on campus learning in a safe environment
ultimately impacted reopening timeline plans, not the passing of SB 86. Several superintendents
disclosed that getting students back in school was a priority, and doing so safely directed their
decision-making processes. In the present findings, most school district leaders interviewed and
those who were based primarily outside of Los Angeles County had opened earlier than the
aforementioned deadlines, making the financial incentives irrelevant.
Superintendents C, I, and G did not see a financial motive for SB 86, as it did not apply to
their districts. They all mentioned safety:
Superintendent C
Yes, we did receive something, but we’d already committed and we were already open
anyway. We opened up in October and needed to return by March … we’d already
checked the box necessary to qualify for those additional funds before they were even
offered so it was not … yes, thank you we’ll take the money but it was not a motivator at
all because we’d already moved in that direction.
Superintendent I
The state was trying to incentivize all districts, get back to safe in-person learning as soon
as possible. And we were one of the few that did it very early so that to the extent the
state had that kind of in their mind to incentivize and we had the money available and we
could do it, we were ready to do it. We did it very well and safely. We have no
transmission.
83
Superintendent A
We didn’t necessarily look at financial incentives in order to reopen. We reopened the
first school in November with elementary because they met the criteria and had the
support of their community and their teachers. Then we followed public health guidelines
for facilitated learning centers and being able to bring in the students who needed it the
most. We didn’t necessarily follow a specific guideline to create or to bring more funds,
but it just so happened that we were ready for it. We’ve had to use a significant amount
of funds to keep our students and staff safe. We have purchased masks, air purifiers,
hand-washing stations, tents. The list is incredibly long of ways in which we’ve had to
adjust to what COVID requirements are for us to be able to keep our students safe on
campus. And of course, we’ve had to look at compensating our employees differently,
particularly during the surge and now to make sure that they are appreciated for the
human work that they’re doing under the most difficult of circumstances.
Superintendent F
Superintendent F did not see a systemic “structural benefit from monetary incentives”
and compared the incentive funds to “chasing mice in your head”:
Not many districts manage to create a safe environment, convincing enough for parents to
bring children back, as well as the teachers willing to risk their own health and safety to
come back. So, it didn’t hit the right note. And we ended up doing a whole lot in between
and I’m sad to say but I have yet to see a systemic structural benefit from monetary
incentive for in-person education. It didn’t happen the way the state produced but they
could happen…agreed upon, teachers and children feel unsafe, parents feel unsafe to send
the kids back so it doesn’t matter how much money you have there. If not, everyone is
84
agreeing about a uniform way of protecting ourselves with a mask that will stop. And on
top of that, if everyone is not sure about testing every week whether vaccinated or not,
that will stop. And on top of that, the vaccine is available but not many people are willing
to say, I wouldn’t vaccinate my child, and everyone else agrees it creates an unsafe
condition or a perception that it is unsafe. It doesn’t matter how much money we have,
people will not send the children back and if the children will not come back, teachers
have no reason to come back. And in some cases, teachers feel unsafe, and they say,
we’re not coming back. All the students have been tested, all the parents vaccinated their
children, and everyone’s wearing masks. So, it’s a chasing the mice around in your head
kind of thing. It doesn’t stop and there’s no way out so the funding is just sitting there
waiting for some bold steps to be taken, so that at least the safety is a sure thing, or the
perception that safety will continuously improve as we bring children back.
Assistant Superintendent C
Assistant Superintendent C found a net benefit from the incentive programs:
I will not say that we had a focus on the incentives which would have been the in-person
instruction grants while we did open shortly after the onset of availability, and we did
ultimately procure some funds through that process. Those funds didn’t create a net
benefit that would not have existed without the costs associated with opening, so there
wasn’t a financial incentive for us to open it was the moral imperative within our
organization that in-person instruction was critical to student success, and that we were
going to band together to support teachers to make that happen. And in turn, ensure our
classifieds are also supported, so that we could all come together and provide additional
resources.
85
The leaders in Districts A, F, and H highlighted serving the best interests of students and
employees and safety as true motivating factors:
Assistant Superintendent H
Because we did not know what we were going to receive and when we were going to
receive it, our decisions were not based on funding. Our decisions were based on what
was in the best interest of our students and our employees. And we dedicated our reserves
to make that happen. And then when funding became available, we reimbursed ourselves
for those necessary costs. We identified things that we could take credit for that we were
doing to fund some of those activities.
Superintendent F
We went on our own to purchase PPE, and they are expensive. Just because on the first
day of school the masks will be available for teachers and staff and students. So a lot of
the expenses are provided for us. But usually, it comes to a quick decision to be made. Do
we have to number one, wait for the state and the federal government to come in to
rescue us, and send us the masks, or do we run up the money and purchase now and
compete with hundreds and thousands of other sources of parents and institutions trying
to buy those masks or home testing kits or whatever it is. And the decision, most of the
time for myself, is that we will go ahead and purchase them, whether we will get the
reimbursement down the line or not. It’s just something we have to deal with down the
line. So, the upfront, is to restore the faith and the safety concern for our parents that send
a kid to school. We do the best we can. We are not going to wait for two or three weeks.
Assistant Superintendent A
I think you have to say if it all ties back to those students. The students at all the money
86
would have been spent on what’s good for kids we have. I don’t know that any of the
money would be put aside for anything but that. We had access to the reopening funds
and we planned to reopen. We did work with our labor partners on how we would go
about a safe reopening. We felt from the beginning of the pandemic that if it’s safe to do
so and the science and the Department of Health tell us that we have the ability to open,
we want to reopen. I think it was a benefit to have the financial incentive to do so. But it
wasn’t the primary driving factor for us to reopen schools. The benefit was to get kids
back on campus as soon and as safely as we can. We do have a high incidence of low,
low income and poverty in our school district. And we did see that there were
socioeconomic divides when it came to what happened during distance learning and
students’ level of affluence or level of poverty definitely impacted their ability to engage
within distance learning so for us our goal was to get all of our kids, especially our high
needs high risk students back on campus as soon as possible.
Theme 5: Silver Linings and Possibilities
The ability of business owners and managers to think strategically in the midst of a crisis
is a key factor in an organization’s long-term survival, and, in the midst of crisis, it is possible to
“find the silver lining” and chart a better future, not just simply “survive” disaster (Vargo &
Seville, 2011).
Despite the enormity of challenges that COVID-19 has thrust upon K–12 educational
systems, many of our interviewees felt that there were some unexpected positive outcomes that
had begun to emerge and could lead to future opportunities for students and staff. Some of these
“silver linings” included rapid technology improvements, one-to-one devices for students, new
roles for students’ social and emotional well-being, and overall facilities upgrades:
87
Superintendent I
With COVID relief funds we eventually went to a one-to-one district. We were planning
to be a one-to-one Chromebook district in 3 to 4 years and implemented over a year and a
half period. And we had to do it within a couple of months.
Superintendent G
The money received was significant and had a significant impact. There’s no way that
our budget could have sustained and been able to do everything that we did to provide the
ongoing resources, the testing, the technology investments, Zoom licenses, which we’ve
never done before. The Google classroom for every single teacher, etc.
Principal B
The other component that we realized we were going to really need is helping students
transition back to the school setting, where they need that structure and need that social-
emotional support. I was able to hire a social-emotional support counselor. So, I could
hire an academic counselor or someone who’s trained like a psychologist to come by and
support our kids. I got someone that’s kind of in between those two things. And what we
did is we made a plan to really focus on creating opportunities for our students to have
that sense of belonging and connection to school. Now how do we manufacture that and
put it on like fast-forward, high speed, and try to maintain that?
Assistant Superintendent H
We use the COVID funds. And then we looked at okay, instead of saying we would have
bought this over 3 years, we’re going to buy it now. We’re going to store it and be
prepared because as we look at the next few years, we’ll make decisions as it comes
88
when it’s more certain what the environment is and what resources we have available.
But we really were guided on what’s in the best interest of our students.
Superintendent D
Lately it’s been having a positive impact because the code of COVID in the federal
government has provided us with probably more money than we could have ever hoped
for. Prior to that we were looking at a $42M deficit so in a really weird way it helped
sustain the district for another 2 more years. The potential impact has been positive for us
and we’ll do our best to navigate to pandemic the best we can.
Research Question 2 Findings
The second research question was, “What impact, if any, have federal, state and local
health agencies had on K–12 school districts, and what strategies have districts followed to
address the suggested guidelines?” While school safety is always a priority, COVID-19 created
an entirely new category of student and staff safety. The California Department of Public Health
(CDPH) created the Blueprint for Safer California, aimed at reducing COVID-19 cases through
local partnerships (Harrington, 2021). This blueprint was a model for all Californians to take part
in safe practices and foster a mindset that each citizen can do his or her part by wearing masks,
social distancing, and staying at home when possible. The CDPH, along with the governor’s
office, created a Safe Schools for All Plan to specifically focus on the conditions in which
schools could safely reopen (CDPH, 2020). This plan also gave valuable guidance for schools to
take steps toward opportunities for in-person learning at school with small cohorts of students.
The plan also included guidance and protocols for schools to manage, report, and mitigate
outbreaks, along with instructions on how staff members can return to work after a positive test
or an exposure.
89
Additionally, regulations imposed by health and safety organizations, such as Cal/OSHA,
had the force of law behind them, with potential fines and penalties. These regulations trumped
voluntary and county guidelines. All of these were crucial for schools trying to navigate this new
terrain, and the expert health guidance helped schools provide in-person services in a safe way
(Freedburg, 2021). As the pandemic waged on, schools continued to look for assistance from
agencies to help create a pathway to safely navigate reopening schools. While this support and
guidance was very necessary, the agencies also created layers of confusion and bureaucracy that
often added to uncertainty.
Research Question 2 Survey Questions
Research Question Two was designed to better understand the impact of health and safety
guidelines on school districts’ ability to reopen schools safely. Participants responded to three
survey questions related to health and safety guidelines, as seen in Table 6. Participating
superintendents, assistant superintendents, and principals were aligned in their agreement that
health guidelines impacted their district’s/school’s return to school plan in the spring of 2021.
Similarly, superintendents and assistant superintendents were in alignment with their
disagreement that COVID-19 guidelines given to schools were clear. In contrast, principals were
more neutral; principals’ mean agreement scores indicated that principals neither agreed nor
disagreed that agency guidelines were clear. Interviews with all 27 participants revealed, in more
detail, the extent of multi-agency collaboration and the degree of alignment that either did or did
not exist between agencies.
90
Table 6
Quantitative Survey: District and Site Leaders’ Mean Agreement Scores Regarding the Impact of
Health and Safety Guidelines
Survey question Superintendent
Assistant
superintendent Principal
The federal, state, and local health
guidelines were clear in providing
information to support the safe
reopening of schools.
2.78 2.56 3.67
I understood how to safely bring back
staff during the fall of 2020 to work
sites based on the public health
guidelines.
3.44 3.67 3.78
The health guidelines impacted our
district's/school's return to school plan
in the spring of 2021.
4.44 4.33 4.56
Note. The online Qualtrics® survey incorporated a 5-point Likert scale response (1 = strongly
disagree to 5 = strongly agree).
There were three interview questions that guided Research Question 2:
1. In what ways did your district collaborate with federal, state, and local government
agencies and community organizations to support your school district during
COVID?
2. To what degree, if any, did the various agencies align COVID-19 guidance for
schools?
91
3. What strategies have been effective for your district in implementing health
guidelines/policies? Who in your district was primarily in charge of interpreting and
implementing the health guidelines/policies?
The questions were designed to provide researchers with an opportunity to gain insight
into the impact of federal, state, and local health agencies on K–12 school districts and what
strategies districts implemented to address the suggested guidelines. The superintendents,
assistant superintendents, and principals who participated in this research study described the
challenges of continually navigating guidance from county health departments, the California
Department of Education, the Centers for Disease Control (CDC), and other organizations. As
conditions evolved over time, developing concrete, lasting plans was a constant challenge as
leaders dealt with inconsistent and ever-changing guidance from health agencies. The majority of
district and site leaders conveyed feelings of being overwhelmed by the logistical challenges.
They also pointed out that the lack of state and federal guidance exacerbated the political
pressures they faced. Two key themes emerged from Research Question Two:
1. County departments of public health issued the guidance that was most crucial to
leaders, and there were varying degrees of collaboration between district leaders and
county departments of public health.
2. The lack of alignment between the various organizations issuing COVID-19-related
guidance was very frustrating for leaders.
Theme 1: Guidance from the County and Collaboration
Superintendent A reiterated how districts were bound to the guidelines and health orders
put in place by health agencies:
There’s so many things we don’t have a choice in and if we don’t follow what’s required
92
in those health orders, we face the loss of potential insurance on fair labor practices. You
know, lawsuits, fines from those health agencies, loss of funding from other agencies. So,
we don’t really have a choice about not following those orders and that has put us in a
really precarious position. We have lost students because of it.
Principal H talked about how having top-down guidelines made it easier for school
leaders to refer the community to those guidelines, since these large decisions were not made at
the local school level:
All along, our district has followed the Orange County Healthcare Agency guidelines.
That was something our superintendent just said. We are going to follow these
guidelines, which come down from the CDC and then the California Department of
Health. I think that was a really smart thing to do, because then there’s no guessing. Well,
maybe we should lift that, or maybe let’s not go that far. We didn’t overreact. We didn’t
underreact. As far as I know, I felt like following those guidelines, no matter what parents
say. And I was listening to a board meeting last night, and they’re still complaining about
stuff, even though this is the last game. They’re still complaining about everything. But
we can always just say we are following these guidelines. Here it is. Here’s the link. We
don’t have to explain anything. We don't have to say, well, we made that decision
because it’s just here it is. And I think that was a really smart decision. I think it was a
way that we were able to just refer parents to science. This is what the scientists are
saying. This is what medical professionals are saying. It's all about keeping kids safe.
Assistant Superintendent H continued to talk about the collaborative approaches taken by
district leaders and the local health agencies:
Our superintendent participated in all the superintendent meetings. When he is involved
93
and gives updates to the superintendents, we have updates from our attorneys that our HR
participates in that are weekly meetings. We also have two administrators in Ed services
that do all the contact tracing for staff and students who have been engaging with
different agencies. And we have our risk manager who works with OCHCA and our
insurance companies on a regular basis. Each of these different staff members reaches
out, participates in meetings, and then we meet as a team based off of everything that
we’re hearing from the collective agencies. There’s been a lot of collaboration with those
agencies, and sometimes the questions that are being posted to these agencies, they don’t
have specific answers to. So, it takes some time to follow up with us. So, again, there’s a
lapse of time in communication. In LA County you have three different health directors.
You have a health director in Pasadena, one in Long Beach, and then one for the rest of
the county. So, you have different dynamics there in their approach.
Theme 2: Guidelines Constantly Changing and Not Coherent
Superintendent A emphasized how frustrating it was for school leaders to adjust to the
constantly changing guidelines:
The orders change constantly. There’s been times where they’ve changed like five times
in a day. It’s just been insane. So, even in January, you know, we were on vacation, and it
changed. If it was January 1, and we came back on January 3. So, looking at that and then
it changed again on January 3, I think it changed again on January 5 and so we’re
constantly responding to those orders.
Superintendent B reiterated that the guidelines were incoherent and everchanging, which
caused confusion for families:
It’s been helpful what guidelines have regarding reopening. It has not been helpful that
94
they haven’t been coherent. The state guidelines and the LA county guidelines have not
always been consistent. And that has caused confusion for parents and the community on
masking on a variety of factors that have made it more difficult for school districts to
function and be a credible because as guidelines continuously change, the minute we
communicate, what has to happen next, something else comes forward and our families
have difficulty adjusting to new information as it come lots of different things within a
very short period of time changed the way we ask them to protect themselves.
Superintendent C elaborated on the confusion that was caused by the misalignment of
guidelines:
It just created this swirl of confusion and misinformation and it just made it very difficult
because OCHCA wasn’t aligned with anything else other than what OCHCA wanted and
they were typically more strict than the CDC. It didn’t line up with every state. Every
state didn’t line up with every county. And so, the fun begins. And oh, by the way, we get
to make sure we’re following whatever the rules are on any given day, and the governor
quite frankly didn’t do a very good job communicating in a timely manner. Oftentimes,
he would just drop a bomb and one of his daily professors and everybody would scramble
and parents would want to know, thinking that we’re a public agency, because he said
something and the CDC said something and somehow, we’re at the table and we would
know and we spent so much time backpedaling, scrambling, and trying to catch up with
what does this mean for school on Monday.
Assistant Superintendent D discussed how the various healthcare agencies had guidelines
that did not match, which caused conflict:
Our local healthcare agency, sometimes our state and federal guidelines, they all didn’t
95
match in the health and safety area. So, there was conflict. So, then we would go with the
health care agency because that’s our local authority.
Research Question 3 Findings
The third research question was, “How, if at all, have union negotiations played a role in
Southern California K–12 districts’ responses to the COVID-19 pandemic?” After the initial
closures, districts with lengthier collective bargaining agreements were less likely to start the fall
2020 semester with in-person instruction, were less likely to ever open for in-person instruction
during the fall semester, and spent more weeks overall in distance learning (Marianno, 2021).
School districts in locations with stronger teachers’ unions were substantially less likely to
reopen, and, while political partisanship was a strong predictor of reopening decisions, there was
not consistent evidence that measures of COVID-19 risk were correlated with reopening schools
in person. To decide on future schooling plans under COVID-19, cooperation between districts
and labor groups, including heightened transparency going forward, could help ensure that
districts land on the most appropriate plan for their context (Hemphill & Marianno, 2022). As
part of California’s response to COVID-19 school closures, Governor Gavin Newsom’s office
facilitated an agreement among teachers’ unions, classified employees, school boards,
superintendents, and principals to use a specific framework to “work together on matters of labor
and management to minimize any impact to students—including direction on implementation
and delivery of distance learning, special education, and meals through the end of the school
year” (Office of Governor Gavin Newsom, 2020). However, what became clear after the spring
school closures was the need for districts and unions to work together to set teacher expectations
under ever-changing circumstances by proactively planning for multiple scenarios with labor
partners involved in conversations. School districts can mitigate any late “surprises” from labor
96
groups that might occur when it comes time to implement or change learning plans in response to
COVID-19, and leaders can keep a pulse on teacher morale and safety to avoid perceptions of
careless working condition changes by maintaining transparency and communication with
teachers’ union leaders (Hemphill & Marianno, 2022).
Research Question 3 Survey Questions
The third research question was designed to help the researchers better understand the
role of labor unions in shaping districts’ responses to the COVID-19 pandemic. Research study
participants responded to three survey questions related to the research question. As seen in
Table 7, the majority of respondents believed that negotiations with certificated unions
influenced the way their district responded to the COVID-19 pandemic for students and families.
All of the respondents also agreed that negotiations with classified unions influenced the way
their district effectively responded to the COVID-19 pandemic for students and families.
Participants did not appear to have a common perception about negotiations with the teachers’
unions impacting the quality of instruction offered to students during distance learning.
Participant responses ranged from strongly disagree to strongly agree.
97
Table 7
Quantitative Survey: District and Site Leaders’ Mean Agreement Ratings Regarding the Impact
of Union Negotiations
Survey question Superintendent
Assistant
superintendent Principal
Negotiations with certificated unions
influenced the way my district effectively
responded to the COVID-19 pandemic for
students and families.
3.33 4.25 4.33
Negotiations with classified unions influenced
the way of my district effectively responding
to the COVID-19 pandemic for students and
families.
3.33 4.00 4.22
Negotiations with the teacher’s union impacted
the quality of instruction offered to students
during distance learning.
3.33 3.50 4.22
Note. The online Qualtrics® survey incorporated a 5-point Likert scale response (1 = strongly
disagree to 5 = strongly agree).
There were four interview questions that directly addressed the research question and
were designed to provide respondents with an opportunity to discuss the impact, if any, of union
negotiations on districts’ responses to the COVID-19 pandemic. Responses to the four questions
provided the researchers with information to better understand the interaction between district
leadership and labor unions and the impact on districts as they planned their response to the
COVID-19 pandemic. The four questions were as follows:
1. What were the most important issues negotiated with your teachers union, and how
were they resolved?
98
2. What were the most important issues negotiated with your classified union, and how
were they resolved?
3. In what ways, if any, were instructional programs influenced by union negotiations in
your district?
4. In what ways, if any, were safety protocols influenced by union negotiations in your
district?
Throughout the pandemic there were adults on sites continuing to maintain facilities,
offer meals to students, and assist in the logistics of distance learning. As schools began to
reopen, classified employees were the first to be called back into work to prepare schools to meet
new health and safety guidelines. New procedures for health screening, cleaning, movement,
personal safety, food preparation and distribution, isolation, and transportation had to be
developed and implemented by members of the classified staff (Hemphill & Marianno, 2022).
As part of California’s response to COVID-19 school closures, Governor Gavin Newsom’s
office facilitated an agreement among teachers’ unions, classified employees, school boards,
superintendents, and principals to use a specific framework to work together on matters of labor
and management to minimize any impact to students, including direction on implementation and
delivery of distance learning, special education, and meals through the end of the school year
(CDE, 2020). However, it became clear after the spring school closures that districts and unions
needed to work together. There was a need to set teacher expectations under changing
circumstances by proactively planning for multiple scenarios with labor partners involved in
conversations. Given these demands, there were two themes that emerged during the interviews:
concerns about the quality of online instruction and the importance of acknowledging the
classified employees as essential workers.
99
Theme 1: Certificated Union Negotiations Focus on Quality Online Instruction
Assistant Superintendent D spoke about the importance of maintaining quality instruction
when schools went online:
I would say the latest one is quarantine learning. Because technically, you could just give
a packet to a kid, but as a teacher you know, a packet does not even compare to the direct
instruction that you receive by a teacher and that guidance. So, for us, that continuity of
learning was critical. I think the tutoring hours also are critical as far as tailoring them to
students that really need the additional support. The days before for professional
development, I feel like I wish we had more days for teachers. And how do we better use
our days.
Assistant Superintendent I reiterated the school district’s focus on quality online instruction:
There was a significant impact, and I’m not going to say that it wasn’t negative, but part
of the MOU (memorandum of understanding) was about how virtual learning would be
addressed. I remember the discussion was, do the teachers have just online kids? And
then there’s teachers who have just in-person kids, or could a teacher have both online
and in-person at the same time? And the ramifications of that. So, it was more about
everybody kind of coming to an understanding of how we were going to make sure that
the kids weren’t missing out on instruction. So, most of the discussion was around the use
of virtual learning and how the teacher would interact with that versus how the kids
would. And so, it was kind of primarily to try to keep the teachers focused. The idea was
that they become more of an online teacher and then an in-person teacher.
The superintendent for District H also spoke of the importance of maintaining quality
online instruction:
100
We had live streaming in the classroom. Kids that were important. They were in and out
and still able to participate. So, we had that as an option, depending on the instructional
program. We have a virtual Academy. But some did live streaming with their own
teachers so they can stay in their class, and that created a better community. I think it was
very positive. And I think that instructional piece, just all the blended options that we
allow people to choose from really made the instructor. Everybody could find something
that they were comfortable with. Each family could choose what was best for their child.
Theme 2: Acknowledging Classified Employees and Essential Workers
Assistant Superintendent I discussed the importance of keeping classified employees
safe:
So, they were the ones on the front-line handing food out to parents to keep their kids fed.
And this was during the uncertain time where no one knew how contagious the virus was
or how deadly it could be. And we made sure they had the right equipment to stay safe, as
safe as we could keep them, but they never went. They never left. They were working.
The custodians came in, and then it was an opportunity for us to make sure that all the
filters were good. That time when everybody went home was a time when classified staff
could get the sites ready for in-person learning. So, the work they did was critical for
supporting extended learning and getting the spaces ready to go deep clean everything.
Principal F echoed a similar sentiment:
Thanks to them they were really the first people that were back on campus. I think they
were bargaining for safety protocols to be put into place. So, they wanted to make sure
that the district purchased handwashing stations around campus and make sure that kids
are keeping their distance and masking. That's really what they were bargaining for.
101
Assistant Superintendent B was another participant who discussed the importance of the
classified staff:
Our food services and our custodians and our facility department, they never got to work
from home. So really working with them on the immediate safety concerns that they had
about being on campus and providing their services, when we were still trying to figure
out what it was. And we had food services distributing thousands of meals, every day,
across the district. We were providing childcare for over 1,000 students every day at our
elementary schools. And that was all classified staff and some substitutes. So that group
of classified staff really negotiated what they needed at the moment; tools, training,
safety equipment, supplies, so that they could confidently be at work.
Research Question 4 Findings
Research question four was, “How, if at all, has your district addressed the concerns of
the parent community regarding safety, nutrition, distance learning, lack of technology, academic
standing, and how and when to open schools due to the COVID-19 pandemic?” In polls
conducted in all 50 states, EdTrust (2021) found sweeping similarities among parents across the
nation, including the troubling reports of significant gaps in the access to vital resources and
increased stress levels, particularly among lower income families of color. While parents
reported overall general satisfaction with how school districts and schools have responded during
the pandemic, there was still a gap between what parents would have liked and what was actually
available, particularly at the beginning of the pandemic. Among parents in all states, there was a
deep concern that their children were falling academically behind with almost 90% of parents
reporting this as a worry (EdTrust, 2021). Aside from learning loss, parent concerns included
student well-being and safety.
102
Research Question 4 Survey Questions
Research question four was designed to help the researchers better understand the
relationship between school districts and parents during the COVID-19 pandemic. Research
study participants responded to seven survey questions. As seen in Table 7, superintendents,
assistant superintendents, and principals tended to strongly agree that they were able to meet
many of the needs of students and families, especially in the areas of communication, nutrition,
technology devices, and health and safety. However, survey responses revealed that participants
felt their district/school did not meet students’ academic and social-emotional well-being needs.
103
Table 8
Quantitative Survey: District and Site Leaders’ Mean Agreement Ratings of Parent Concerns
Superintendent
Assistant
superintendent principal
My district/school maintained good
communication with families during the
pandemic.
4.11 4.50 4.44
My district/school met the needs of students and
families in the area of nutrition.
4.56 4.88 4.33
My district/school met the needs of students and
families in the area of technology
(computers/devices).
4.44 4.75 4.67
My district/school met the needs of students and
families in the area of technology (internet
service).
4.22 4.50 4.44
My district/school met the needs of students and
families in the area of social emotional well-
being.
3.56 3.75 3.11
My district/school met the needs of students and
families in the area of health and safety.
4.11 4.25 4.00
My district/school met the academic needs of
students.
3.11 3.75 3.44
Note. The online Qualtrics® survey incorporated a 5-point Likert scale response (1 = strongly
disagree to 5 = strongly agree).
There were two interview questions that directly addressed Research Question Four:
1. In what ways did your district gather input from and communicate with the
community?
104
2. What were the biggest concerns from your district’s community, and how were they
addressed?
The first question was designed to provide the researchers with an opportunity to learn
more about the relationship between the parent community and school districts during the
COVID-19 pandemic. The second question allowed researchers to understand the breadth of
parent concerns district and school leaders needed to address. Responses to the two questions
provided the researchers with information about district and school leaders’ perceptions of the
types of community concerns leaders were addressing during the COVID-19 pandemic and how
leaders were communicating with their respective communities. Two themes emerged during the
interviews:
1. Leaders discussed how open communication, over communicating, and transparency
helped ease the concerns of their parent community during the pandemic.
2. Parents across the three districts all shared concerns about student safety as schools
moved back to in-person learning opportunities.
Theme 1: Communication and Transparency
Superintendent A spoke about the importance of open communication with families
during the pandemic:
From the beginning we’ve had parents on our COVID Task Force and I also did town
halls. Prior to the pandemic I would get maybe 35 parents at the most for district wide
meetings. Now we get 700 or above parents at a Zoom parent town hall meeting. We
allow parents to ask questions, they have to type them in via Zoom, we post all of our
presentations on that. We have been creative. I think we over communicated. You can
105
never over communicate but we really made a huge effort to communicate with our
parents.
Principal G discussed different opportunities offered at the school, which allowed parents an
opportunity to listen, learn, and ask questions:
We did a fair amount of surveys. We still ran our School Site Council, our operations
steering committee and our district advisory committee, all of which allowed parents an
opportunity to give input on a variety of things. And then communication always came in
the form of emails, newsletters, and then for me personally, I felt like my most effective
form of communication is the virtual coffee connections, just like open question and
answer times. I prepare a slide deck for the most frequently asked questions and what my
answers and responses are. And during those periods of reopening and transitions, there
would be hundreds of parents that would log on for that and I would have members of my
admin team answering questions in the chat while I did my presentation. The more that
we were able to communicate and be transparent, the more trust we built in the
community and the fewer issues we had overall.
Principal B reiterated the importance of allowing members of the school community to
share their concerns with the school board and district leaders:
Our superintendent does a really great job of opening up and communicating with the
schools and with families, with all stakeholders and giving them an opportunity like a
forum besides just board meetings. We would have our traditional board meeting, we
would have public comment, tons of parents and teachers sharing what their concerns
were. So, we would have 10 folks talk about how we should not open schools, we had
106
another 10 that said we should open school. So, it was just tons and tons of
communication.
Principal B continued about how varying means of consistent communication was
imperative to addressing the concerns of the school community:
Every Sunday night I send out a call and an email to my family. It was consistent. Every
Sunday at 6:00 PM, they would get a call from me. They would also get an email and
that’s where I would communicate everything with them. I sent a survey out multiple
weeks because I wanted to know if anyone wanted to send their kids on campus to do
those after school activities. So, folks gotta sign up for that, through that. Every Sunday
was my communication method. I know our district sends out communication regularly
as well, via email, and then they also have different forms that they have that folks can
join in to be a part of that discussion.
Theme 2: Safety Concerns and Reopening
Superintendent A stated that, due to differing levels of concern about in-person learning,
the school tried to create the opportunities for choice in how students returned: “Some people are
not comfortable coming back to school but what we did is we actually started an online school.
That's a permanent school now and people can stay in that if they so choose.” Superintendent A
asserted that students and parents need to be heard and that surveying is a useful means for
gathering their views:
We did a lot of surveying. We surveyed them throughout the pandemic on how
comfortable they were coming back to school, whether it was hybrid, whether we're a
small group. We surveyed students, we surveyed staff, and we surveyed parents, and we
107
disaggregated that data by grade level, and we used that data to help drive our target dates
for returning because we were able to see their comfort level coming back.
Superintendent A also demonstrated the creativity required for leaders to address the
community’s concerns and ensure students would be safe returning to in-person learning:
There were overall reopening concerns and like the town halls, we also did videos. We
did a lot of video messages that showed what the classrooms looked like. We painted dots
six feet apart on the elementary playground so that students could line up. We really kind
of took them on a tour of the classrooms and we had some of our children and some of
our staff’s children pretend to be students at the school walking in and showing how
everything was going to work.
Principal G stated how important transparency and open communication was for his school
community’s concerns:
We had to be super clear and transparent that the guidance that we followed came
directly from the county and not from the state and was not decided at a local level. We
also had reopening meetings at every school site. Mine were virtual with our families and
it was a 58-slide deck presentation of all of the different ways that we were going to
accommodate students and make sure that they were able to safely be in the classroom
with the shared responsibility between district and students. Again, it just was about open
communication. And when parents made a request, we did our best to accommodate it.
It's just difficult because a lot of parent requests, as we know, were conflicting.
Principal G indicated that the varying concerns led to choice on how students would return to the
classroom:
108
The parents have been a huge voice. I think that there’s been a shift, obviously, with
parent support based on what side of the coin you fell on. Last year, we offered a
completely virtual option, as many districts did, which was a completely independent
online school for families that weren’t comfortable coming back on the campus. And then
we also opened our campuses, essentially for families that wanted to come to campus
right away.
Assistant Superintendent C expanded on the many different ways leaders collected feedback
from the school community regarding concerns and reopening schools:
We had opportunities for both survey feedback, as well as forums for them to be able to
give us information and inform us of our reopening. We also held meetings with family
groups in order to be able to share our best current thinking, and then how that could look
and be successful for their families to help us provide that insight. We were fortunate to
be able to leverage Zoom in this situation to be able to gather that information.
Summary
Chapter Four reported the findings from 27 K–12 educational leaders in nine Southern
California school districts, including nine superintendents, nine assistant superintendents, and
nine principals. Each research study participant completed a survey that provided quantitative
data and participated in an interview that provided further qualitative evidence. The results from
this study bring to light the pandemic’s impact on students, families, leaders, schools, and
districts. This study examined how district and school leadership responded to the COVID-19
crisis by examining the financial implications of the pandemic, the impact of governmental
agency guidelines, as well as what issues were most important to both union members and
109
parents within each district. Most importantly, the study provides insight into superintendent,
assistant superintendent, and principal leadership practices during a crisis.
The COVID-19 pandemic impacted public school districts on an extraordinary scale.
District and school leaders were responding to a health crisis that seemingly would have been
dealt with by health professionals, but with its impact on public school districts and students,
leaders were left with no choice but to respond swiftly and accordingly. Analyses of the survey
and interview responses identified several common themes in the leadership of participating
superintendents, assistant superintendents, and principals across all nine districts: safety,
collaboration, communication, and union negotiations.
Safety
While the benefits of reopening for students, families, and communities were clear,
leaders had to take into account the health risks of the school personnel and families that were
needed to operate safely. Educational leaders had to make consequential and complex decisions
based on safety. Throughout the research process, district and school leaders consistently
discussed the challenges of interpreting how different stakeholders considered safety protocols
and redefining working and learning environments that were deemed “safe.” These decisions
were made more difficult by the lack of definitive evidence about transmission in children, ever-
changing guidelines, relative health risks, and what practical mitigation measures were most
effective for limiting the spread of the virus in schools and classrooms. Every participant touched
upon the work of collaborating and negotiating with both classified and certificated unions to
come to an agreement that accounts for safety concerns in respect to roles and environments.
There was a common response of leaders to remain consistent with respect to following the
110
required yet ever-evolving public health guidelines and implementing local district and school
safety plans.
The findings also indicated a concerted effort on the part of district and school leaders to
address the wide range of community concerns with the reopening of schools and topics such as
PPEs, facility upgrades, physical distancing, sanitation measures, and masking. Recognizing
these challenges and the difficult choices faced by education leaders, nearly all responses
indicated “safety” as a core driver for decision making. Responses from all nine districts
indicated that leaders worked tirelessly to address guidelines and requirements while also
respecting the opinions, fears, and concerns of their respective communities. Throughout this
entire crisis, student safety was at the forefront of leaders’ decision-making processes.
Joint Sensemaking and Collective Decision Making
Joint sensemaking was another common theme across the respondents of all nine
districts. From initial school closures to the reopening of schools, superintendents, assistant
superintendents, and principals had to make informed decisions based on a complex set of risks
and tradeoffs. These decisions involved deliberate sensemaking based on the collective expertise
of various stakeholders.
As the COVID-19 crisis was primarily an issue of health and safety, a partnership of state
and local health agencies with public school districts naturally emerged, However, leaders’
responses indicated that the process was not as organic. Overall, district and school leaders
shared familiar challenges and frustrations with not being able to provide input into the guidance
for schools issued by their local health agencies. In order to approach reopening of schools in
ways that were reflective of a community’s collective values, the findings demonstrated that
leaders relied on collaboration. State and local decision makers had to engage a range of different
111
constituencies in the process of creating and delineating plans to reopen and later monitor their
ongoing safety.
The findings indicated a lack of collaboration between school districts and public health
agencies, with district leaders receiving and implementing guidelines put forth by public health
agencies without opportunities to offer input. A common frustration reported among the study
participants was the incoherence of the contradictory directives which led to confusion,
ambiguity, and difficulty interpreting the health and safety guidance. Throughout this process,
leaders struggled to collaborate effectively with their stakeholder groups and disseminate
information accordingly. The public-school leaders’ responsibility to make decisions regarding
the safety and health of all employees and students was made more difficult due to the constantly
changing directives and the conflicting stakeholder input.
Communication
A third recurring theme among the nine districts was deepened communication. All
participants were tasked with the crucial role of establishing a multifaceted communication plan
for their schools and districts and relaying information to multiple stakeholders in their
communities. The findings suggested it was extremely challenging for education stakeholders to
navigate the plethora of guidance documents to reopen safely. School leaders were tasked with
the extremely challenging work of understanding and weighing risks of the COVID-19 pandemic
while trying to redesign and reimagine what schools would look like during these turbulent
times. The findings demonstrated that communication was “one-directional” from local health
agencies to public school districts and school sites. The language used in health agencies was not
clearly articulated for schools as well as the recommendations. District and site leaders had to
interpret, clarify, simplify, and communicate complex health and safety guidelines to their
112
different stakeholders by determining what was best for their schools and districts. Leaders
grappled with what to recommend to education stakeholders and how to communicate to families
that every effort is being made to keep their children safe in schools.
Based on the interview and survey responses, district and site leaders were the primary
sources of information, charged with communicating with their students, staff, and community
partners about safety protocols, guidelines, and procedures. All participants reported having
utilized a myriad of new communication channels and platforms to gather input, disseminate
information, and engage with their local school community. Additionally, participants largely
indicated an increased frequency of communication with not only their family communities but
also internally with their union groups and between district office departments and school sites.
The findings also indicated the pandemic created many opportunities for reciprocal and
transparent communication between stakeholders. To make information accessible to diverse
families for instance, leaders indicated they utilized communication strategies such as live-
streamed meetings, town halls, and task force sessions. The proliferation of guidance documents
created confusion at all levels. Making sense of the varying perspectives on whether and how to
reopen schools for in-person learning required robust communication. While messaging during
COVID-19 were at times contradictory, complex, and ever-changing, the findings suggested
these associated challenges led to opportunities for school leaders to strengthen, diversify, and
effectively communicate with collaborators and stakeholders.
Unions and Negotiations
Lastly, the COVID-19 pandemic impacted on-campus learning and greatly affected both
the classified and certificated staff. The findings revealed a theme regarding the roles that unions
played and the negotiations that took place during the initial school closures and reopening.
113
While all stakeholders did not necessarily agree with final decisions about when and how to
reopen schools, an inclusive process helped build trust in school leadership so that decisions
could be implemented quickly and effectively.
Participants were largely in agreement on issues such as the financial impact of the
pandemic on school districts. District and school leaders’ responses referenced MOUs on safe
working conditions, supply and distribution of PPE equipment, the quality of online instruction,
and shifts in roles and responsibilities as a few of the major negotiation points. Additionally, the
negotiations were driven by the allocation of extra state funding and the implications that would
have for the schools’ reopening timelines, as well as the impact on both certificated and
classified work locations and job responsibilities. Generally speaking, the findings indicated the
importance of maintaining a strong relationship between district and school leadership with all
bargaining units, including viewing the classified staff as essential workers, as this partnership
would assist with the rapidly changing impact of COVID-19 on districts and schools. Through
the responses, it was evident union negotiations were critical to district and school operations,
protocols, and overall coordination.
Chapter Five presents a summary of the findings, implications for practice, a discussion
of future research, and further conclusions.
114
Chapter Five: Summary, Implications, and Conclusion
There is no doubt that the COVID-19 crisis has created enormous challenges for our
nation’s public school systems. Overnight, schools moved their entire operation online, including
not only teaching and learning, but also the varied physical and social supports that family’s
access through their school system. For over 2 years, the COVID-19 pandemic crisis has
continued to evolve and upend school districts. In the past, school crises have revolved around
short-term incidents, such as natural disasters or active shootings, and have called for crisis
planning as an integrated part of effective school district leadership (Gainey, 2009). However,
the COVID-19 pandemic is unprecedented. As the COVID-19 pandemic spread rapidly across
the globe, schools struggled to react both quickly and adequately. Leadership in times of crisis is
about dealing with events, emotions, and consequences in the immediate present in ways that
minimize personal and organizational harm to the school and school community (Smith & Riley,
2012). In a crisis, immediate and complex decisions need to be made quickly, and they were.
The literature and data gathered in this study have highlighted varying sectors of K–12
public education that were impacted by the pandemic and how leaders had to face intense new
challenges. Analyzing the study data shed light on the unique leadership roles administrators,
superintendents, and principals assumed and the qualities they enacted. Their responses to the
pandemic indicate that their roles as school leaders were reconceptualized as “crisis managers.”
As they transformed into “crisis managers,” school leaders engaged in joint sensemaking and
collaboration to mitigate the pandemic effectively and efficiently. The present study’s data
revealed that the COVID-19 crisis created an unprecedented impact on all areas of public
education. The superintendents, assistant superintendents, and principals who participated in this
study enacted a broad range of leadership qualities and actions. This chapter provides a summary
115
of the key findings for each research question, along a discussion of the study’s implications,
recommendations for future research, and a conclusion.
Statement of the Problem
The COVID-19 pandemic presented a disruption in Southern California K–12 school
districts. It caused unforeseen consequences within the education system and highlighted the
financial implications, the impact of outside agencies and union negotiations, and the resulting
impact on students and community. COVID-19 shifted the roles and scope of schools and school
leaders, transforming them from instructional leaders into “crisis managers.”
Purpose of the Study
The purpose of this study was to analyze the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on
Southern California K–12 school districts and understand what district and site administrators
have learned from their experiences and their decision-making responsibilities in managing the
crisis. This study has brought to light the impact of the pandemic on students, families, leaders,
schools, and districts. Most importantly, this study examined how district and school leaders
influenced administrative practices, student achievement, fiscal responsibility, union leadership,
and community/parent support as they responded to the COVID-19 crisis.
Participants
The 27 research participants in this study consisted of nine superintendents, nine assistant
superintendents, and nine principals across nine unique K–12 public school districts in Southern
California. These research participants qualified if they held their current position for at least 1
year, served in their position during the 2019–2020 school year, and if the minimum student
population of their district was approximately 1,000.
Key Findings
116
The following section presents the key themes that emerged across all nine participating
school districts based on the four research questions that guided this study.
Findings for Research Question 1
Research Question 1 asked, “What, if any, are the financial implications that the COVID-
19 pandemic has had on K–12 public school districts in Southern California, and how have
district superintendents, assistant superintendents, and principals addressed these implications?”
This research question was designed to provide insight into participants’ perceptions regarding
the COVID-19 funding provided through the CARES Act. Responses to this research question
provided researchers with information about how school districts and sites met their financial
needs and obligations during the COVID-19 pandemic. Based on participants’ responses, five
themes emerged related to financial implications.
Theme 1
A wide range of funding priorities and spending took place among the school districts.
Spending plans and financial implications encompassed everything from summer school
programs and expanded staffing to HVAC upgrades and technology purchases. Additionally,
purchases included some scattered items, like furniture for teacher lounges and wide-screen
televisions, which could ultimately test the federal government’s intentions for the funds to
specifically help schools recover from the effects of the pandemic. While some districts were
investing big money in initiatives that did not appear strictly COVID-related at first, other
districts spent nearly all funds on technology updates and PPE for cleaning, ventilation, and air
filtration. Some districts also held on to varying sums for future use, and many admitted funds
could not be expended adequately due to product unavailability, lack of infrastructure, or staffing
shortages.
117
Theme 2
Uncertainty reigned, and there was a lack of clarity regarding the scope of the available
funding. District leaders and school business officials scrambled to allocate significant, and in
some cases unprecedented, sums of money during these uncertain times. An influx of emergency
funds that would soon expire, dips in average daily attendance (ADA), and reimbursement
confusion all created chaos, tension, and challenges for school leaders.
Theme 3
Another commonality among district leaders was the expressed desire for sustainability
of funds more than flexibility and accountability. Flexibility of COVID-19 funds was
appreciated; however, timelines, accountability, lack of infrastructure, COVID-19 outbreaks,
political disputes over masking and vaccination, and the academic and emotional upheaval
wrought by many months of pandemic-era schooling were among the issues that truly weighed
on districts’ wallets. Districts had to navigate complex bureaucratic hurdles and a public health
crisis to better understand and potentially use these funds. Leaders mentioned they had broad
flexibility with the use of the COVID-19 funds, but spending deadlines and accountability
reporting were not feasible and in some cases a burden to operationalizing initiatives.
Theme 4
Leaders had to consider the health risks to school personnel and students’ families as well
as the practicality and cost of the mitigation strategies needed to operate safely. The findings
suggest that financial incentives offered to Southern California’s K–12 public schools in March
of 2021 were not the primary drivers to reopen schools; rather, the main impetus was the overall
well-being and safety of constituents. Implementing COVID-19 spread mitigation strategies fully
and faithfully to maximize protection of students and staff was a priority and true motive.
118
Theme 5
Despite many uncertain financial implications of the COVID-19 funds, there were some
“silver linings” and positive outcomes. School leaders recognized the challenges associated with
operationalizing a number of reopening strategies, what was feasible, and protecting students and
staff using CARES funds. School leaders shared how virtual learning opportunities, online
academies, improved facilities upgrades, increased parent engagement via social media/online
town hall meetings, and purchasing of one-to-one devices were made possible by CARES Act
funding.
Findings for Research Question 2
Research Question 2 asked, “What impact, if any, have federal, state, and local health
agencies had on K–12 public school districts in Southern California, and what strategies have
district superintendents, assistant superintendents, and principals followed to address the
suggested guidelines?” This research question was designed to better understand the impact of
health and safety guidelines on school districts’ ability to reopen schools safely. The research
findings highlight the importance of health guidelines in assisting schools to reopen safely. Two
themes emerged while interviewing participants: incoherent messaging between county, local,
and state departments and lack of alignment, which created frustration.
Theme 1
County public health departments issued guidance that was crucial to leaders. There were
varying degrees of collaboration between district leaders and county public health departments.
This consistent collaboration among leaders and health officials was key to the success of
schools reopening safely while addressing the many concerns of the staff and community
members.
119
Theme 2
Confusing messaging, inconsistent language, and differing recommendations existed
across organizations. The lack of alignment between the various organizations issuing COVID-
19-related guidance and conflicting recommendations were burdensome and frustrating for
leaders. The guidance was also ever-changing, and it created frustration, not only for leaders, but
for staff and community members as well.
Findings for Research Question 3
Research Question 3 asked, “How, if at all, have union negotiations played a role in
Southern California K–12 public school districts’ response to the COVID-19 pandemic?” The
third research question was designed to help the researcher better understand the role of labor
unions in shaping districts’ responses to the COVID-19 pandemic. Superintendents, assistant
superintendents, and principals felt very strongly that union negotiations with both certificated
and classified employees were critical to responding effectively to the COVID-19 pandemic.
Throughout the pandemic, each school in districts around Southern California had staff
that remained working in person on site in order to maintain the school facilities, feed the
families in the school community, and assist in the coordination of distance learning. Schools
slowly began reopening their doors, and the first staff members on campus were the classified
staff. Classified staff members were called into work prior to any other staff, so that they could
help prepare schools to meet the new health and safety guidelines that were required for
reopening. New procedures for health screening, cleaning, movement, personal safety, food
preparation and distribution, isolation, and transportation had to be developed and implemented
by members of the classified staff (Hemphill & Marianno, 2022). As part of California’s
response to COVID-19 school closures, Governor Gavin Newsom’s office facilitated an
120
agreement among teachers’ unions, classified employees, school boards, superintendents, and
principals to use a specific framework to work together on matters of labor and management to
minimize any impact on students, which included direction on implementation and delivery of
distance learning, special education, and meals through the end of the school year (CDE, 2020).
However, after school closures in the spring of 2020, it became clear that school districts and
unions needed to work together to proactively plan for multiple different scenarios that would
prepare teachers for changing circumstances. These conversations would include labor partners
and unions. Given these needs, there were two themes that emerged during the interviews:
concerns about the quality of online instruction and the importance of acknowledging the
classified employees as essential workers.
Theme 1
Leaders stated their concerns about the quality of online instruction during distance
learning. It was crucial for districts to replicate the continuity of valuable learning and quality
instruction online. Many district leaders emphasized the importance of continuing a positive
learning experience for students.
Theme 2
Districts were also concerned about the importance of seeing the classified employees as
essential workers and emphasized the importance of keeping classified employees safe while
they continued in-person work on school campuses.
Findings for Research Question 4
Research Question 4 asked, “How, if at all, have K–12 Southern California public school
districts leadership teams comprised of superintendents, assistant superintendents, and principals
addressed the concerns of the parent community regarding safety, nutrition, distance learning,
121
lack of technology, academic standing, and how and when to re-open schools due to the COVID-
19 pandemic?” This research question was designed to help the researchers better understand
how district leaders gave school communities a place to voice their concerns regarding schools
reopening. These concerns helped leaders make decisions on how and when they would open
their schools. This research question also helped the researchers better understand how district
leaders addressed the concerns of their school communities, what strategies were used to address
families’ concerns, and how district and school leaders communicated with their communities.
Theme 1
Leaders discussed how open communication, over communication, and transparency
helped ease the concerns of their parent communities during the pandemic.
Theme 2
Parents across the three districts all shared concerns about student safety as schools
moved back to in-person learning opportunities.
Implications for Practice
This research study examined the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on K–12 public
school districts in Southern California. Through the surveys and interviews designed to collect
data for this study, the research team was able to better understand what district and site
administrators have learned from their experiences and decision-making responsibilities in
managing the crisis. The study has brought to light the pandemic’s impact on students, families,
leaders, schools, and districts. Most importantly, it examined how district and school leaders
have influenced administrative practices, student achievement, financial responsibility, union
leadership, and community/parent support as they responded to the COVID-19 crisis. The
examination of relevant literature and subsequent data collection for this study led to three
122
implications regarding school district and site leaders becoming crisis managers during the
COVID-19 pandemic. The conceptual framework (see Figure 3) utilized for this research study
was based on three theoretical frameworks. The three frameworks provide an understanding of
the theories that impact school leadership and how leadership can adapt to managing the
COVID-19 pandemic crisis. The three theories used to develop the conceptual framework
present important implications for leaders and their changing roles throughout this crisis.
Crisis management is the process by which an organization deals with any major
unpredictable event threatening to harm the organization, its stakeholders, or the public (Vargo
& Seville, 2011). Three elements are common to most definitions of a crisis: (a) a threat to the
organization, (b) the element of surprise, and (c) a short decision time (Seeger et al., 1998).
Crisis management is the discipline of preparing the resources and organizational structures
necessary to respond effectively in the face of a crisis and recover effectively in the aftermath. It
is about building the capability to identify imminent threats to the organization and designing a
plan for addressing those threats (Vargo & Seville, 2011). Flexibility, collaboration, and self-
correcting mechanisms are important aspects of crisis response and management (Liou, 2015).
As the nation moves toward reopening public spaces considering the ongoing pandemic
and the coming school year, there are some lingering questions and concerns to address. Some
emerging insights about leadership within the COVID-19 educational landscape and propositions
offered for consideration are outlined below.
Implication 1: Bolman and Deal’s Four Frames
The first implication includes consideration and use of strategic leadership frames or
lenses when managing a crisis. Superintendents, assistant superintendents, and principals enacted
leadership utilizing Bolman and Deal’s (2017) political, structural, human resources, and
123
symbolic frames, especially during times of crisis. The Four-Frame Model (Bolman & Deal,
2017) is a set of frames, each comprising “a set of ideas and assumptions,” to guide
organizations. Bolman and Deal (2017) argued the Four Frames provide leaders with rich
descriptions of organizational structures, mindsets, and associated leadership actions that result
in improved organizational understandings. Bolman and Deal (2017) asserted it is important for
leaders not to stand within one frame but to work within all Four-Frames in a cohesive manner,
giving themselves a broader mindset and lens to reframe their view of the organization, make
better sense of data, and be more effective in their leadership and decision making. According to
Bolman and Deal (2017), managers often misread situations, and leaders must learn how to use
multiple lenses to get a better sense of the problems they face and identify the leadership actions
necessary to address them. These frames focus on the fundamentals of great leadership and thus
offer leaders a pathway to navigate unknown and unchartered situations, like COVID-19.
Serving as a potential roadmap for shifting leadership roles, these frames serve as time-
tested guidance for more effective organizational leadership (Bolman & Deal, 2017). During
COVID-19, district leaders wore multiple hats. Leaders were required to make fiscally
responsible decisions despite uncertainty and decipher changing and ambiguous health
guidelines, all while providing for the health, safety, and needs of students, staff, and the
community. Additionally, the proliferation of guidance documents was creating confusion at all
levels about how to make sense of the varying perspectives on whether and how to reopen school
or in-person learning.
Implication 2: Collective Decision Making a Standard Practice
The second implication draws from Fullan’s (2014) work on whole systems change and
the role of leaders as “system players.” During the COVID-19 crisis, emerging change dynamics
124
almost repositioned superintendents, assistant superintendents, and principals to entirely new
roles. During the process of deciding how schools operate during the pandemic, school leaders
needed to ensure that the decisions they made reflected their community’s priorities and unions.
There was a range of stakeholders invested in decisions around reopening schools, and decisions
and processes around this topic were incredibly complex and tense (Netolicky, 2020). To this
end, school leaders had to be willing to listen and co-plan with relevant community members and
constituent groups. District leaders had to be systems players and engage the community in
decisions to help ensure that the divergent concerns of education stakeholders were, at a
minimum, brought to light and considered. It is known that children benefit from community
input, and, in the absence of this kind of relationship, schools may not change (Epstein, 1995,
2018).
The findings from this study revealed that the logic and value behind reopening and
safety decisions varied among stakeholders. The implication here is that decision makers risked
the possibility of school staff and families not understanding and even challenging the reasoning
behind certain choices without collaboration, potentially leading some stakeholders to disengage
from schools. In our findings, school leaders shared how they had to deepen partnerships with
families and communities by involving them in planning for the safe reopening of schools,
preparing students for learning and making up for “loss,” and implementing newly required
policies, procedures, and plans. This type of involvement was particularly important for families
and communities that experienced the greatest impact from inequitable schooling during the
pandemic or have been historically marginalized by K–12 public schools.
125
Implication 3: Enhanced Effective Communication
The last implication stems from the work of Westover (2020) on coherence and
communication. Organizations face the continuous prospect of change as they fight to stay afloat
and compete in an increasingly competitive and globalized economy (Westover, 2010, 2020). A
sharp focus on cultivating trusting, respectful, and caring relationships among students, staff,
parents, and guardians is integral to create a connected community. A consistent element of crisis
leadership is effective communication. Scholars have emphasized the leader’s role in
communicating effectively with both internal and external audiences (Marsen, 2020). Effective
communication builds trust and helps to create shared understandings and commitments across
stakeholders (Lucero et al., 2009).
A common theme highlighted in the study was the necessity of robust communication
and helping others engage in meaning-making. During times of crisis, effective leaders engage in
holding, which means that they are containing and interpreting what is happening during a time
of uncertainty (McLeod & Dulsky, 2021). In light of changing guidelines, ambiguous funding
resources, and the uncertainty of the ongoing pandemic, regular consistent messaging remained a
constant among school leaders. In our study, district leaders mentioned another theme of
enhanced communication. School leaders, such as principals, held town hall meetings via Zoom,
reported increased participation in online school meetings, and discussed how multiple
communication platforms helped communicate comprehensive messaging and kept families
connected. Another commonality was that, for in-person learning to operate effectively, schools
and districts needed to leverage the strengths and talents of teachers, clerical staff, and the unions
by attending to their health and safety concerns through robust communication. Moving forward,
126
leaders should continue to foster better dialogue and ensure ongoing and clear communication
among all stakeholders to enable a coherent system of continuous improvement.
Recommendations for Future Study
The review of the literature provided context for the study of the COVID-19 pandemic on
schools and how the traditional leadership roles of superintendent, assistant superintendent, and
principal have been transformed. As the pandemic continues to disrupt schooling at the time of
this study, there are several considerations: the impact of the crisis on students, staff, and school
leaders’ well-being and education, the unknown regarding the current state of the virus and
pandemic, current school crisis plans and administrative preparedness programs, and the
relationship between various stakeholders. Together, the harrowing realities of the COVID-19
crisis should be further explored in a future study.
Recommendation 1: Research the Long-term Effects of the Pandemic
The first recommendation is to analyze the long-term impacts of the pandemic on
students, teachers, administrators, and staff. As the pandemic continues to unfold, researchers
and participants were reminded of how much has been learned in the past months, yet how much
remains to be known to better understand how to construct, operate, and gather in environments
that are safe and minimize risk.
The COVID-19 pandemic and subsequent school disruptions have had a profound impact
on school-age children, families, and school staff, particularly on their mental health. There have
been reported increases in stress and mental health difficulties among children, youths, and
adults due to the fears of COVID-19 (Hatzichristou et al., 2021; Karaman et al., 2021; Murata et
al., 2021). The severe short-term schooling disruption was felt by many families around the
127
world; home schooling was not only a massive shock to parents’ productivity, but also to
children’s social life and learning (Burgess & Sievertsen, 2020).
The COVID-19 pandemic and the measures taken to contain the virus have had
consequences that will extend beyond the short term. Schooling interruptions, like the sudden
move to online teaching, will most likely have long-term consequences and likely increase
inequality (Burgess & Sievertsen, 2020). Some unknown and long term consequences include
coping with trauma and addressing the mental health needs of students and staff (Watson et al.,
2022). Moving forward, it is essential to understand the trauma and related needs of students and
staff. While much attention has been paid to potential learning losses and negative consequences
for academic achievement, the collective trauma of the pandemic should not be underestimated.
Recommendation 2: Research the Crisis-Ready State of Schools and Administrators
The second recommendation is to study the crisis-ready state of educational organizations
at this time. There are some texts and studies available for helping ensure student and staff safety
and security before, during, and after crises; suggestions for assessing crisis response plan
readiness; and guidelines for debriefing and evaluating a school crisis response (Brock et al.,
2001, 2002). It is evident that the global pandemic has created an unprecedented challenge for
school leaders. Like no other crisis before, the COVID-19 pandemic has illustrated the
deficiencies of our educational systems and the lack of administrator preparation regarding crisis
leadership (McLeod & Dulsky, 2021). Most school leadership preparation and training programs
prior to COVID-19 are likely to be out of step with the challenges facing school leaders today.
Although school leaders are used to managing smaller crises, such as water leaks, irate
parents, disagreements, and the like, most school leaders have never dealt with a crisis of this
scale and this scope for this long (Gainey, 2009). Even larger crises that often force school
128
closures, such as wildfires, snowstorms, a hurricane, or an active school shooting, typically end
shortly within days or weeks. In many cases, existing preparation or training programs for
administrative credentials and professional development along with leadership classes will
require a radical revision to remain relevant for aspiring and practicing school leaders.
Additional training for school leaders’ future mindsets, behaviors, and support structures during
crisis incidents is imperative. New administrative programs are recommended for future study so
that they fully encompass the leadership skills, practices, and actions suited to the current and
potentially ongoing COVID-19 situation.
Conclusion
Due to the COVID-19 pandemic, school leadership practices have changed considerably
and irreversibly. School leadership has shifted on its axis and is unlikely to return to “normal”
anytime soon, if ever at all, because of this pandemic. Superintendents, assistant superintendents,
and principals are systems thinkers who create change in their schools and communities. The
leaders who participated in this study shared the experience of managing during the crisis and
engaged in joint sensemaking, collaboration, and collective wisdom building to effectively plan,
respond, and mitigate the pandemic. The research participants brought to light the importance of
relationship-building, clear communication, grounded decision making, and focused goal setting.
Findings from this study have demonstrated how the COVID-19 pandemic has impacted all
facets of schooling and how Southern California K–12 public school superintendents, assistant
superintendents, and principals transitioned into “crisis managers.”
129
References
Baptiste, D., Commodore‐Mensah, Y., Alexander, K., Jacques, K., Wilson, P., Akomah, J.,
Sharps, P., & Cooper, L. (2020). COVID‐19: Shedding light on racial and health
inequities in the USA. Journal of Clinical Nursing, 29(15/16), 2734–736.
https://doi.org/10.1111/jocn.15351
Bhamani, M. (2020). Home learning in times of COVID: Experiences of parents. Journal of
Education and Educational Development, 7(19), 9–26.
http://dx.doi.org/10.22555/joeed.v7i1.3260
Bogdan, R. C., & Biklen, S. K. (2007). Qualitative research for education: An introduction to
theory and methods (5th ed.). Pearson Education.
Boin, A., & Renaud, C. (2013). Orchestrating joint sensemaking across government levels:
Challenges and requirements for crisis leadership. Journal of Leadership Studies, 7(3),
41–46.
Bolman, L., & Deal, T. (2017). Reframing organizations: Artistry, choice & leadership (6th
ed.). Jossey-Bass.
Borman, G. (2020). What can be done to address learning losses due to school closures? USC
Rossier School of Education Center on Education Policy, Equity and Governance.
https://theanswerlab.rossier.usc.edu/wp-content/uploads/2020/06/Answer-Lab-COVID-
19-Slide-202006-Final-1.pdf
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
130
Brock, S. E., Lazarus, P. J., Jr., & Jimerson, S. R. (2002). Best practices in school crisis
prevention and intervention. National Association of School Psychologists.
Brock, S. E., Sandoval, J., & Lewis, S. (2001). Preparing for crises in the schools: A manual for
building school crisis response teams. John Wiley & Sons Inc.
Burgess, S., & Sievertsen, H. H. (2020, April 1). Schools, skills, and learning: The impact of
COVID-19 on education. VoxEu, 1(2). https://voxeu.org/article/impact-covid-19-
education
CA Safe Schools for All (2021). Definitions. https://schools.covid19.ca.gov/pages/definitions
California Department of Education. (n.d.). Safe schools. https://www.cde.ca.gov/ls/ss/
California Department of Education. (2020). Distance learning instruction planning guidance.
https://www.cde.ca.gov/
California Department of Public Health. (2021a). About us.
https://www.cdph.ca.gov/Pages/About.aspx
California Department of Public Health. (2021b). COVID-19 and reopening in-person
instruction. https://www.cdph.ca.gov/Programs/CID/DCDC/Pages/COVID-
19/COVID19-K12-Schools-InPerson-Instruction.aspx
California Exec. Order No. 26-20, C.C.R. (2020). https://www.gov.ca.gov/wp-
content/uploads/2020/03/3.13.20-EO-N-26-20-Schools.pdf
California, S. of. (2020). Governor Newsom Announces Agreement Between Teachers, Classified
Employees and School System Management to Support Student Instruction During
COVID-19 Outbreak. California Governor.
https://www.gov.ca.gov/2020/04/01/governor-newsom-announces-agreement-between-
131
teachers-classified-employees-and-school-system-management-to-support-student-
instruction-during-covid-19-outbreak/
California School Employees Association. (2021). About CSEA. https://csea.com/about-csea
Canlé, A. (2020, June 17). Keeping lines of communication open during distance learning.
Edutopia. https://www.edutopia.org/article/keeping-lines-communication-open-during-
distance-learning
Carlo, J., & Chung, W. (2009). Review of school closures as a pandemic mitigation strategy.
Texas Medicine, 105(7), 21–26. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/19582645/
Castelo, M. (2020, April 14). How to prepare and support educators teaching from home.
EdTech. https://edtechmagazine.com/k12/article/2020/04/how-prepare-and-support-
educators-teaching-home
Cauchemez, S., Ferguson, N., Wachtel, C., Tegnell, A., Saour, G., Duncan, B., & Nicoll, A.
(2009, August). Closure of schools during an influenza pandemic. The Lancet, 9, 473–
481. https://www.thelancet.com/action/showPdf?pii=S1473-3099%2809%2970176-8
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. (2021). About CDC 24-7.
https://www.cdc.gov/about/organization/mission.htm
Cowie, H., & Myers, C. (2021). The impact of the COVID‐19 pandemic on the mental health
and well‐being of children and young people. Children & Society, 35(1), 62–74.
https://doi.org/10.1111/chso.12430
De Figueiredo, C. S., Sandre, P. C., Portugal, L. C. L., Mázala-de-Oliveira, T., da Silva Chagas,
L., Raony, Í., Bomfim, P. O. (2021). COVID-19 pandemic impact on children and
adolescents’ mental health: Biological, environmental, and social factors. Progress in
132
Neuro-Psychopharmacology and Biological Psychiatry, 106, Article no. e110171.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pnpbp.2020.110171
DeMatthews, D., & Brown, C. H. (2019, January). Urban school leadership and community
violence: Principal perspectives and proactive responses to student mental health needs.
The Educational Forum, 83(1), 28–43. https://doi.org/10.1080/00131725.2018.1506846
Diliberti, M., Schwartz, H. L., Hamilton, L. S. & Kaufman, J. H. (2020). Prepared for a
pandemic? How schools’ preparedness related to their remote instruction during
COVID-19. RAND. https://www.rand.org/pubs/research_reports/RRA168-3.html
EdData. (2021). Negotiating teachers’ contracts in California. www.ed-
data.org/article/Negotiating- Teachers%27-Contracts-in-California.
EdGlossary. (2013a). Cohort. In The Glossary of Education Reform.
https://www.edglossary.org/cohort/
EdGlossary. (2013b). Learning loss. In The Glossary of Education Reform.
https://www.edglossary.org/learning-loss/
EdGlossary. (2014). Stakeholder. In The Glossary of Education Reform.
https://www.edglossary.org/stakeholder/
Education Trust. (2020). Parents overwhelmingly concerned their children are falling behind
during school closures. https://edtrust.org/ca-ny-parents-overwhelmingly-concerned-
their-children-are-falling-behind-during-school-closures/
Epstein, J. L. (1995). School/family/community partnerships. Phi Delta Kappan, 76(9), 701.
Epstein, J. L. (2018). School, family, and community partnerships: Preparing educators and
improving schools. Routledge.
133
Exceptional Lives. (2019). Free and Appropriate Public Education. In Special Education: A
Glossary of Terms and Acronyms. www.exceptionallives.org/blog/special-education-a-
glossary-of- terms-and-acronyms
Fein, A. H., & Isaacson, N. S. (2009). Echoes of Columbine: The emotion work of leaders in
school shooting sites. American behavioral scientist, 52(9), 1327–1346.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0002764209332549
Feldman, J., & Reeves, D. (2020). Grading during the pandemic: A conversation. Association
for Supervision and Curriculum Development https://www.ascd.org/el/articles/grading-
during-the-pandemic-a-conversation
Fensterwald, J. (2021, March 1). Newsom, lawmakers set April 1 deadline to reopen schools for
K–2 students. EdSource. https://edsource.org/2021/newsom-lawmakers-set-april-1-
deadline-to-reopen-schools-for-k-2-students/650247
Fensterwald, J., Burke, M., Stavely, Z., & Johnson, S. (June 26, 2021). 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.
Fiore, D. J. (2016). School-community relations (4th ed.). Taylor and Francis.
Fisher, D., Frey, N., & Hattie, J. (2020). The distance learning playbook, grades K–12: Teaching
for engagement and impact in any setting. Corwin.
Fofaria, R. (2021). Virtual Color of Education event builds from hope to a call for action.
Education North Carolina. https://www.ednc.org/2020-11-04-virtual-color-education-
event-school-race-equity-covid-pandemic-issues-solutions/
134
Fotheringham, P., Harriott, T., Healy, G., Arenge, G., McGill, R., & Wilson, E. (2020, July 3).
Pressures and influences on school leaders as policy makers during COVID-19. Social
Science Research Network. http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3642919
Fullan, M. (2014). The principal: Three keys to maximizing impact. Jossey-Bass.
Fullan, M. (2020). The nature of leadership is changing. European Journal of Education, 55(2),
139–142.
Gaylord-Harden, N., Adams-Bass, V., Bogan, E., Francis, L., Scott, J., Seaton, E., & Williams, J.
(2020). Addressing inequities in education: Considerations for Black children and youth
in the era of COVID-19. Society for Research in Child Development.
https://www.srcd.org/research/addressing-inequities-education-considerations-black-
children-and-youth-era-covid-19
Ghosh, R., Dubey, M. J., Chatterjee, S., & Dubey, S. (2020). Impact of COVID-19 on children:
Special focus on the psychosocial aspect. Minerva Pediatrica, 72(3), 226–235.
https://doi.org/10.23736/S0026-4946.20.05887-9
Glesne, C. (2011). Becoming qualitative researchers: An introduction (4th ed.). Pearson.
Goddard, R. D., Hoy, W. K., & Hoy, A. W. (2000). Collective teacher efficacy: Its meaning,
measure, and impact on student achievement. American Educational Research Journal,
37(2), 479–507. https://doi.org/10.3102/00028312037002479
Goodwin, R., Gaines, S. O., Jr., Myers, L., & Neto, F. (2010). Initial psychological responses to
swine flu. International Journal of Behavioral Medicine, 18(2), 88–92
https://doi.org//10.1007/s12529-010-9083-z
135
Gouwens, L. (2008). School leadership in changing cultural contexts: How Mississippi
superintendents are responding to Hurricane Katrina. Journal of Education for Students
Placed at Risk, 13(2/3), 2732–2796. https://doi.org/10.1080/10824660802350276
Gross, B., & Opalka, A. (2020, June). Too many schools leave learning to chance during the
pandemic. Center for Reinventing Public Education. https://crpe.org/too-many-schools-
leave-learning-to-chance-during-the-pandemic/
Haleem, A., Javaid, M., & Vaishya, R. (2020). Effects of COVID-19 pandemic in daily
life. Current medicine research and practice, 10(2), 78–79.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cmrp.2020.03.011
Harris, A., & Jones, M. (2020). COVID 19 - School leadership in disruptive times. School
Leadership & Management, 40(4), 243–247.
Hatzichristou, C., Georgakakou-Koutsonikou, N., Lianos, P., Lampropoulou, A., & Yfanti, T.
(2021). Assessing school community needs during the initial outbreak of the COVID-19
pandemic: Teacher, parent and student perceptions. School Psychology International,
42(6), 590–615. https://doi.org/10.1177/01430343211041697
Hemphill, A. A., & Marianno, B. D. (2020). Teachers’ unions, collective bargaining, and the
response to COVID-19. Education Finance and Policy, 16, 170–183.
https://doi.org/10.1162/edfp_a_00326
Marianno, B. D., Hemphill, A. A., Loures-Elias, A. P. S., Garcia, L., Cooper, D., & Coombes,
E.(2022). Power in a Pandemic: Teachers’ Unions and Their Responses to School
Reopening. AERA Open. https://doi.org/10.1177/23328584221074337
136
Hermann, Z. (2020, November 6). How to make the most of student feedback during distance
learning. Edutopia. https://www.edutopia.org/article/how-make-most-student-feedback-
during-distance-learning
Herold, B. (2020a, March 27). The scramble to move America’s schools online. Education Week.
https://www.edweek.org/technology/the-scramble-to-move-americas-schools-
online/2020/03
Herold, B. (2020b, April 1). The disparities in remote learning under coronavirus (in charts).
Education Week. https://www.edweek.org/ew/articles/2020/04/10/the-disparities-in-
remote-learning-under-coronavirus.html
Institute of Education Sciences. (2020). FAQ on meeting the needs of English learners in an
online environment.
https://ies.ed.gov/ncee/edlabs/regions/northeast/Docs/Blog/FAQ_COVID19_Supportsfor
EnglishLearners_508c.pdf
Javed, B., Sarwer, A., Soto, E. B., & Mashwani, Z. (2020). The coronavirus (COVID‐19)
pandemic’s impact on mental health. The International Journal of Health Planning and
Management, 35(5), 993–996. https://doi.org/10.1002/hpm.3008
Jones, C., & Freedberg, L. (2021, March 4). California Legislature approves plan to encourage
schools to reopen for in-person instruction. EdSource.
https://edsource.org/2021/california-legislature-approves-plan-to-encourage-schools-to-
reopen-for-in-person-instruction/650493
Kaiser, R., (2020). The best leaders are versatile ones. Harvard Business Review.
https://hbr.org/2020/03/the-best-leaders-are-versatile-ones
137
Kantamneni, N. (2020). The impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on marginalized populations in
the United States: A research agenda. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 119, Article no.
e103439. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvb.2020.103439
Karaman, M. A., Eşici, H., Tomar, İ. H., & Aliyev, R. (2021). COVID-19: Are school
counseling services ready? Students’ psychological symptoms, school counselors’ views,
and solutions. Frontiers in Psychology, 12.
Kinsey, E. W., Hecht, A. A., Dunn, C. G., Levi, R., Read, M., Smith, C., Niesen, P., Segilman,
H. K., & Hager, E. R. (2020). School closures during COVID-19: Opportunities for
innovation in meal service. American Journal of Public Health, 110(11), 1635–1643.
https://doi.org/10.2105/AJPH.2020.305875
Lafortune, J., Mehlotra, R., & Paluch, J. (2020). Funding California schools when budgets fall
short. Public Policy Institute of California.
The Lancet Child and Adolescent Health (2020). Pandemic school closures: Risks and
opportunities. The Lancet Child & Adolescent Health, 4(5), 341–341.
https://doi.org/10.1016/S2352-4642(20)30105-X
Lardieri, A. (2019, October 31). Another victim of the California wildfires: Education. U. S.
News & World Report. https://www.usnews.com/news/education-news/articles/2019-10-
31/another-victim-of-the-california-wildfires-education
Lieberman, M. (2021, December 3). School districts are starting to spend COVID relief funds.
The hard part is deciding how. Education Week. https://www.edweek.org/policy-
politics/school-districts-are-starting-to-spend-covid-relief-funds-the-hard-part-is-
deciding-how/2021/12
138
Liou, Y. H. (2015). School crisis management: A model of dynamic responsiveness to crisis life
cycle. Educational Administration Quarterly, 51(2), 247–289.
Los Angeles County Department of Education. (n.d.). All in. https://www.lacoe.edu/
Los Angeles County Schools. (2020, August 3). Rising to the challenge of COVID-19: A
planning framework for the 2020-21 school year (2nd ed.). https://education-
first.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/04/LA-CO-Schools-2020-21-Planning-
Framework.pdf
Lucero, M., Tan, A. T. K., & Pang, A. (2009). Crisis leadership: When should the CEO step up?
Corporate Communications: An International Journal, 14, 234–248.
https://doi.org/10.1108/13563280910980032
Malkus, N., Christensen, C., & West, L. (2020a). School district responses to the COVID-19
pandemic: Round 1, districts’ initial responses. American Enterprise Institute for Public
Policy Research. https://www.aei.org/research-products/report/school-district-responses-
to-the-covid-19-pandemic-round-1-districts-initial-responses/
Malkus, N., Christensen, C., & Shurz, J. (2020b). School district responses to the COVID-19
pandemic: Round 6, ending the year of closures. American Enterprise Institute for Public
Policy Research. https://www.aei.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/06/School-district-
responses-to-the-COVID-19-Pandemic-Round-6.pdf
Marianno, B. (2021). Teachers’ Unions: Scapegoats, or Bad-Faith Actors In COVID-19 School
Reopening Decisions? https://www.brookings.edu/blog/brown-center-
chalkboard/2021/03/25/teachers-unions-scapegoats-or-bad-faith-actors-in-covid-19-
school-reopening-decisions/
Marianno, B. D., Hemphill, A. A., Loures-Elias, A. P. S., Garcia, L., Cooper, D., & Coombes, E.
139
(2022). Power in a pandemic: Teachers’ unions and their responses to school reopening.
AERA Open. https://doi.org/10.1177/23328584221074337
Marsen, S. (2020). Navigating crisis: The role of communication in organizational crises.
International Journal of Business Communication, 57, 163–175.
https://doi.org/10.1177/2329488419882981
Mayer, B. W., Moss, J., & Dale, K. (2008). Disaster and preparedness: Lessons from Hurricane
Rita. Journal of Contingencies and Crisis Management, 16(1), 14–23.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-5973.2008.00531.x
Mays, M. (2021, August 10). Newsom: California teachers must get vaccinated or tested weekly.
POLITICO. https://www.politico.com/states/california/story/2021/08/10/newsom-
california-teachers-must-get-vaccinated-or-tested-weekly-1389805
Merriam, S. B., & Tisdell, E. J. (2016). Qualitative research: A guide to design and
implementation (4th ed.). Jossey-Bass.
McLeod, S., & Dulsky, S. (2021). Resilience, reorientation, and reinvention: School leadership
during the early months of the COVID-19 pandemic. Frontiers in Education.
https://doi.org/10.3389/feduc.2021.637075
McLoughlin, G. M., McCarthy, J. A., McGuirt, J. T., Singleton, C. R., Dunn, C. G., & Gadhoke,
P. (2020). Addressing food insecurity through a health and equity lens: A case study of
large urban school districts during the COVID-19 pandemic. Journal of Urban Health,
97, 759–775. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11524-020-00476-0
Miles, M. B., Huberman, A. M., & Saldaña, J. (2014). Qualitative data analysis: A methods
sourcebook (3rd ed.). Sage.
140
Murata, S., Rezeppa, T., Thoma, B., Marengo, L., Krancevich, K., Chiyka, E., ... & Melhem, N.
M. (2021). The psychiatric sequelae of the COVID‐19 pandemic in adolescents, adults,
and health care workers. Depression and Anxiety, 38(2), 233–246.
National Conference for State Legislatures. (2021). COVID-19: Essential workers in the States.
https://www.ncsl.org/research/labor-and-employment/covid-19- essential- workers-in-
the-
states.aspx#:~:text=According%20to%20the%20U.,to%20defense%20to%20agriculture.
Netolicky, D. M. (2020). School leadership during a pandemic: Navigating tensions. Journal of
Professional Capital and Community, 5(3/4), 391–395.
Northouse, P. G. (2019). Leadership: Theory and practice. Sage.
Parmigiani, D., Benigno, V., Giusto, M., Silvaggio, C., & Sperandio, S. (2020). E-inclusion:
Online special education in Italy during the COVID-19 pandemic. Technology, Pedagogy
and Education, 30(1), 111–124. https://doi.org/10.1080/1475939X.2020.1856714
Pupil Instruction: In-Person Instruction: Distance Learning. CA AB-10 (2021).
https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=202120220AB10
Robinson, S., & Leonard, K. (2019). Designing quality survey questions. Sage.
Rubin, H. J., & Rubin, I. S. (2012). Qualitative interviewing: The art of hearing data (3rd ed.).
Sage.
Sawchuk, S. (2021, January 13). Should schools be giving so many failing grades this year?
Education Week. https://www.edweek.org/leadership/should-schools-be-giving-so-many-
failing-grades-this-year/2020/12
Seeger, M. W., Sellnow, T. L., & Ulmer, R. R. (1998). Communication, organization, and crisis.
Annals of the International Communication Association, 21(1), 231–276.
141
Shaw, G. (2020). Academic leadership in a time of crisis: The coronavirus and COVID‐19.
Journal of Leadership Studies, 14(1), 39–45. https://doi.org/10.1002/jls.21684
Shonk, K. (2020, May 26). Learning from feedback without losing your mind. Harvard Law
School. https://www.pon.harvard.edu/daily/conflict-resolution/learning-from-feedback-
without-losing-your-mind/
Sider, S. R. (2020). School principals and students with special education needs in a pandemic:
Emerging insights from Ontario, Canada. International Studies in Educational
Administration, 48(2), 78–84. http://cceam.net/wp-content/uploads/2020/08/ISEA-2020-
48-2.pdf
Singer, B. J., Thompson, R. N., & Bonsall, M. B. (2021). The effect of the definition of
‘pandemic’ on quantitative assessments of infectious disease outbreak risk. Scientific
Reports, 11, Article no. e2547. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-021-81814-3
Smith, L., & Riley, D. (2012). School leadership in times of crisis. School Leadership &
Management, 32(1), 57–71.
Smith, R. (2012). School leadership in times of crisis. School Leadership & Management, 32(1),
57–71. https://doi.org/10.1080/13632434.2011.614941
Stern, C. (2009). Closing the schools: Lessons from the 1918–19 U.S. influenza pandemic.
Health Affairs, 28(Sup. 1), 1066–1078. https://doi.org/10.1377/hlthaff.28.6.w1066
Tadayon, A. (2021, October 18). California districts anticipate major hits to their 2022–23
budgets as enrollments drop. EdSource. https://edsource.org/2021/districts-anticipate-
major-hits-to-their-2022-23-budgets-as-enrollments-drop/662448
142
The Education Trust. (2021). Parents overwhelmingly concerned their children are falling
behind during school closures. The Education Trust. https://edtrust.org/parents-
overwhelmingly-concerned-their-children-are-falling-behind-during-school-closures/
United States Department of Education. (2021, May). COVID-19 resources for schools, students,
and families. https://www.ed.gov/coronavirus/
United States Department of Labor. (2021). Personal protective equipment.
https://www.osha.gov/personal-protective-equipment.
Vargo, J., & Seville, E. (2011). Crisis strategic planning for SMEs: Finding the silver lining.
International Journal of Production Research, 49(18), 5619–5635.
Walters, A. (2020). Inequities in access to education: Lessons from the COVID-19 pandemic.
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10/1002/cbl/30483
Warrior, Lakshmi, MD, MPH, Kim, Christine, Burdick, Daniel, Ackerman, Daniel, Bartolini,
Luca, et al. (2020). Leading with inclusion during the COVID-19 pandemic: Stronger
together. Neurology, 95, 537–542. https://doi.org/10.1212/WNL.0000000000010641
Watson, K. R., Capp, G., Astor, R. A., Kelly, M. S., & Benbenishty, R. (2022). We need to
address the trauma: School social workers’ views about student and staff mental health
during COVID-19. School Mental Health, 1–16.
Westover, J. (2020). Districts on the move: Leading a coherent system of continuous
improvement. Corwin.
Westover, J. H. (2010). Managing organizational change: Change agent strategies and techniques
to successfully managing the dynamics of stability and change in organizations.
International Journal of Management and Innovation, 2(1), 45–51.
Wong, A. U. T. (2020, December 23). Scores of students are getting F’s: What’s the point of
143
failing them during COVID-19? USA Today.
https://eu.usatoday.com/story/news/education/2020/12/23/students-failing-grades-online-
class-coronavirus/3967886001/
World Health Organization. (2021a). World Health Organization coronavirus dashboard.
https://covid19.who.int
World Health Organization. (2021b). Who we are. www.who.int/about/who-we-are.
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
144
Appendix A: 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. Collecting data from highly effective leaders such as yourself
would be greatly appreciated and is essential for the success of this study.
The ultimate purpose of the study is to analyze the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on
K–12 school districts. We aim to understand what district and site administrators have learned
from their experiences and their decision-making responsibilities in managing the crisis.
This research study has been reviewed and approved by the University of Southern
California Institutional Review Board for Human Subjects Research (IRB). The IRB believes
that the research procedures safeguard your privacy, welfare, civil liberties, anonymity, and
rights. Please be assured that your participation and answers will be kept confidential and
anonymous. The results will be analyzed solely for this dissertation and no identifying
information will be used.
Please click on this [survey link] to participate. If you have any questions, please feel free
to contact me at -----------@----. Thank you very much for your time and assistance.
Sincerely,
[researcher’s name]
Doctoral Candidate
Rossier School of Education
University of Southern California
145
Appendix B: Principal Survey
Introduction
Thank you for participating in this research project. The goal is to understand how the
COVID-19 pandemic affected K–12 school districts, and in doing so, transformed the role of
district and school site leaders into crisis managers. You were chosen to participate in this survey
because you demonstrated leadership as a principal during the COVID-19 crisis.
Your participation in this study is entirely voluntary. Your identity, position, and any
identifying information about your school will be anonymized to secure confidentiality. Thank
you again for your participation. We also invite you to take part in a virtual 35-minute interview
to be scheduled at your convenience after the survey.
Survey Items
Survey items Response choices
1. How many years have you served as a principal? Open Ended
(Demographic)
• Less than 1 year
• 1 to 2 years
• 3 to 5 years
• 6 to 10 years
• Over 10 years
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
146
Survey items Response choices
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
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
147
Survey items Response choices
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
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
148
Survey items Response choices
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
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
149
Survey items Response choices
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
150
Appendix C: Assistant Superintendent Survey
Introduction
Thank you for participating in this research project. The goal is to understand how the
COVID-19 pandemic affected K–12 school districts, and in doing so, transformed the role of
district and school site leaders into crisis managers. You were chosen to participate in this survey
because you demonstrated leadership as an assistant superintendent during the COVID-19 crisis.
Your participation in this study is entirely voluntary. Your identity, position, and any
identifying information about your district will be anonymized to secure confidentiality. Thank
you again for your participation. We also invite you to take part in a virtual 35-minute interview
to be scheduled at your convenience after the survey.
Survey Items
Survey items Response choice
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
151
Survey items Response choice
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
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
152
Survey items Response choice
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
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
153
Survey items Response choice
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
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
154
Survey items Response choice
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
155
Appendix D: Superintendent Survey
Introduction
Thank you for participating in this research project. The goal is to understand how the
COVID-19 pandemic affected K–12 school districts, and in doing so, transformed the role of
district and school site leaders into crisis managers. You were chosen to participate in this survey
because you demonstrated leadership as a superintendent during the COVID-19 crisis.
Your participation in this study is entirely voluntary. Your identity, position, and any
identifying information about your district will be anonymized to secure confidentiality. Thank
you again for your participation. We also invite you to take part in a virtual 35 minute interview
to be scheduled at your convenience after the survey.
Survey Items
Survey items Response choices
1. How many years have you served as a superintendent? Open Ended
(Demographic)
• Less than 1 year
• 1 to 2 years
• 3 to 5 years
• 6 to 10 years
• Over 10 years
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
156
Survey items Response choices
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
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
157
Survey items Response choices
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
RQ4 community concerns
158
Survey items Response choices
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
159
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
160
Survey items Response choices
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]
161
Appendix E: Principal Interview Protocol
Interviewer: _____________________________________ Date: _________________________
Interviewee: _____________________________________ Location: _____________________
Job Title: _______________________________________ Contact Information: ____________
Length of Time in Your Position: __________________________________________________
Introduction
[Introduce yourself and your affiliation.]
During this conversation, we hope to learn more about the COVID-19 pandemic and your
experience as a principal during this time. The ultimate goal of this study is to better understand
leadership during a crisis.
Your comments will remain confidential. We would like to record this interview to ensure the
accuracy of our conversation. The recording will be used only by our research team to review
responses and to provide an opportunity to code themes between the various respondents. The
information recorded will remain secure and anonymous. Do we have your consent to record?
This interview will last approximately 35 minutes. Do you have any questions before we begin?
RQ1. 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?
RQ2. 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?
162
5. In what ways did your school collaborate with federal, state, and local government
agencies and community organizations to support your school during COVID?
6. PQ- What agencies or organizations?
7. To what degree, if any, did the various agencies align COVID-19 guidance for your
school?
8. What strategies have been effective for your school in implementing health
guidelines/policies?
9. Who at your school was primarily in charge of interpreting and implementing the
health guidelines/policies?
RQ3. How, if at all, have union negotiations played a role in K-12 district’s response to the
COVID-19 Pandemic?
10. What were the most important issues negotiated with your teachers union and how
were they resolved?
11. What were the most important issues negotiated with your classified union and how
were they resolved?
12. In what ways, if any, were instructional programs influenced by union negotiations at
your school?
13. In what ways, if any, were safety protocols influenced by union negotiations at your
school?
RQ4. 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?
14. In what ways did your school gather input from and communicate to the community?
15. What were the biggest concerns from your school’s community and how were they
addressed?
16. PQ - were there any safety concerns?
17. PQ - were there any nutrition concerns?
18. PQ - were there any academic concerns?
19. PQ - were there any technology concerns?
20. 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.
163
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?
RQ1. 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?
RQ2. 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?
164
6. PQ- What agencies or organizations?
7. To what degree, if any, did the various agencies align COVID-19 guidance for your
school?
8. What strategies have been effective for your school in implementing health
guidelines/policies?
9. Who at your school was primarily in charge of interpreting and implementing the
health guidelines/policies?
RQ3. How, if at all, have union negotiations played a role in K-12 district’s response to the
COVID-19 Pandemic?
10. What were the most important issues negotiated with your teachers union and how
were they resolved?
11. What were the most important issues negotiated with your classified union and how
were they resolved?
12. In what ways, if any, were instructional programs influenced by union negotiations at
your school?
13. In what ways, if any, were safety protocols influenced by union negotiations at your
school?
RQ4. 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?
14. In what ways did your school gather input from and communicate to the community?
15. What were the biggest concerns from your school’s community and how were they
addressed?
16. PQ - Were there any safety concerns?
17. PQ - Were there any nutrition concerns?
18. PQ - Were there any academic concerns?
19. PQ - Were there any technology concerns?
20. 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.
165
Appendix G: Superintendent Interview Protocol
Interviewer: _____________________________________ Date: _________________________
Interviewee: _____________________________________ Location: _____________________
Job Title: _______________________________________ Contact Information: ____________
Length of Time in Your Position: __________________________________________________
Introduction
[Introduce yourself and your affiliation.]
During this conversation, we hope to learn more about the COVID-19 pandemic and your
experience as a superintendent during this time. The ultimate goal of this study is to better
understand leadership during a crisis.
Your comments will remain confidential. We would like to record this interview to ensure the
accuracy of our conversation. The recording will be used only by our research team to review
responses and to provide an opportunity to code themes between the various respondents. The
information recorded will remain secure and anonymous. Do we have your consent to record?
This interview will last approximately 35 minutes. Do you have any questions before we begin?
RQ1. 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?
RQ2. 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?
166
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?
6. PQ - What agencies or organizations?
7. To what degree, if any, did the various agencies align COVID-19 guidance for schools?
8. What strategies have been effective for your district in implementing health
guidelines/policies?
9. Who in your district was primarily in charge of interpreting and implementing the health
guidelines/policies?
RQ3. How, if at all, have union negotiations played a role in K–12 district’s response to the
COVID-19 Pandemic?
10. What were the most important issues negotiated with your teachers union and how were
they resolved?
11. What were the most important issues negotiated with your classified union and how were
they resolved?
12. In what ways, if any, were instructional programs influenced by union negotiations in
your district?
13. 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?
14. In what ways did your district gather input from and communicate to the community?
15. What were the biggest concerns from your district’s community and how were they
addressed?
16. PQ - Were there any safety concerns?
17. PQ - Were there any nutrition concerns?
18. PQ - Were there any academic concerns?
19. PQ - Were there any technology concerns?
20. 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.
167
Appendix H: Question Alignment Matrix
Instrument RQ1 RQ2 RQ3 RQ4
What, if any, are
the financial
implications
that the
COVID-19
pandemic has
had on K–12
public school
districts in
Southern
California and
how have
district
superintendent
s, assistant
superintendent
s and
principals
addressed
these
implications?
What, if any, has
been the impact
of federal,
state, and local
health agencies
on K–12 public
school districts
in Southern
California, and
what strategies
have district
superintendents
, assistant
superintendents
, and principals
followed to
address the
suggested
guidelines?
How, if at all,
have union
negotiation
s played a
role in K–
12
Southern
California
public
school
districts'
response to
the
COVID-19
pandemic?
How, if at all, have
K–12 Southern
California public
school districts
leadership teams
comprised of
superintendents,
assistant
superintendents,
and principals
addressed the
concerns of the
parent community
regarding safety,
nutrition, distance
learning, lack of
technology,
academic
standing, and how
and when to re-
open schools due
to the COVID-19
pandemic?
Principal survey 3–7 8–10 11–13 14–20
Principal
interview
protocol
1–4 5–8 9–12 13–14
Assistant
superintendent
survey
3–7 8–10 11–13 14–20
Assistant
superintendent
protocol
1–4 5–8 9–12 13–14
Superintendent
survey
3–7 8–10 11–13 14–20
168
Superintendent
interview
protocol
1-4 5-8 9-12 13-14
Abstract (if available)
Abstract
The purpose of this study was to analyze the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on Southern California K–12 school districts and understand what district and site administrators have learned from their experiences and their decision-making responsibilities in managing the crisis. This study has brought to light the impact of the pandemic on students, families, leaders, schools, and districts. Most importantly, this study examined how district and school leaders influenced administrative practices, student achievement, fiscal responsibility, union leadership, and community/parent support as they responded to the COVID-19 crisis. The study implemented a mixed methods approach to establish triangulation. This study utilized surveys and semi-structured interviews to gather data from nine school superintendents, nine assistant superintendents, and nine principals from nine public school districts. The study highlights unique leadership roles administrators, superintendents, and principals assumed and the qualities they enacted. Findings from this study have demonstrated how the COVID-19 pandemic has impacted all facets of schooling and how Southern California K–12 public school superintendents, assistant superintendents, and principals transitioned into “crisis managers” and relied on relationship-building, clear communication, grounded decision making, and focused goal setting. As the pandemic continues to disrupt schooling at the time of this study, there are several considerations and areas for future study: the impact of the crisis on students, staff, and school leaders’ well-being and education, the unknown regarding the current state of the virus and pandemic, current school crisis plans and administrative preparedness programs.
Linked assets
University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses
Conceptually similar
PDF
The impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on K-12 public school districts in southern California: responses of superintendents, assistant superintendents, and principals
PDF
The impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on K–12 public school districts in southern California: responses of superintendents, assistant superintendents, and principals
PDF
The impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on K–12 public school districts in southern California: responses of superintendents, assistant superintendents, and principals
PDF
The impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on K–12 public school districts in southern California: responses of superintendents, assistant superintendents, and principals
PDF
The impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on K–12 public school districts in southern California: responses of superintendents, assistant superintendents, and principals
PDF
The impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on K–12 public school districts in southern California: responses of superintendents, assistant superintendents, and principals
PDF
The impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on K-12 public school districts in southern California: responses of superintendents, assistant superintendents, and principals
PDF
The impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on K-12 public school districts in southern California: responses of superintendents, assistant superintendents, and principals
PDF
The impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on K–12 public school districts in southern California: responses of superintendents, assistant superintendents, and principals
PDF
The impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on K-12 public school districts in southern California: responses of superintendents, assistant superintendents, and principals
PDF
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
Asset Metadata
Creator
Bruce, Kristan
(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 (On Line)
Degree Conferral Date
2022-05
Publication Date
05/03/2022
Defense Date
04/07/2022
Publisher
University of Southern California
(original),
University of Southern California. Libraries
(digital)
Tag
academic concerns,agencies,assistant superintendent,CARES Act,COVID-19 guidance,COVID-19 pandemic,Crisis,district responses to COVID-19,ESSR funding,fiscal impact,health,K–12 school districts,leadership,learning loss,mixed methods,Nutrition,OAI-PMH Harvest,pandemic,Principal,Safety,school administration,social-emotional,spending flexibility,superintendent,Technology,unions
Format
application/pdf
(imt)
Language
English
Contributor
Electronically uploaded by the author
(provenance)
Advisor
Castruita, Rudy (
committee chair
), Franklin, Greg (
committee member
), Roach, John (
committee member
)
Creator Email
kristan.lee.bruce@gmail.com,kristanb@usc.edu
Permanent Link (DOI)
https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-oUC111208390
Unique identifier
UC111208390
Document Type
Dissertation
Format
application/pdf (imt)
Rights
Bruce, Kristan
Type
texts
Source
20220503-usctheses-batch-937
(batch),
University of Southern California
(contributing entity),
University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses
(collection)
Access Conditions
The author retains rights to his/her dissertation, thesis or other graduate work according to U.S. copyright law. Electronic access is being provided by the USC Libraries in agreement with the author, as the original true and official version of the work, but does not grant the reader permission to use the work if the desired use is covered by copyright. It is the author, as rights holder, who must provide use permission if such use is covered by copyright. The original signature page accompanying the original submission of the work to the USC Libraries is retained by the USC Libraries and a copy of it may be obtained by authorized requesters contacting the repository e-mail address given.
Repository Name
University of Southern California Digital Library
Repository Location
USC Digital Library, University of Southern California, University Park Campus MC 2810, 3434 South Grand Avenue, 2nd Floor, Los Angeles, California 90089-2810, USA
Repository Email
cisadmin@lib.usc.edu
Tags
academic concerns
agencies
assistant superintendent
CARES Act
COVID-19 guidance
COVID-19 pandemic
district responses to COVID-19
ESSR funding
fiscal impact
K–12 school districts
learning loss
mixed methods
pandemic
social-emotional
spending flexibility
unions