University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

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

(USC Thesis Other)

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

PDF

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content

The Impact of the COVID-19 Pandemic on K–12 Public School Districts in Southern
California: Responses of Superintendents, Assistant Superintendents, and Principals
by
Diana Hernández Aguilar

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 Diana Hernández Aguilar 2022
All Rights Reserved

The Committee for Diana Hernández Aguilar certifies the approval of this Dissertation

David Cash
Paul Gothold
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 K–12 public
school districts in Southern California and understand what district and site administrators,
specifically superintendents, assistant superintendents or cabinet level district administrators, and
principals have learned from their experiences and their decision-making responsibilities in
managing the crisis. This study brings to light the impact of the pandemic on students, families,
leaders, schools, and districts. Most importantly, this study examines how district and school
leadership influences administrative practices, student achievement, financial responsibility,
union leadership, and community/parent support as they responded to the COVID-19 crisis. This
study implemented a mixed-methods approach to establish triangulation for more accurate
findings and make the research study more holistic. This study utilized surveys and semi-
structured interviews to gather data from 12 school superintendents, 12 assistant superintendents
or cabinet level district administrators, and 12 principals from 12 public school districts. The
study’s findings indicated that inter- and intra-agency collaborations, ongoing communication,
positive relations with labor unions, mental health supports, social emotional well-being, and
new ways of using technology will support learning through pandemics or school crises. Finally,
this study recommends that school administrators apply the crisis management model to prepare,
prevent, respond, manage, recover and learn from crisis events, in particular the COVID-19
pandemic and their impact on student learning, mental health, and social emotional development.
School administrators must also explore the differences between county-level health agency
guidelines and how they influenced planning and implementation for school districts during
times of crisis.
v
Keywords: COVID-19 pandemic, crisis leadership, K–12 school districts, mixed
methods, superintendent, assistant superintendent, principal, district responses to COVID-19,
pandemic, learning loss, financial impact, unions, fiscal impact, COVID-19 guidance, health and
safety, social emotional, technology, nutrition, academic concerns, spending flexibility, agencies,
CARES Act, ESSR funding

vi
Dedication
To the loves of my life: my father and first love, Cristino; my beloved mother, Maria; my
amazing husband and partner, Frank and my four very energetic and loving children, Cristian,
Aidan, Nadia, and Katarina who are my world.

To my amazing and loving parents who sacrificed so much by leaving your home and careers in
Mexico to open up the world for your daughters. To my father, Daddy, Lic. Cristino Hernández
Olivares, without whose support and care I would be nowhere. Thank you for all that you do for
us and the kids, your love and support will never be forgotten. You have always been my number
one advocate and supporter, allowing me to pursue my professional goals while you have
selflessly devoted your retirement years to care and help raise my children who absolutely love
and adore their Papá. I am grateful to my mother, Lic. Maria Aguilar Mora, who paved the way
for a daughter to leave her home and family in pursuit of her education. I have learned so much
from you about the balance of a professional and personal life, and the many struggles of a
working mom. Thank you for being the best Mamá to my children.

To my sisters: Maria (Lupe), Tina, Alex, and Cristina, thank you for unconditional love and
support and for always having my back. Lupe and Tina, your own educational and professional
accomplishments have inspired and pushed me to work hard and dream big. Alex, thank you for
being a supportive big sister who allowed me to practice my motherly skills with your amazing
boy, my godson and munchkin David who has been an incredible big cousin. Cristina, or as the
kids calls you Yaya, thank you for making me a big sister, and always being there for me when I
needed your support. And my honorary big sister Sue, who has supported me in my professional

vii
and educational endeavors, thank you for always being available to proofread and edit my work,
and for encouraging me, along with Lupe, to join the Trojan family. Fight On!

To my gorgeous husband, Frank, who is the best partner a girl could have. I am so fortunate to
have found you and fallen in love with you at the age of 19, because we have grown and matured
together. You have always supported my professional and educational aspirations and have done
anything and everything to help me realize them. From editing my papers to watching the kids so
I could study and write all while working hard yourself to earn a partnership at KPMG. Thank
for you for the amazing life we have built together that is full of craziness, laughter and overall
unconditional love and joy. We did good, Wimer! Thank you to Frank Jr. and Lourdes Wimer
for giving me the love of my life and eternal partner, Frank.

To my beloved children: Cristian, Aidan, Nadia, and Katarina (Dee Dee), you are my heart, and
everything I do is to make you proud. Cristian, you made me a mom, thank you for being a great
son and big brother, and I am so proud of the young man you are becoming. Aidan, you are such
a creative, talented, and motivated boy who loves unconditionally, thank you for always striving
to be your very best. Nadia, my first girl, you are such a sweet and caring young girl, always
keep smiling and cartwheeling through life. Katarina, my last baby, you completed our family
and bring us so much joy and laughter with your spunky personality, I know no one will ever
walk over you, as you are the youngest of four and you know how to take care of yourself. To all
my babies, Cristian, Aidan, Nadia, and Katarina, you are all my greatest gifts and
accomplishments. I love being your mom, and I hope I have taught you that hard work and

viii
perseverance pays off. You can be and accomplish anything you want and put your mind to.
Don’t ever forget, Mommy loves you today, tomorrow, and forever!

Finally, I would like to acknowledge my grandfather Papi Lalo, Gerardo Aguilar, who always
instilled in us the value of education and encouraged us to achieve what he couldn’t. He used to
say he was a general who earned a star for each degree his kids and grandkids got, and his
lifelong goal was to be a five-star general. Papi, I have made you a five-star general all on my
own! I know you are smiling down on me from heaven with pride and joy.

ix
Acknowledgements
Thank you to the University of Southern California (USC) Rossier School of Education
for allowing me to fulfil a lifelong dream of my earning my doctorate. I have learned and grown
so much these past three years as a student advocate and school leader. There are many people
without whom I would not have been able to accomplish this great feat.
First and foremost, I would also like to thank my Committee Chair, Dr. Rudy Castruita,
who has guided me through my entire doctoral program and without whose guidance and
mentorship I don’t know if I would have made it. He was my first Rossier professor in EDUE
701: Foundations in Leadership, whose passion for leadership and the Trojan Family made for a
great first semester. It was so great to have my first professor share my cultural background, look
and speak my native language. In addition, I would like to acknowledge my committee co-chairs,
Dr. David Cash and Dr. Paul Gothold. Dr. Cash served as my EDUE 704: Leadership Enactment
professor, and officially ushered us into our first full semester online in the summer of 2020. Dr.
Gothold, who was my principal (while getting his doctorate at USC) when I was a novice teacher
at the Los Angeles County High School for the Arts, saw leadership qualities in me that I was
not ready to see in myself, and it was he who encouraged, fostered, and supported these skills in
the three years we worked together. Who knew that him “voluntelling” me to serve as the Shared
Decision-Making Committee Chair would have changed the trajectory of my career and life?
Thank you to Dr. Michael Escalante, who began the dissertation journey with us and worked
alongside Dr. Castruita to introduce us to the group dissertation. I truly appreciated your support,
guidance and memorable comparison of tackling the dissertation as if we were eating an elephant
“one bite at a time.” Working on the dissertation process with Dr. Escalante and Dr. Castruita
was like being with my tíos.

x
Thank you to fellow Trojan, Dr. Benjamin Wolf, my last principal and mentor who
taught me how to be a school leader and who afforded me the flexibility and support to join the
Trojan family while working as his assistant principal at Glendale High School. I would have
never heard the end of it had I applied to or gone anywhere else. Additionally, I would like to
thank Sona Aivazi, for her support and last-minute editing assistance.
I would like to thank the district leadership team at the Glendale Unified School District,
led by fellow Trojan, Dr. Vivian Ekchian, for their continued support throughout this journey,
and for giving me the opportunity to put all that I have learned throughout my USC studies into
practice as the Principal of Cerritos Elementary, Computer Science Immersion Magnet.
A million thanks to my amazing USC cohort family, starting with my original Tuesday
night in-person cohort, who supported, guided, encouraged, and helped me through my first year
which took a turn in the March of 2020, and my K–12 Dissertation Cohort, with whom I
developed an amazing working relationship with despite it being virtual. Who would’ve thought
we would have forged such a bond with one another during a global pandemic? I guess it is no
surprise that this group of K–12 educators chose to work on a group dissertation about
educational leadership during a pandemic. Finally, I would like to thank my amazing dissertation
group: John M. Lopez, Carlos A. Montes and Jorge Rodriguez. There is not another group of
educators that I would have wanted to have embarked on this journey with. Thank you for your
amazing mix of professionalism and fun. I know I have made lifelong friends with the three of
you. Go Team HLMR. Fight On!

xi
Preface
Some of the chapters for 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 objective of developing highly skilled practitioners equipped
to take on real-world challenges, the USC Graduate School and the USC Rossier School of
Education have permitted our inquiry team to carry out this shared venue.
This dissertation is part of a collaborative project between four doctoral candidates:
Diana Hernández Aguilar, John M. Lopez, Carlos A. Montes, and Jorge Rodriguez. We,
four doctoral students, met with superintendents, assistant superintendents, and principals with
the aim of identifying the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on Southern California public K–
12 school leaders. 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
four dissertations produced by our inquiry team collectively examined the impact of the COVID-
19 pandemic on Southern California K–12 public school superintendents, assistant
superintendents, and principals.

xii
Table of Contents
Abstract .......................................................................................................................................... iv
Dedication ...................................................................................................................................... vi
Acknowledgements ........................................................................................................................ ix
Preface............................................................................................................................................ xi
List of Tables ................................................................................................................................ xv
List of Figures .............................................................................................................................. xvi
Chapter One: Overview of Study .................................................................................................... 1
Statement of the Problem .................................................................................................... 2
Purpose of the Study ........................................................................................................... 2
Research Questions ............................................................................................................. 2
Significance of the Study .................................................................................................... 3
Limitation and Delimitations .............................................................................................. 4
Definition of Terms............................................................................................................. 4
Organization of the Study ................................................................................................. 10
Chapter Two: Review of Literature .............................................................................................. 11
Historical Examples of Pandemic Crises .......................................................................... 12
School Closures ................................................................................................................ 13
Educational Disparities and Inequalities ........................................................................... 14
History of School Leadership ........................................................................................... 15
Leadership Frameworks .................................................................................................... 18
Leadership in Crisis Situations ......................................................................................... 20
Negotiations with Certificated and Classified Unions ...................................................... 29
Summary ........................................................................................................................... 37
Chapter Three: Methodology ........................................................................................................ 38

xiii
Overview of the Study ...................................................................................................... 38
Statement of the Problem .................................................................................................. 39
Purpose of the Study ......................................................................................................... 39
Research Questions ........................................................................................................... 39
Research Team .................................................................................................................. 40
Research Design................................................................................................................ 41
Sample and Population ..................................................................................................... 44
District Demographic Data ............................................................................................... 47
Conceptual Framework ..................................................................................................... 50
Instrumentation ................................................................................................................. 52
Data Collection ................................................................................................................. 54
Data Analysis .................................................................................................................... 55
Ethical Considerations ...................................................................................................... 56
Summary ........................................................................................................................... 57
Chapter Four: Findings ................................................................................................................. 59
Research Questions ........................................................................................................... 60
Participants ........................................................................................................................ 60
Demographic Data ............................................................................................................ 61
Coding of Data .................................................................................................................. 65
Results for Research Question 1 ....................................................................................... 66
Results for Research Question 2 ....................................................................................... 81
Results for Research Question 3 ....................................................................................... 91
Results for Research Question 4 ..................................................................................... 102
Summary ......................................................................................................................... 115
Chapter Five: Discussion ............................................................................................................ 118

xiv
Statement of Problem ...................................................................................................... 119
Purpose of the Study ....................................................................................................... 119
Research Questions ......................................................................................................... 120
Methodology ................................................................................................................... 121
Findings........................................................................................................................... 121
Comparative Analysis and Common Themes................................................................. 135
Implications of Study ...................................................................................................... 138
Recommendations for Future Research .......................................................................... 142
Conclusion ...................................................................................................................... 143
References ................................................................................................................................... 144
Appendix A: Superintendent Survey .......................................................................................... 160
Appendix B: Assistant Superintendent Survey ........................................................................... 165
Appendix C: Principal Survey .................................................................................................... 170
Appendix D: Letter to Superintendents ...................................................................................... 175
Appendix E: Superintendent Interview Protocol ........................................................................ 176
Appendix F: Assistant Superintendent Interview Protocol ......................................................... 178
Appendix G: Principal Interview Protocol ................................................................................. 180
Appendix H: Alignment of the Survey Protocol to the Research Questions and
Conceptual Framework ............................................................................................................... 182

xv
List of Tables
Table 1: Participant Selection Criteria 47
Table 2: Quantitative Survey: Superintendent Demographic Information 62
Table 3: Quantitative Survey: Assistant Superintendent Demographic Information 63
Table 4: Quantitative Survey: Principal Demographic Information 63
Table 5: School District Demographic Information 65
Table 6: Quantitative Survey: District and Site Leaders’ Perceptions of Financial Implications
of COVID-19 68
Table 7: Quantitative Survey: District and Site Leaders’ Perceptions of the Impact of Health
and Safety Guidelines 83
Table 8: Quantitative Survey: District and Site Leaders’ Perceptions of the Impact of Union
Negotiations 93
Table 9: Quantitative Survey: District and Site Leaders’ Perceptions of Parent Concerns 104
Table A1: Survey Items 160
Table B1: Survey Items 165
Table C1: Survey Items 170

xvi
List of Figures
Figure 1: Conceptual Framework for K–12 Leadership as Crisis Management 52

1

Chapter One: Overview of Study
The COVID-19 pandemic has been both rapidly evolving and lingering. This is unusual
for the types of crises schools more typically face, which tend to be either immediate, like an
active shooter, or persistent, like underachievement (Gainey, 2009). The pandemic prompted
schools to close on very short notice under “hold harmless” guidelines from state agencies
overseeing education, with the exception of school closures lasting several weeks (Fensterwald,
2020a). However, the school closures caused by COVID-19, whether full or partial, have
continued to impact school districts for over a year. As the pandemic lasted, the issues facing
school leaders and their school communities became more complex (Mayer et al., 2008).
Federal and state governments assisted school districts financially to help address the
challenges of distance learning and safety. Governmental agencies also provided rules, guidance,
and protocols to help schools operate in these new circumstances. While these were sometimes
very helpful, they could also be contradictory and difficult to enforce causing problems for
school districts. As rules and regulations evolved, so did the roles and expectations of district
employees. Unions renegotiated basic aspects of working conditions during this time to keep
members safe and to express how the pandemic impacted their work. Parents were also heavily
impacted by the pandemic as students stayed home to learn. Parents rely on schools not just for
education but also for childcare, food, and social, emotional, and medical care for their children.
All of these stakeholder concerns drastically changed the role of school leadership, both at the
district and site level. As a result, school leaders became crisis managers, seeing their
organizations through the tumultuous COVID-19 pandemic in the 2019–2020 and 2020–2021
school years.
2

Statement of the Problem
The COVID-19 pandemic presented a disruption in K–12 public school districts in
Southern California, causing unforeseen consequences within the education system and
highlighting financial disparities, adding additional negotiations with unions, and impacting
students and community. COVID-19 shifted the roles and scope of schools and school leaders
beyond instructional leaders and transformed them into crisis managers.
Purpose of the Study
The purpose of this study is to analyze the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on K–12
public school districts in Southern California and to understand what district and site
administrators, specifically superintendents, assistant superintendents, and principals, have
learned from their experiences and their decision-making responsibilities in managing the crisis.
This study brings to light the impact of the pandemic on students, families, leaders, schools, and
districts. Most importantly, this study examines how district and school leadership influences
administrative practices, student achievement, financial responsibility, union relations, 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, have been the impact of federal, state and local health agencies on K–12
public school districts in Southern California, and what strategies have district
3

superintendents, assistant superintendents, and principals followed to address the
suggested guidelines?
3. How, if at all, have union negotiations played a role in K–12 Southern California
public school districts’ response to the COVID-19 pandemic?
4. How, if at all, have K–12 Southern California public school districts leadership
teams, comprised of superintendents, assistant superintendents, and principals,
addressed the concerns of the parent community regarding safety, nutrition, distance
learning, lack of technology, academic standing, and how and when to reopen schools
due to the COVID-19 pandemic?
Significance of the Study
This study is significant as it will add to the body of knowledge about the evolving roles
and responses of Southern California 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 historical event forced educational leaders to make changes in a strategic way to
support students and families. Educational leadership was on display in California from the
Governor’s office to K–12 school educators and classified staff members who prioritized student
safety with the unknown impact on academic excellence. Difficult decisions had to be made to
support a myriad of student needs. By analyzing the effective practices and shortcomings of this
crisis from the leaders on the frontlines—superintendents, assistant superintendents, and
principals—we hope to gain insight about preparation and implementation as future crises occur
in education. If a pandemic ever arises again, this study will support how the crises would be
addressed by school leaders, educators, boards of education, and community stakeholders
4

through the systems that are meant to reimagine and revolutionize a new educational landscape
and are committed to building a culture of equity in order to repay the educational debt.
Limitation and Delimitations
There are some boundaries of the study beyond the control of the research team that may
affect internal validity. Limitations to this study include: the ongoing disruptions caused by the
COVID-19 pandemic on public education; the participants are only from Southern California
public schools; self-reporting surveys are included; interview questions may contain researcher
bias; interviews 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 large
urban public-school districts in Southern California who were willing to participate in the study.
Definition of Terms
The following is a list of key terms and definitions used throughout this research study:
Assembly and Senate Bill 86 is the bill that provides $2 billion as an incentive for schools
that have not already done so to offer in-person instruction beginning April 1, 2021, starting with
the earliest grades. The legislation also allocates $4.6 billion for all school districts regardless of
whether they meet the timetable Gov. Gavin Newsom called for in his “Safe Schools for All“
plan (Jones & Freedberg, 2021).
Assembly and Senate Bill 129 is a landmark state budget agreement that adds a year of
school for all 4-year-olds, significantly expands Cal Grants and middle-class scholarships for
5

college students and provides record funding for pre-K–12 schools anxious to use billions in one-
time money to bounce back from a 15-month pandemic (Fensterwald et al., 2021).
Asynchronous learning occurs without direct, simultaneous interaction of participants
such as videos featuring direct instruction of new content students watch on their own time
(California Department of Education [CDE], 2020b).
California Department of Education (CDE) refers to the Governmental body that
oversees the state’s diverse public-school system, which is responsible for the education of more
than six million children and young adults in more than 10,000 schools with 300,000 teachers.
Specifically, the CDE is in charge of enforcing education law and regulations and continuing to
reform and improve public school programs (CDE, 2020a).
California Department of Public Health (CDPH) refers to a public agency that focuses
on infectious disease control and prevention, food safety, environmental health, laboratory
services, patient safety, emergency preparedness, chronic disease prevention and health
promotion, family health, health equity, and vital records and statistics (CDPH, 2021).
California School Employees Association (CSEA) is the largest classified school
employee union in the United States, representing more than 250,000 school support staff
throughout California. CSEA members perform a wide range of essential work in California
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).
CARES Act refers to the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act (CARES
Act) was passed by Congress on March 27th, 2020. This bill allotted $2.2 trillion to provide fast
and direct economic aid to the American people negatively impacted by the COVID-19
6

pandemic. Of that money, approximately $14 billion was given to the Office of Postsecondary
Education as the Higher Education Emergency Relief Fund (CSEA, 2021).
Center for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) is the U.S. health agency that
“conducts critical science and provides health information” and responds to health crises (CDC,
2021).
Cohort “refers to a group of individuals who have something in common” such as same
grade level, or specific student groups such as English learners (Glossary of Educational Reform,
2021).
Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA) is the primary activity of a union is to represent
its members in negotiating the terms of employment contracts, an endeavor called “collective
bargaining.” Under the Rodda Act, passed in 1975, the school board and the union must review
the terms of the existing agreement at least once every 3 years. The result of this negotiation
determines the salaries and benefits, hours, calendar, and most aspects of working conditions.
Negotiators can also discuss problems and address new issues that have arisen during the period
of the contract. This can be especially significant when the legislature and governor have passed
new laws—for example, about COVID-19 safety measures, school finance or teacher training
and evaluation. A district can implement these laws only after the impact has been collectively
bargained (EdData, 2021).
COVID-19 refers to the novel strain of coronaviruses that shares 79% genetic similarity
with SARS-CoV from the 2003 SARS outbreak, declared in March 2020 by the World Health
Organization (WHO) as a global pandemic (WHO, 2021b; Xiong et al., 2020).
7

Distance learning is 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, 2020a).
Elementary and Secondary School Emergency Relief (ESSER) established in the
Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security (CARES) Act, and further funded under the
Coronavirus Response and Relief Supplemental Appropriations (CRRSA) Act and the American
Rescue Plan (ARP) Act, awards via the U.S. Department of Education emergency relief funds to
address the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on elementary and secondary schools across the
U.S. (U.S. Department of Education, 2021).
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) refers to 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 Team, 2019).
Hybrid (blended) learning is a combination of in-person and distance learning (CDE,
2020b).
In-person refers to students that are receiving in-person instruction for at least part of the
instructional day for the full instructional 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” (Glossary of Educational Reform, 2021).
8

Pandemic refers to the International Epidemiology Association’s Dictionary of
Epidemiology defines a pandemic as “an epidemic occurring worldwide, or over a very wide
area, crossing international boundaries and usually affecting a large number of people” (Singer,
et al., 2021).
Personal protective equipment (PPE) is commonly referred to as “PPE,” is equipment
worn to minimize exposure to hazards that cause serious workplace injuries and illnesses. These
injuries and illnesses may result from contact with chemical, radiological, physical, electrical,
mechanical, or other workplace hazards. Personal protective equipment may include items such
as gloves, safety glasses and shoes, earplugs or muffs, hard hats, respirators, or coveralls, vests
and full body suits (United States Department of Labor, 2021).
Social Emotional Learning (SEL) reflects the critical role of positive relationships and
emotional connections in the learning process and helps students develop a range of skills they
need for school and life (CDE, 2020b).
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
9

“stake” in the school and its students, meaning that they have personal, professional, civic, or
financial interest or concern (Glossary of Educational Reform, 2021).
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, 2020b).
Williams Compliance Act refers to the 2000 Williams v. State of California (Williams)
case was a class action suit against the state of California and state education agencies. The
plaintiffs included nearly 100 San Francisco County students who claimed that these agencies
failed to provide public school students with equal access to instructional materials, safe and
decent school facilities, and qualified teachers. The case was settled in 2004, resulting in the state
allocating $138 million in additional funding for standards-aligned instructional materials for
schools and another $50 million for implementation costs. Now known as the Williams
Compliance Act, the settlement was implemented through legislation adopted in August 2004:
Senate Bill (SB) 6, SB 550, Assembly Bill (AB) 1550, AB 2727, AB 3001. Up to 2.3 million
California public school students may benefit from funding from the Williams settlement (CDE,
2020).
World Health Organization (WHO) is a team of more than 8,000 professionals that
encompasses the world’s leading public health experts, including doctors, epidemiologists,
scientists and managers. Together, WHO coordinates the world’s response to health
emergencies, promotes well-being, prevents disease, and expands access to health care (WHO,
2021).
10

Organization of the Study
This research study is organized into five chapters. Chapter One provides an introduction
to the study, statement of the problem, purpose of the study, significance of the study, four
research questions, limitations, delimitations, and the definitions of key terms. Chapter Two
reviews the existing literature relevant to the problem. Chapter Three presents the methodology
of the research design, sampling and data collection procedures, instruments designed for data
collection, and data analysis procedures. Chapter Four details the findings and major themes of
the research along with an analysis of the data. Chapter Five provides a summary of the study’s
findings, a conclusion, and an examination of possible implications for further research as well
as recommendations for future research.

11

Chapter Two: Review of Literature
The COVID-19 pandemic, first declared on March 11, 2020, by the World Health
Organization (WHO), has presented perhaps the biggest challenge to educators and policymakers
in their careers. In addition to what was likely the biggest disruption K–12 education has ever
experienced, the pandemic caused many unforeseen consequences and highlighted preexisting
inequities among students nationwide throughout the course of the 2019–2020 and 2020–2021
school years. School districts, students, and families were asked to quickly desert school
buildings and pivot to distance learning with only days of warning and preparation.
School districts were pressed to navigate the financial implications of the pandemic, the
impact of government and health agencies on schools, negotiate with certificated and classified
unions in order to maintain students’ educational and socio-emotional needs, and learn to help
support students and the community in new ways. COVID-19 shifted the roles and scope of
schools and school leaders beyond instructional leaders merely focused on providing quality
instruction in the classical brick and mortar school-house. The pandemic transformed them into
“crisis managers” who were tasked with keeping schools open—in the sense that teaching and
learning had to continue now from home in a virtual setting.
The long-term impact COVID-19 will have on Southern California K–12 public schools
and school leaders is difficult to predict. However, the literature shows that the role of a K–12
public school leader has undergone significant transformation as a result. This chapter will
examine the literature on the history of health crises in America; the history and transformation
of school leadership; how school leaders have responded to crises (in particular during the
COVID-19 pandemic); their preparation and training; the impact of health and government
agencies; their negotiations with certificated and classified unions; and how they addressed
12

equity and access for all students. The purpose of this literature review is to learn how school
leadership has changed in the last half century, how leaders performed in crisis situations, and
how that has translated into the roles and responsibilities of school leaders throughout the
COVID-19 pandemic and school closures of 2020 and 2021.
Historical Examples of Pandemic Crises
The COVID-19 pandemic was not the first-time schools and school leaders were faced
with a life-altering health crisis. Over the last century, schools throughout the United States have
had to face various public health crises that have impacted public schooling for K–12 students.
The Spanish flu (1918 flu pandemic) was the first influenza pandemic caused by the H1N1
Influenza A virus, which lasted from February 1918 to April 1920, infected around 500 million
people (roughly one third of the world’s population at the time), and killed an estimated 20–50
million people (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention [CDC], 2019a). In February of 2003,
the Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome (SARS) epidemic, caused by the SARS coronavirus
which was first reported in Asia in November of 2002, infected over 8000 people in 29 countries
and killed 774 worldwide (CDC, 2017; World Health Organization [WHO], 2015, July 24).
Seven years later the H1N1 Influenza virus (2009 Swine flu) caused a second influenza
pandemic that lasted from January 2009 to August 2010, infected around 500 million people
worldwide and caused between 151,700–575,400 deaths (CDC, 2019b). The novel Coronavirus
(COVID-19), a contagious severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus-2 first identified in
December 2019 in Wuhan, China, has infected more than 190,000,000 people worldwide and has
caused over 4.0 million deaths as of July 2021 (WHO, 2021).
13

School Closures
School closures as a result of a major health crisis are not new to the United States. The
deadly second wave of the 1918–19 Spanish flu pandemic caused many urban K–12 public
schools to close their doors, in some cases up to 15 weeks (Stern et al., 2009). With the Spanish
flu pandemic, school closure orders came after large spikes and were typically combined with
other preventative measures such as quarantine, bans on public gatherings, staggered business
hours, and facemask orders (Stern et al., 2009). What is different about the COVID-19 pandemic
as it relates to school closures is that it occurred as a preventative public health measure for the
disease, not as a response to massive community spread (Stern et al., 2009).
Making the initial decision to close schools proved to be a difficult and complicated
decision for most school districts as the community response and reactions to the closures were
mixed (Braunack-Mayer, 2013; Ghosh et al., 2020; Stern et al., 2009). Districts needed to make
the difficult decision to remain open or closed for in-person instruction. District leaders across
the country were forced to navigate between their staff, parents, and community wants and local,
state, and federal public guidelines and mandates, most notably the stay-at-home orders.
The stay-at-home orders, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
(2020), were a community mitigation strategy that were developed to curtail the spread of
COVID-19 in the United States, by reducing the activities associated with community spread
such as population movement and close person-to-person contact outside the household.
According to the CDC (2020) by May 31, 2020, 42 states and territories had issued mandatory
stay-at-home orders; with Puerto Rico (March 15) being the first territory and California (March
19) the first state. Furthermore, eight jurisdictions issued only an advisory order or
14

recommendation for their residents to stay at home, while six never issued any stay-at-home
order.
The closing of schools in March of 2020 meant closing the school campuses but did not
mean that teaching and learning would stop, but rather that school leaders and teachers needed to
get creative and work together to reimagine school in a virtual setting. They were forced to pivot
away from the traditional in-person instructional models to that of distance and virtual learning
(Diliberti et al., 2020). Curriculum and instruction were adapted to the virtual setting, with
teachers and students having to quickly learn and embrace digital platforms such as Google
Classroom, Zoom, Kahoot, and Edmodo to engage students and deliver instruction.
According to Scott (2020), educators should not have only asked themselves and
colleagues whether students were engaged in the virtual classroom but whether the old classroom
efforts were instructionally sound. COVID-19 provided educators with a unique opportunity to
rethink, re-envision, and revamp the educational experience not only during the pandemic but for
years to come. K–12 educators were forced to not only pivot towards online instruction but also
address issues of educational disparities and inequalities that this new platform brought to the
forefront (Devakumar et al., 2020; Duardo, 2020).
Educational Disparities and Inequalities
The historical legacy of racism and discrimination in policies and practices in America
has created a system where students of color in socioeconomically disadvantaged neighborhoods
do not receive the same access to quality education as their affluent white counterparts (Anyon,
2014; Ladson-Billings, 2006). The COVID-19 pandemic has magnified this problem and has
brought it to the forefront of the national media. School achievement according to Anyon (2014)
“improves as family resources increase;” therefore we need to enhance the access of the urban
15

poor to economic resources so that they can adequately “prepare their children for success”
within a school system and society that “hoards economic resources from the minority poor” (p.
87). COVID-19 has further widened and illuminated the educational disparities and inequalities
that exist for marginalized groups in the areas of the digital divide, food insecurity, inequities for
Black, Indigenous, and People of Color (BIPOC) students, school funding, and interventions.
According to Walters (2020) the BIPOC community has been disproportionately
impacted by COVID-19 with higher rates of job loss, higher infection rates due to overcrowded
living conditions and living in “viral hotspots,’’ large numbers of household members who were
classified essential workers, as well as greater death rates (2.3 times more than their white
counterparts). During the COVID-19 pandemic, America also experienced racial violence that at
times overshadowed the pandemic, as evidenced by national protests over the George Floyd
murder in Minnesota that quickly spread throughout social media and the regular media. Walters
(2020) refers to the confluence of two or more diseases (racial violence and the COVID-19
pandemic) as “syndemic.” As a result, school leaders were forced to reevaluate their leadership
in order to address this syndemic phenomenon and better support students academically and
social emotionally.
History of School Leadership
The roles and responsibilities of school leaders have drastically changed since the turn of
the 20th century. In particular, for school superintendents, there has been an evolution in their
roles, preparation, practice and development. Bjork and Kowalski (2005) present a series of
scholarly papers that analyze the evolution of the superintendence from the turn of the 20th
century to the turn of millennium. Petersen and Barnett (2005) describe the role of the
superintendent from the 1880s through 1900 as that of teacher-scholar or instructional leaders
16

who encouraged, facilitated, and improved instruction. By the turn of the 20th century, according
to Browne-Ferrigno and Glass (2005), a new role for superintendents emerged. Superintendents
became managers, where they were supposed to possess skills in vision setting, policy
implementation and legal compliance, secure and properly use human and material capital, and
operate their organizations efficiently.
During the 1930s, according to Bjork and Gurley (2005), the role of the superintendent
evolved into a democratic leader, educational statesman, and political strategist who provided
stakeholder and community support. By the 1950s the role had once again morphed into an
applied social scientist and activist where they engaged in problem solving, decision-making,
and research in order to solve social and economic problems facing their organizations (Fusarelli
& Fusarelli, 2005). Superintendents since the 1970s have also had to be effective communicators
who maintain an open multidirectional line of communication, as well as provide opportunities
and programs to meet the needs of constituents all while managing them effectively (Kowalski &
Keedy, 2005).
Similarly, the role of K–12 school site leaders and other district administrators has also
shifted over the course of the 20th century into the new millennium. The study of leadership has
been of particular interest to researchers who turned to different theoretical approaches to explain
the complexities of the leadership process. Northouse (2019) looks at leadership as a complex
process that has multiple dimensions and thus provides an in-depth description and application of
various leadership approaches as well as how they can help inform the practice of leadership.
According to Northouse, there was an evolution of leadership definitions starting at the turn of
the 20th century where from 1900 to 1929 there was an emphasis on control and centralization of
power and focus on domination.
17

By the 1930s the focus of educational leadership shifted to traits and the view of
leadership as influence rather than domination and turned to how the individual leader’s specific
personality traits and interactions with those of the group. During the 1940s the role shifted
slightly towards a group approach of leadership where one looked at the behavior of an
individual while they were directing group activities. A decade later leadership definitions
included three themes: a continuation of group theory (what leaders in groups do); leadership as
a relationship that develops shared goals (behavior of leaders); and effectiveness (ability to
influence others). By the 1970s we saw a shift towards an organizational behavior approach
where the leader initiates or maintains groups and/or organizations and their goals, with Burns’
(1978) definition emerging as the most important concept of leadership (as cited in Northouse,
2019).
The 1980s saw an explosion of scholarly work and multiple definitions of a leader: do as
a leader wishes, leadership as a non-coercive influence, reemergence of the trait orientation into
the spotlight, and the emergence of transformational leadership where both leaders and followers
raise one another to higher levels of motivation and morality (Burns, 1978, as cited in Northouse,
2019; Peters & Waterman, 1982, as cited in Northouse, 2019). By the 1990s and as we entered
into the new millennium, the shift in leadership theories and approaches turned to how leaders
influenced groups towards a common goal.
First we saw a push towards authentic leadership: spiritual leadership where a leader
utilizes values and sense of calling to motivate followers; servant leadership where they use
caring principles to focus on their followers needs; adaptive leadership that encourages followers
to adapt by confronting and solving problems; followership where the spotlight is on followers
and the role they play in the leadership process; and finally discursive leadership that is created
18

through communication practices that are negotiated between leader and follower and not by
traits, skills, and behaviors (Northouse, 2019). The turn of the 21st century also saw the role of
the school leader transformed into an instructional leader whose focus was on shaping and
driving curriculum and instruction and away from being the face of the institution and focusing
instead on operations (Fullan 2006; Spillane & Healey, 2010).
Leadership Frameworks
Acting appropriately during a situation or crisis is an essential skill for a school leader’s
success. Bolman and Deal (2017) introduced the concepts of reframing and frames. They
proposed four frames or lenses by which leaders in an organization can effectively diagnose and
act when addressing a problem in order to evoke positive change in their organization.
First, the structural frame views organizations from the architecture of the organization, is
task-oriented, and focuses on the ‘how’ of change. Second, the human resource frame focuses on
people’s needs and requires an understanding of their strengths and weaknesses and gives
employees the power and opportunity to perform their jobs well while addressing their needs for
human contact, personal growth, and job satisfaction. Third, the political frame looks at the
problems and conflicts of individuals and interest groups within an organization that require
coalition-building, conflict resolution, and powerbase-building to support initiatives and address
their struggles for power and competitiveness. Finally, the symbolic frame focuses on inspiring
people through the creation of a motivating vision, recognizing excellent job performance in
order to provide a purpose and meaning in their work.
The Four Frames model was created to help leaders avoid getting stuck in viewing and
acting through only one lens or frame and thus responding inappropriately. Rather it is the
leader’s responsibility to use the appropriate frame and behavior for each challenge (Bolman and
19

Deal, 2017). It is therefore the responsibility of the organization to train, mentor, and support
their leaders in acquiring the skills necessary to employ the four frames once they ascend to
positions of leadership.
Fullan and Quinn (2015) outline how regular school systems and leaders can bring about
systemic, meaningful change and achieve lasting success through a coherence framework of four
drivers: focusing direction, cultivating collaborative culture, securing accountability, and
deepening learning. Coherence, according to Fullan and Quinn, is a shared understanding about
the purpose and nature of the work of educating students. In a coherent educational system, the
leader builds capacity and people are given the tools to achieve their goals and thus achieve good
pedagogy.
How do leaders build coherence? First, leaders need to focus on what their organization
needs to do to attain equal education for all regardless of background. Second, a leader needs to
cultivate a collaborative culture that produces and supports strong groups that are united by a
collective purpose of educating students. Third, a leader and organization need to deepen their
understanding of the process of learning, how learning is influenced in order to ensure students
engage in meaningful and relevant learning. Finally, leaders and organizations need to secure
accountability (internal and external) by developing capacity for individuals to hold themselves
accountable for their performance and for student learning (Fullan & Quinn, 2015, pp. 110–111).
For Fullan and Quinn all four of these drivers are equally important and must be executed
collectively. A leader should be a “coherence maker in chaotic times” (Fullan & Quinn, 2015, p.
138). Leaders must focus on the right things, learn as they go, and apply the coherence
framework. Fullan and Quinn conclude with the leadership competencies for whole system
improvement and change: challenging the status quo, building trust through clear communication
20

and expectations, creating a collective plan for success, focusing on team over self; maintaining a
high sense of urgency for change and sustainable results, commitment to continuous
improvement, and building external network and partnerships (p. 133).
Fullan (2007) introduced a change theory principle to leadership that discusses the
convergence of five components of leadership that are essential to creating positive change:
moral purpose, understanding change, relationship building, creating and sharing knowledge, and
coherence making. Moral purpose means acting with the intention of making a positive
difference in the lives of employees, customers, and society as a whole. Next, leaders must
understand the nuance of change as a complex process. The third component is building positive
relationships with peers and effective collaboration that builds trust. The fourth component is
building and sharing knowledge among team members that creates deep learning that engages
and changes the world. The fifth and final component is coherence-making that is a perennial
pursuit where leaders need to have the ability to tolerate enough ambiguity to spur creativity, but
once they and the group know enough, they seek coherence. Fullan concludes that leaders need
to have traits of energy, enthusiasm, and hopefulness surrounding these five components in order
to be successful. He determines these traits will trickle down into their employees who have
external and internal motivators and commitment that improves positive outcomes and reduces
negative ones.
Leadership in Crisis Situations
Crisis Managers
Pearson and Clair (1998) define a crisis as “a low probability, high impact event” that is
characterized by “ambiguity of cause, effect, and means of resolution” that threatens the viability
of the organization and forces swift decision-making (p. 60). The COVID-19 pandemic created
21

an educational crisis like no school leader had ever experienced. The skills required of leaders in
crisis situations are uniquely different from those required during a ‘normal’ or ‘typical’ school
year (Powley & Taylor, 2014; Smith & Riley, 2012). Effective school leaders, according to
Smith, must develop a clear vision that promotes and empowers their staff to reach their potential
to create a rich learning environment for all students. During crisis situations, however, leaders
need to manage the crisis by providing certainty, ensure open and credible communication, and
cultivate hope for all the members of their staff and community in order to lead them through the
crisis (Bishop et al., 2015; Smith & Riley, 2012).
COVID-19, like most crises, was unpredictable, leaving school leaders unable to prepare
or plan (Smith & Riley, 2012). However, as crisis managers or “crisis responders,” school
leaders hold the key to whether or not a crisis will be contained through their strategic responses
and management of the crisis (Bishop et al., 2015). School leaders were forced to make quick
decisions during uncertainty, collect as much information as possible, trust their instincts, and
ultimately make use of their leadership intelligence that encompasses procedural, intuitive, and
creative intelligence (Bishop et al., 2015). According to Gouwens and Lander (2008) and Bishop
et al. (2015), superintendents during a time of crisis should create communities and networks
with one another, communicate regularly, and share best practices, as had been done previously
during Hurricane Katrina in 2005.
During times of crisis such as Hurricane Katrina or the Columbine school shootings,
school leaders must reframe their traditional leadership roles and pivot towards becoming
community leaders and healers (Bishop et al., 2015; DeMatthews & Brown, 2019). According to
the qualitative study conducted by DeMatthews and Brown, which interviewed urban secondary
school principals on how they could proactively respond to community violence, following a
22

community-oriented leadership framework allows school leaders during a crisis to create safe
and responsive schools that will meet the diverse needs of their grieving students and families.
Preparation and Training
According to Diliberti et al. (2020), K–12 school leaders were given very little time to
prepare and train their staff and implement the transition to distance learning in early March of
2020. As a result, school districts that had implemented the following practices prior to the
pandemic were better prepared to transition to distance learning during the pandemic: available
devices for student use, professional development for online learning and instructional practice
for teachers, implementation of a learning management system (LMS), providing fully online or
blended courses, and the establishment of plans for online instructions during a prolonged school
closure (Diliberti et al., 2020).
Of the five preparedness indicators, 84% of respondents reported having at least one
indicator in place prior to the pandemic. Only 7% reporting having all five in place, and
secondary schools were more likely than elementary schools to have indicators of preparedness
(Diliberti et al., 2020). While no single indicator predicted a school’s ability to transition to
distance learning, the combination of the indicators might have played a role in the successful
transition. As a result, the majority of school districts had to pivot towards adopting and
implementing the indicators at the onset of school closures.
Providing technology to students in need became many districts’ top priority at the start
of the pandemic. According to Malkus et al. (2020a) approximately 40% of schools in their
10,289-school longitudinal study listed getting students devices and internet access as a top
priority, to address technological inequities and provide equal access to instruction.
23

What instruction looked like at the start of the pandemic took many different forms
depending on how prepared the districts, schools, and staff were as well as the needs of their
communities. For some schools, instruction meant synchronous instruction where teachers taught
via Zoom or other platforms. Asynchronous instruction occurred where teachers assigned work
and students worked independently and checked in with teachers; student work packets were
created by teachers and distributed to students, and even included televised instructional
programming (Diliberti et al., 2020; EdSource Staff, 2020a, 2020b; LAUSD, 2021; Malkus et al.,
2020a). School leaders and district administrators had to be creative and innovative in how their
teachers would continue to educate students, keep them engaged, and keep them enrolled in their
districts.
What school and instruction looked like varied from state to state, district to district, and
in some cases from school to school. As a result, some school districts experienced a loss in
enrollment to preexisting independent virtual schools during the spring of 2020 as well as during
the fall of the 2020–2021 school year. The new school year also brought a change in
instructional models and created three major prominent options: full distance learning for areas
where quarantine and stay-at-home orders were in full effect or at the discretion of school
districts; fulltime in-person instruction where stay-at-home orders and school closures were not
in effect; and finally, a hybrid model that combined both models of instruction in areas where
restrictions were reduced (EdSource, 2020a).
Implementation
Once school leaders receive training and preparation on how to address crisis situations,
the next step is the implementation of crisis policies. The COVID-19 pandemic forced school
leaders to reimagine traditional leadership roles and responsibilities and adapt them to school
24

closures and distance learning. According to Anderson et al. (2020) the pandemic forced school
leaders to assume the role of caregiver and caretaker in order to support the needs of their
communities. With the rising fear and anxiety over the novel coronavirus and its unknown
impact in addition to the new virtual teaching model, leaders were forced to support not only
their students but also their staff (certificated and classified), as well as their families and
communities. Cipriano and Bracket (2020) outline how a focus on social emotional learning
(SEL) became extremely important for school leaders in order to help their communities
successfully implement the distance learning model.
Leaders also reverted to traditional leadership frameworks when addressing and reacting
to the crisis in order to maintain systems and coherence (Anderson et al., 2020; Darling-
Hammond & Hyler, 2020; Fullan & Quinn, 2016; Honigsfeld & Nordmeyer, 2020). A refocus on
collaboration emerged as school leaders had to prepare their staff to pivot to distance learning.
This collaboration extended beyond the classroom and district. Superintendents formed a
community among themselves where they leaned on and learned from one another’s successes
(Bishop et al., 2015; Gouwens & Lander, 2008). The ever-changing information coming from
health and government agencies also forced school leaders to provide effective communication
to staff, students, and families. School leaders needed to go traditional forms of communication
such as emails, phone messages, website updates, and newsletters, and adopt new means of
virtual communication such as virtual meetings via Zoom, YouTube channel postings, and other
asynchronous presentations (Canlé, 2020). For school leaders, the communication between them
and stakeholders also shifted from merely providing information toward two-way
communication where they were actively seeking feedback in order to reflect and make decisions
that better serve their stakeholders (Hermann, 2020).
25

Impact of Government and Health Agencies
The role and impact of government and health agencies in the American educational
system during the pandemic was unlike any other period in history. Review of safety guidelines
and mandates became common practice for school leaders as they helped navigate and plan for
the safety of their staff, students, and communities. Dr. Anthony S. Fauci, Director of the
National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID) and COVID Response Team,
became a household name overnight following his briefings and recommendations from the
White House. Federal, state, and local governments and agencies provided a variety of assistance
measures to school districts and leaders to continue schooling for K–12 students across the
country. They provided guidance to ensure the safety of students and staff, facilitate distance
learning for all students, and create a pathway to safely reopen schools (Reich et al., 2020).
School districts and schools had to increase spending in the category of personal
protective equipment (PPE) as county and state public health guidelines mandated. This included
bulk orders of hand sanitizer, sanitizing wipes, medical grade masks, face shields, latex gloves,
temperature scanners, additional soap and paper towel dispensers as well as hand washing
stations and Plexiglass barriers (EdSource Staff, 2020a). These PPE supplies became essential
for school districts and schools to ensure the safety of their employees as they returned to work
and resumed interacting with students, families, and the community in-person throughout the
2020–2021 school year.
School leaders, as a result of COVID-19 and the unprecedented influence and presence of
their local and state public health departments, were forced to assume a new role as public health
experts as they interpreted and then implemented the new and ever-changing health and safety
guidelines (Fotheringham et al., 2020). School leaders were required to navigate guidelines from
26

a variety of government departments and agencies that at times contained either vague or
contradictory information. In California, for example, school leaders were receiving information
regarding health and safety guidelines from in-state sources such as Governor Gavin Newsom’s
office, California Department of Public Health (CDPH), county and municipal departments of
public health, as well as the Center for Disease Control (CDC) and the National Institute of
Health (NIH) on the national level.
As the pandemic raged on during 2020 and into 2021, school districts and leaders turned
to the federal and state government and agencies to provide not only guidance on how to
navigate the impacts of the pandemic but also for financial support in keeping schools running
virtually and on how to safely reopen them for staff and students. For school districts across the
country the federal government proved to be the greatest source of financial support with the
passage of the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security (CARES) Act on March 27,
2020 (California Department of Education [CDE], 2020). The CARES Act provided education
with $30.7 billion ($270 per pupil) in federal funds and created a waiver process to allow schools
to better support and serve high-needs students that had been adversely affected by the
pandemic.
In December 2020, Congress passed the Coronavirus Response and Relief Supplemental
Appropriations Act (CRRSA) to provide further support to education in the amount of $82
billion, with $54.3 billion ($640 per pupil) for K–12 education delivered largely through Title I
funding. The American Rescue Plan, signed into law in March 2021 and providing $168 billion
in aid ($2,600 per pupil), tasked school districts with addressing learning loss and the need to
spend 20% of their funds helping students catch up on the learning they had missed during the
pandemic (CDE, 2020). This plan also had to create a public plan for returning to in-person
27

instruction safely. The various COVID-19 relief bills provided much needed funding to school
districts and local educational agencies (LEAs) to address the negative and possibly lasting
impact of COVID-19 on K–12 education.
State and local governments and agencies also focused on providing school districts and
leaders with guidance for the implementation of safety measures for staff and students. The
Governor of California provided “Safety Guidelines” for testing, PPE, contact tracing and
vaccinations (Office of Governor Gavin Newsom, 2020). The CDPH created a “Blueprint for
Safer California” aimed at reducing COVID-19 cases by partnering with other organizations to
help (Harrington, 2021). The “Safe Schools for All Plan” created with the Governor’s office
focused on providing the conditions by which schools could safely reopen (California
Department of Public Health [CDPH], 2020). As a result, by the fall of 2020, there was a focus
by state and local governments and agencies to safely reopen school for small, in-person
instruction opportunities for high-needs students in cohorts with adult supports. They provided
guidance and protocols for school outbreaks, how to reopen after an outbreak, how staff
members could return to work after a positive COVID-19 test or exposure, as well as regulations
for youth sports. The agencies also addressed mental and emotional safety (Lambert, 2020). As a
result, wellness and social emotional learning (SEL) become a necessary part of reopening
school plans (Stavely, 2020).
How schools would pivot to distance learning received a lot of attention from state and
local agencies. The California Department of Education (CDE) created guidelines for distance
learning that included considerations to ensure equity and access for all students; a continuum of
options for students; considerations for students with disabilities; and consideration for English
language learners (CDE, 2020). The CDE also sought to waive standardized testing during
28

school closures in order to address the learning loss and inequities associated with testing from
home during a pandemic (Johnson, 2021). Even though school districts were receiving
unprecedented financial support, there were still many students struggling to access education,
especially among underserved communities. As a result, the Los Angeles County Office of
Education (LACOE) created the “Los Angeles County Schools: Rising to the Challenge of
COVID-19, A Planning Framework for the 2020-21 School Year” that provided comprehensive
guidelines for high quality education during distance learning to ensure equity and access for
high-needs students and address the trauma endured by students during the pandemic (Duardo,
2020).
The reopening of schools was controversial and polarizing, as many questioned schools’
ability to implement all safety measures (Burke, 2020; Lambert & Fensterwald, 2020). In
California, the “Stronger Together” plan was perceived as too restrictive for schools to
implement and more flexibility was needed (Fensterwald, 2021). The “Stronger Together” plan
provided a comprehensive checklist for reopening schools, including mental health and well-
being, among other topics (CDE, 2020). The California Department of Public Health also
released its own guidelines with the “Safe Schools for All Plan’’ that were aimed at helping
school districts and school sites safely reopen (CDPH, 2020). However, despite the various
guidelines provided by state and local agencies to continue with quality instruction and safely
reopen schools, in the neediest of districts, the majority of those schools did not reopen (D’Souza
& Marquez, 2020).
In California, Governor Newsom signed Senate Bill (SB) 86 that tied $2 billion of
funding to reopening of schools (Fensterwald, 2021). This bill allocated an additional $2 billion
to schools that brought back elementary students by April 15, 2021 and submitted reopening
29

plans by April 1, 2021 (Jones & Freedberg, 2021). SB 86 was controversial as a result of
penalties imposed on schools; if they failed to reopen in time, they would lose 1% per day (Jones
& Freedberg, 2021). Bargaining units were required to approve district plans for reopening.
However, it did not provide local unions with other sought after demands such as vaccinations
prior to reopening (Mays, 2021).
Negotiations with Certificated and Classified Unions
Bargaining units, in the form of certificated and classified unions, played an important
role and impacted how district and school leaders responded to the COVID-19 pandemic. In
some districts, superintendents and their executive staff also negotiated either formally or
informally with management unions or associations. Certificated, or teacher, unions have a long
history of advocating for safe working conditions, fair and overtime pay, and equity for
marginalized communities. According to Mertz (2014) in 1857, teachers organized together and
created the precursor to the National Education Association (NEA). In the early 1900s in
Chicago, teachers created the American Teachers Federation (AFT), modeled after the American
Federation of Labor (AFL), to engage in collective bargaining (Mertz, 2014). Since the creation
of unions and collective bargaining for teachers in education, teacher unions have become very
powerful forces in shaping local and state policy for education (Mertz, 2014,).
Collective bargaining agreements and memorandum of understanding agreements, which
are legal contracts between the employer and the union on behalf of its members, are the primary
forms of negotiations between certificated unions and school districts (Hemphill & Marianno,
2020). When schools closed due to the COVID-19 pandemic, district leaders quickly had to
come to agreements with teachers to determine how teaching and learning were going to
continue during the mandated stay-at-home orders. School and union leaders turned to state
30

health and educational agencies for guidance to help determine new working conditions during
the pandemic. These agreements determined compensation, work hours, nonteaching duties, and
evaluations, among other provisions (Hemphill & Marianno, 2020).
How quickly schools would reopen in the fall of 2020 was dependent on the state and
county health guidelines and recommendations as well as on the relationship between school
district leaders and teacher unions. According to Will (2020) how school district leaders and
certificated unions engaged in collective bargaining in the spring of 2020 would help determine
how successful they would be in getting kids back on campus in the fall of 2020. United
Federation of Teacher President Michael Mulgrew, in a letter to members in the summer of
2020, argued for a hybrid school model since it would balance the union’s “safety concerns with
the need to bring students back” (Will, 2020). Throughout the fall of 2020 districts were able to
apply for waivers to open schools in a hybrid learning model while others in more restrictive
tiers continued distance learning for all students (CDPH, 2020).
As COVID-19 cases peaked through the end of 2020 and the beginning of 2021, a full
reopening for many districts in restrictive areas such as Los Angeles County seemed an
impossibility. Yet as cases declined steadily through the spring of 2021, schools throughout the
state and country began to reopen as new MOUs were negotiated to determine how students and
staff would safely return to school (Hemphill & Marianno, 2021). Teacher unions across the
country and throughout the COVID-19 pandemic negotiated not only for safety protocols but
also for compensation, workload and hours, grading procedures, nonteaching duties such as
professional development and collaboration time, teacher evaluations, teacher leave, and
technology (Hemphill & Marianno, 2021).
31

School district leaders not only had to negotiate with certificated or teacher unions in
order to reopen schools, but they also had to engage in collective bargaining with classified
employees that make up the non-certificated employees who are not required to hold a teaching
credential (California Commission on Teacher Credentialing, 2021). In California, these
classified employees are represented by the local labor unions, with the largest being the
California School Employees Association (CSEA). Classified employees encompass
paraprofessionals and workers in clerical and administrative services, transportation services,
food and nutrition services, custodial and maintenance services, security services, health and
student services, technical services, and skilled trades employees in a district (CSEA, 2021). The
CSEA, which is affiliated with the AFL-CIO, has long advocated for the enhancement of
workplace safety and wage increases for its workers, and this was no different during the
COVID-19 pandemic (CSEA, 2021).
Negotiations with classified unions were of particular importance at the start of the
pandemic as many classified employees were designated “essential workers” and “frontline
workers” that needed to continue to work on site (CFT, 2020a, 2020b). In California, as schools
began to reopen, classified employees were the first to be called back into work to prepare
buildings 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.
Cafeteria workers began grab-and-go offerings, custodial staff and skilled trade
employees were reassigned to address deferred maintenance, security was retained to keep
school premises clear, and other employees were able to work virtually either at sites or from
home (Mahnken, 2020). Classified employees made up the majority of staff members physically
32

on campus along with site administrators, and they were tasked with keeping campuses clean,
providing meals to students and families, and assisting in the logistics of distance learning (CFT,
2020a, 2020b).
Equity and Access
The COVID-19 pandemic also highlighted preexisting equity and access issues for
students and families nationwide. According to Devakumar et al. (2020), the devastating impact
of COVID-19 was not equal for all families or individuals. The United States saw greater
discrimination against marginalized groups and vulnerable populations as well as greater work,
economic, and health-related consequences of COVID-19 (Kantamneni, 2020). During times of
crisis, like the pandemic, education, economic, and labor disparities can exacerbate systemic
inequities, oppression, power, and privilege (Kantamneni, 2020).
According to Benfer and Wiley (2020), vulnerable populations, including those living
with a disability, homelessness, those unable to stop working, those lacking affordable and safe
housing, people of color, and immigrants, were among the most impacted by COVID-19
economically and health wise. Devakumar et al. (2020) observed that “how society chooses to
collectively manage COVID-19 does, in fact, discriminate” (p. 234). Marginalized communities
were disproportionately impacted by infection and mortality rates of COVID-19. Access to
healthcare and other health related resources and impacts on mental health were more likely to
be affected by school closures during the pandemic.
COVID-19 has disproportionately impacted minority communities and people of color,
particularly African American, LatinX, and Native American populations in the United States
(Tai et al., 2021). In June of 2020, the CDC reported while African Americans and LatinX
accounted for only 13% and 18% of the American population, they accounted for 28% and
33

33.8% of the COVID-19 cases, respectively (Tai et al., 2021). Furthermore, Tai et al. report that
the mortality rate among African Americans was twice that of their white counterparts. Ethnic
minorities and migrant groups have a greater risk of contracting COVID-19 and subsequently at
a greater risk for more severe symptoms (Devakumar et al., 2020). For many low-income
Americans, the COVID-19 pandemic brought great financial strain due to their lack of
disposable income, inflexible work schedules that prohibited them from working from home, and
the inability to access affordable healthcare (Benfer & Wiley, 2020).
The lower a person’s socioeconomic status is, the more limited are their resources and
ability to access essential goods and services. In turn, the greater is their chance of suffering from
a chronic disease such as diabetes, heart disease, and lung disease that may increase the mortality
risk of COVID-19 (Benfer & Wiley, 2020). As a result, racial and ethnic disparities have created
a new crisis that has compounded the long-standing failure of America’s healthcare system to
care adequately for people of color (Blumenthal et al., 2020).
The lack of health care coverage causes less access to care that results in a higher
prevalence of chronic illness among persons of color and leaves them more vulnerable to
negative effects of COVID-19 (Blumenthal et al., 2020). Furthermore, according to Blumenthal
et al. (2020), some nonmedical causes of illnesses that disproportionately impact people of color
and can also lead to higher levels of vulnerability to coronavirus infection include food and
housing insecurity. These disparities in access to healthcare, according to Blumenthal et al.
(2020), reflect a prolonged history of racism and discrimination in America that
disproportionately impacts marginalized and vulnerable populations.
The COVID-19 pandemic also had an enormous effect on the mental health of
marginalized communities across America. Such groups, according to Moore et al. (2021),
34

experienced “greater psychological turbulence and economic uncertainty created by the
interventional and policy responses of the pandemic” (p. 577). The sheer nature of quarantine
imposed immediate and lingering psychosocial impacts on children, adversely and immediately
impacting their lifestyle, physical activity, and mental health (Ghosh et al., 2020). Subsequently,
the reports of child abuse, neglect, exploitation, and domestic violence saw a significant rise
during the pandemic lockdown (Ghosh et al., 2020). Anxieties brought on by financial and health
concerns as well as the partial inactivity of several welfare organizations during the lockdown
shared the blame for the surge in cases (Ghosh et al., 2020).
According to Pfefferbaum and North (2020), some groups were more vulnerable than
others to the psychosocial effects of the pandemic. In particular, those who contracted the disease
and those who were highly susceptible such as the elderly, people with compromised immune
function, and people with preexisting medical, psychiatric, or substance use disorders were more
likely to suffer psychological impacts (Pfefferbaum & North, 2020).
Food insecurity as defined by the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA)—“a
household-level economic and social condition of limited or uncertain access to adequate
food”—is considered an important public health issue in America (as cited in Murthy, 2016,
para. 2). The USDA uses the responses of 18 questions (eight for households with children and
ten for households without children) about food needs as a result of economic hardships of
households in order to officially measure food insecurity (Gundersen et al., 2021). The high
unemployment rates during COVID-19 and the closing of schools that typically provide two
meals a day to food-insecure children increased food insecurity among families living in poverty
(Van Lancker & Parolin, 2020).
35

According to Gundersen et al. (2021), there will be a projected 54 million food-insecure
Americans and 18 million food-insecure children in 2020, or 17 million more adults and nearly
seven million more children than in 2018 (p. 154). Schools were a place where many food-
insecure students were able to get two to three consistent meals a day. So, when schools closed
their doors in March of 2020, many school districts were tasked with quickly pivoting their meal
distribution system to provide hot and cold meals to students and families who were now in
quarantine (Kinsey et al., 2020). California alone saw nearly 135 million meals go unserved to
students between March and May of 2020 (Kinsey et al., 2020, p. 1637).
In response, districts and schools had to reimagine innovative meal distributions that
eliminated barriers to access. This included the creation of grab-and-go meals that were
distributed daily and/or weekly and included breakfast, lunch, and supper (Malkus et al., 2020b).
Districts also developed drop-off meal systems at locations such as neighborhood school bus
stops and even students’ homes. Meal services expanded in some areas to seven days per week,
allowed for guardian pick-up rather than student pick-up, grew to include children 0 to 18 years
of age, and included disabled students up to 26 years in age and even adults in the community
(McLoughlin et al., 2020).
The COVID-19 pandemic has also highlighted a digital divide among our country’s
wealthiest and poorest schools and students, with the latter lacking access to basic technology
and thus not being able to consistently access the curriculum and instruction during the pandemic
(Herold, 2020). As discussed by Malkus et al. (2020a), getting students devices and internet
access was a top priority for school leaders to address technological inequities and provide equal
access to instruction. For students from low-income households and communities, distance
learning was more difficult (Van Lancker & Parolin, 2020).
36

These students had a disproportionately higher rate of truancies during the pandemic than
their more affluent counterparts and were less likely to communicate with their teachers and
school personnel (Herold, 2020). Many of these students lacked a quiet space to work.
According to Van Lancker and Parolin (2020), these students often had unreliable internet
connection or lack of access to the internet, lack of access to books at the appropriate reading
level, homes that had no heat or access to outdoor facilities, and many other students in this
category suffered from homelessness or severe housing instability. As a result, school and
district leaders were forced to address equity and access issues.
The magnification of social justice movements such as Black Lives Matter (BLM), Stop
Asian American, Pacific Islander (AAPI) Violence, and a focus on the BIPOC population during
COVID-19 required school districts and teachers to investigate and focus on bringing culturally
relevant pedagogy and Critical Race Theory curriculum to schools, especially in underserved and
minority communities, in order to address the equity and access issues facing these communities.
Ladson-Billings (1995) examines how good teaching in a classroom is culturally relevant to
students, utilizing their experiences within a curriculum that supports their experiences as
learners. Ladson-Billings’ action research involved eight teachers in a predominantly African-
American district, examining their different teaching practices and how they used culturally
relevant teaching strategies to successfully teach their students. The study also examined how the
use of radical love (without naming the concept specifically) is used in these same teachers’
classrooms to create student achievement.
Douglas and Nganga (2015) identify the term “radical love” as a concept where the
identities and positionalities of both students and teachers are brought into the classroom to
interact and collectively construct knowledge. Additionally, this concept of “radical love” allows
37

the teacher to examine their own biases and positionalities to create a learning environment free
from the traditional oppressive education, where teacher (and teacher alone) is the beacon of all
knowledge and wisdom (Douglas & Nganga, 2015).
Summary
COVID-19 has undoubtedly shifted and expanded the roles and scope of school leaders,
transforming them into “crisis managers’’ who were tasked with keeping schools open during the
2019–2020 and 2020–2021 school years. This chapter examined the literature on the history of
health crises in America; the history and transformation of school leadership; how school leaders
have responded to crises, in particular during the COVID-19 pandemic: their preparation and
training; the impact of health and government agencies, their negotiations with certificated and
classified unions, and how they addressed equity and access for all students. As a result, we have
seen how school leadership has changed in the last half century, how these shifts have prepared
school leaders to perform in crisis situations, and how that has translated into the roles and
responsibilities of school leaders throughout the COVID-19 pandemic and school closures of
2020 and 2021. School leaders were forced to address the varied and often contradictory
community responses and reaction to school closures. They had to pivot towards distance
learning and address the myriad of students, staff, and familiar needs during COVID-19. Their
focus shifted to working out the distance learning logistics, providing access to technology, and
continuing to provide food to needy students and families, all while negotiating with certificated
and classified staff.

38

Chapter Three: Methodology
This chapter reviews the statement of the problem, purpose of the study, and the research
questions. It outlines the design of the research study, summarizes the methodology, identifies
the participants, and explains the instruments used to conduct the research. It concludes with an
explanation of how the data will be collected and analyzed as well as a summary of this chapter.
Overview of the Study
Research indicates that incidents such as pandemics, natural disasters and school
shootings create disruptions to California public K–12 school districts and demand a crisis
response. The COVID-19 pandemic has impacted the education system in various ways,
including leadership, coordination with internal and external stakeholders, and teacher
preparation to name a few. Superintendents, assistant superintendents, and principals have
experienced a shift in their roles as they have managed the current crisis, the COVID-19
pandemic. “School leaders must look for opportunities to more fully engage their communities,
forge new collaborations, strengthen two-way communication with key constituencies, and
demonstrate visionary leadership to maintain successful, safe and crisis-ready school districts”
(Gainey, 2003 as cited in Gainey, 2010, p. 91). While the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on
schools is still being assessed, researchers have begun to identify the lessons learned and the
need for educational leaders to be better prepared to address ongoing crises in education. This
study was conducted by a research team of four doctoral students: Diana Hernandez, John Lopez,
Carlos Montes, and Jorge Rodriguez and directed by Dr. Rudy Castruita from the University of
Southern California Rossier School of Education. The doctoral candidates met regularly in
collaboration to determine how school district superintendents, assistant superintendents, and
principals in California responded to the various demands and challenges that resulted from the
39

COVID-19 pandemic. The research questions, surveys, and interview protocols were created by
the research team and analyzed by each candidate. This chapter begins with a restatement of the
problem and research questions followed by a description of the research design and methods
utilized. The chapter concludes with ethical considerations and a chapter summary.
Statement of the Problem
The current COVID-19 pandemic has impacted education and has magnified existing
disparities across social and economic lines. Educational leaders have had to respond to the
diverse needs of the community as well as school staff during a most unprecedented time. The
role of educational leader has transformed into “crisis manager.” School leaders must now look
for opportunities to be better prepared to deal with ongoing crises, as “issues of school safety and
school crises rank among the most distressing problems in modern education” (Elbedour et al.,
2020, p. 208).
Purpose of the Study
The purpose of this study is to analyze the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on
California public K–12 school districts and identify lessons learned from district and site
administrators about their experiences and their decision making as crisis managers. This study
examined the fiscal implications, impact of government and public health agencies, labor
relations, and the responsiveness to community needs and concerns during the pandemic.
Research Questions
This study was guided by the following 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
40

superintendents, assistant superintendents, and principals addressed these
implications?
2. What, if any, have been the impact of federal, state, and local health agencies on K–
12 public school districts in Southern California, and what strategies have district
superintendents, assistant superintendents, and principals followed to address the
suggested guidelines?
3. How, if at all, have union negotiations played a role in K–12 Southern California
public school districts’ response to the COVID-19 pandemic?
4. How, if at all, have K–12 Southern California public school district leadership teams
comprised of superintendents, assistant superintendents, and principals addressed the
concerns of the parent community regarding safety, nutrition, distance learning, lack
of technology, academic standing, and how and when to reopen schools due to the
COVID-19 pandemic?
Research Team
The research team was led by Dr. Rudy Castruita from the University of Southern
California (USC) Rossier School of Education. The dissertation group was composed of 22
students with Dr. Castruita as the lead researcher and the supervisor for the study. The research
team, which began meeting in the spring of 2021, contributed to the literature review
bibliography, statement of the problem, purpose of the study, research questions, conceptual
framework, and data collection instruments. The research team was then broken up into seven
research study groups. This study was conducted by four of the 22 USC Rossier School of
Education doctoral students from the initial research team. Due to the many group aspects of the
thematic process, there may be some similarities in the dissertations.
41

Research Design
The conceptual framework was critical for the research team to determine the factors that
impacted education during the COVID-19 pandemic. Once the team had outlined several factors
that had impacted California K–12 public school districts and determined to focus specifically on
the impact on superintendents, assistant superintendents, and principals, each member embarked
on the review of the literature addressing various areas that influenced decision-making roles.
The team jointly developed the research tools that aligned with the agreed upon research
questions to allow the team to understand how district and site administrators managed crises as
a result of the COVID-19 pandemic.
A mixed-methods approach was selected for this study. This is as follows:
[A]n approach to research in the social, behavioral, and health sciences in which the
investigator gathers both quantitative (closed-ended) and qualitative (open-ended) data,
integrates the two and then draws interpretations based on the combined strengths of both
sets of data to understand research problems. (Creswell, 2015, p. 2, as cited in Merriam &
Tisdell, 2016, p. 4)
A mixed-methods approach was selected for this study in order to establish triangulation
for more accurate findings and make the research study more holistic (Maxwell, 2013).
Triangulation “is a powerful strategy for increasing the credibility or internal validity of your
research” as it makes use of more than one data collection method, multiple sources of data, as
well as multiple investigators or investigators of multiple theories (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016, p.
245). This study utilized a survey and a semistructured interview to gather data. This study was
conducted with school superintendents, assistant superintendents, and principals of Southern
California K–12 public school districts. This study involved the collection of qualitative data
42

from open-ended interview questions with superintendents, assistant superintendents, and school
site principals and quantitative surveys completed by the same subjects. This method enabled
further triangulation within the results, which in turn allowed for improved cross-checking of the
data in order to better support the findings of the study (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016).
Quantitative Method
Quantitative research is an important tool that is utilized to describe patterns, trends, and
relationships using numerical data. Surveys are the most commonly used protocol for gathering
qualitative data as they allow the researcher to obtain information from the participants and then
easily convert it to quantitative data to be analyzed (Lochmiller & Lester, 2017). For this study,
quantitative data was collected using a self-administered 26 question survey given on Qualtrics
(see Appendices A–C). The survey questions were developed and drawn from the four research
questions. The survey was designed to gather data that reflected the educational leaders’
experiences, views, decisions, and knowledge about the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on
California K–12 public school districts. Separate surveys with minimal vocabulary changes and
very similar questions were created for superintendents, assistant superintendents, and principals.
The surveys consisted of 5-point Likert scale questions using the responses: 1 = strongly
disagree to 5 = strongly agree. The surveys took an average of 15 minutes to complete. The
survey link was emailed to all California K–12 school district leaders: 12 superintendents, 12
assistant superintendents, and 12 principals. The survey included a cover letter (see Appendix
D), the survey questions, and final instructions. Participants completed the survey using
Qualtrics, which tabulated the number of responses returned. The surveys captured a variety of
information as recommended by Patton (2015); for example, background/demographic
questions, knowledge questions, and feeling questions about shifting roles and responsibilities
43

(Patton, 2015, as cited in Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). “Practitioner-scholars who use a survey in
their research should develop a survey instrument that is: (a) closely aligned with the purpose of
their research study, and (b) that is connected to the existing research literature” (Lochmiller &
Lester, 2017, p. 158).
Qualitative Method
Under qualitative research, the researcher represents the primary instrument of data
collection and analysis; they utilize an inductive process to better understand the perspectives of
their participants of the study (Lochmiller & Lester, 2017; Maxwell, 2013; Merriam & Tisdell,
2016). Qualitative methods allowed researchers in this study to uncover how educational leaders
made decisions and addressed challenges during the COVID-19 pandemic. The researchers used
36 interviews in conducting this qualitative research study. The semistructured interview
protocol developed by the research team consisted of 14 questions and researchers were able to
ask follow-up questions as well. Separate interview protocols with minimal vocabulary changes
and very similar questions were created for superintendents, assistant superintendent, and
principals (the interview protocols can be found in Appendices E–G). The interviews were
conducted by the researchers via Zoom and took an average of 45 minutes to complete. The
interview protocol was followed consistently throughout the interviews and additional questions
were asked when necessary. Via the interviews, the researchers were able to gather data that
reflected the participants’ opinions, decisions, and knowledge. The overall purpose of qualitative
research is to interpret how individuals make sense of a process and describe how they interpret
what they experience (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016).
44

The interview questions will utilize a variety of questions to draw a more descriptive
explanation of the perceptions and conditions that superintendents, assistant superintendents and
principals managed in the midst of the COVID-19 pandemic.
Another typology of different types of questions that we have found particularly useful in
eliciting information, especially from reticent interviewees, is Strauss, Schatzman, Bucher, and
Sabshin’s (1981) four major categories of questions: hypothetical, devil’s advocate, ideal
position, and interpretive questions (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). The semistructured interviews
will allow flexibility and the use of probing questions to elicit greater elaboration when
appropriate.
Sample and Population
The sampling strategy was based on qualitative sampling considerations. According to
Lochmiller and Lester (2017), “sampling considerations under qualitative research are less
concerned with identifying individuals or sites who represent the population than they are in
identifying theoretically important, descriptively valuable perspectives, instances, experiences, or
particular individuals” (p.140). In this study, the identified population consisted of individuals
that held superintendent, assistant superintendent, and school principal positions in K–12
Southern California public school districts and provided leadership in those identified roles
during the COVID-19 pandemic. Since not all California school districts share the same
hierarchical cabinet structure of superintendent, assistant superintendents, and principals, some
participants outside of assistant superintendent title were interviewed. As a result, we broadened
the scope to include cabinet-level district administrators that reported directly to the
superintendent and held the highest position within their department or division.
45

The category of “assistant superintendent” also includes those cabinet-level district
administrators surveyed and interviewed that met the criteria of this participant group. Since the
individuals surveyed were selected for their accessibility, the sampling strategy utilized was
convenience sampling. “A convenience sample is perhaps the most straightforward approach to
sampling in qualitative research, as it involves engaging individuals or research sites that are
most accessible to you as a researcher” (Lochmiller & Lester, 2017, p. 141).
Since this study was conducted by a team of four practitioner-scholars, each researcher
was responsible for identifying three school districts for the research sample. Regardless of how
the school district was selected, district-level approval was first obtained. The superintendent
was provided a written invitation and description of the study and each study participant was also
provided with the same information. This research study included purposeful selection to ensure
that all participants worked in public California K–12, K–8, elementary, and high school districts
in the roles of superintendent, assistant superintendent, or principal. The selection criteria
included the following: (a) superintendent, assistant superintendent, or a secondary principal
from a traditional California K–12 public school district; (b) the superintendent, assistant
superintendent, and principal must have worked in the current role for at least one year; (c) the
superintendents, assistant superintendents, or principals served in these positions during the
2020–2021 school year; and (d) the student population of the district is at least 1,000 (See Table
1).
For each school district selected for the study, there was one superintendent, one assistant
superintendent or cabinet-level administrator, and one principal. The sample size for the study
was set at 12 participating Southern California school districts. As a result, for the interviews
there was a total of 12 superintendents, 12 assistant superintendents or cabinet-level district
46

administrators, and 12 principals participating in this study. Both the survey and interview
protocols included an explanation of the purpose of the study. Written consent was obtained
from each participant prior to conducting the survey and interview, and participants were
informed that the process was voluntary and confidential. The researcher selected district and
school administrators within a school district holding the following positions (superintendent,
assistant superintendent, and school site principals) to obtain various perspectives on the impact
of COVID-19.
It was the intention of the research team to gain insight on how COVID-19 impacted
school districts and how administrators identified the implications related to fiscal matters,
outside agency coordination, union negotiations, and parent community. The identified district
and school administrators all served in superintendent, assistant superintendent/cabinet-level or
principal positions during the 2020–2021 school year, which was the COVID-19 pandemic time-
period researched in this study. These participants completed both a survey and interview for this
mixed methods study.

47

Table 1
Participant Selection Criteria
Superintendent *Assistant superintendent Principal
Served in position during the
2020–2021 school year
Served in position during the
2020–2021 school year
Served in position during the
2020–2021 school year
Administrator in public, K–12
district in Southern
California
Administrator in public, K–12
district in Southern
California
Administrator in public, K–12
district in Southern
California
Served in district with student
population of at least one
thousand
Served in district with student
population of at least one
thousand
Served in district with student
population of at least one
thousand
Completed study survey and
interview
Completed study survey and
interview
Completed study survey and
interview

Note: *Assistant superintendent also encompasses cabinet-level district administrators whose
titles are not assistant superintendent but are the highest position in their department.

District Demographic Data
The district demographic data was obtained from the CA School Dashboard website. The
data of particular interest included: student population over 1,000; percentage of socially
disadvantaged students; percentage of homeless students; and percentage of English learners.
What follows is the data from 2020 for all 12 school districts that participated in this study.
School District A is a unified school district that served almost 17,000 students grades
preschool through adult. The district’s racial/ethnic demographics for 2020 were as follows: 79%
Hispanic, 8% White, 4% Asian, 3% Filipino, 3% African American, and 2% identifying as two
or more races. For the 2020 school year, 16% of the student population consisted of English
48

Learners, 12% were students with disabilities, a little over 36% were homeless, and over 75%
were socioeconomically disadvantaged.
School District B is a county office of education that served over 1,000 students grades
preschool to adult. The district’s racial/ethnic demographics for 2020 were as follows: 70 %
Hispanic, 12% African American, 11% White, 2% Asian, over 1% American Indian, 1%
Filipino, and 1% identifying as two or more races. For the 2020 school year a little over 29% of
the student population were English Learners, almost 4% were foster youth, 1% were homeless,
over 68% students with disabilities, and over 80% were socioeconomically disadvantaged.
School District C is a county office of education that served over 1,200 students grades
preschool to twelfth grade. The district’s racial/ethnic demographics for 2020 were as follows:
70% Hispanic, 12% African American, 11% White, 1% Asian, and 3% identifying as two or
more races. For the 2020 school year, a little over 32% of the student population were English
Learners, almost 28% were students with disabilities, 30% were homeless, a little over 7% were
foster youth, and almost 89% were socioeconomically disadvantaged.
School District D is a unified school district that in 2020 served 12,110 students in grades
kindergarten through adult. The district’s racial/ethnic demographics were as follows: 90.8%
Hispanic, 6.1% Asian, 1.6% Filipino, less than 1% White, less than 1% African American, and
.1% identifying as two or more races. Student group demographics were 17.9% English
Learners, 16.5% were students with disabilities, 14.6% were homeless, and 86.9% were
socioeconomically disadvantaged.
School District E is a unified school district that in 2020 served 8,228 students in grades
preschool through adult. The district’s racial/ethnic demographics were 97.2% Hispanic, 1.1%
White, and 0.3% identifying two or more races. Student group demographics were 16.8%
49

English Learners, 11.5% were students with disabilities, 1.1% were foster youth, 0.4% were
homeless, and 75.4% were socioeconomically disadvantaged.
School District F is a unified school district that served 17,826 students in grades
preschool through adult in 2020. The district’s racial/ethnic demographics were 77.7% Hispanic,
15.4% Asian, 2.8% White, 1.9% Filipino, less than 1% African American and 0.5% identifying
as two or more races. Student group demographics were 18.3% English Learners, 11.3% were
students with disabilities, 3.9% were homeless, 1% were foster youth, and 73.3% were
socioeconomically disadvantaged.
School District G is a union high school district that served 8,299 students in grades ninth
through adult. The district’s racial/ethnic demographics for 2020 were: 77.3% Hispanic, 20.4%
Asian, and 1.3% White. For the 2020 school year 19.3% of the student population were English
Learners, 13.4% were students with disabilities, 5.1% were homeless, and 90.3% were
socioeconomically disadvantaged.
School District H is a unified school district that served 13,798 students in grades
kindergarten through adult. The district’s racial/ethnic demographics for 2020 were 59.2%
Asian, 23% Hispanic, 6.1% White, 5.8% Filipino, and 3.8% identifying as two or more races.
For the 2020 school year 12.1% of the student population were English Learners, 7.9% were
students with disabilities, .2% were homeless, and 21.7% were socioeconomically
disadvantaged.
School District I is a union high school district that served 11,221 students in grades ninth
through adult. The district’s racial/ethnic demographics for 2020 were 89.1% Hispanic, 6.2%
White, 1.4% Asian, 1.3% Filipino, and 1.1% African American. For the 2020 school year 9.1%
50

of the student population were English learners, 13.1% were students with disabilities, 8.7%
were homeless, and 71.1% were socioeconomically disadvantaged.
School District J is a unified school district that served over 5,000 students in grades
kindergarten through adult. The district’s racial/ethnic demographics for 2020 were over 64%
Asian, over 21% Hispanic, over 7% White, almost 2% Filipino, almost 1% African American,
and almost 4% identifying as two or more races. For the 2020 school year 18.8% of the student
population were English Learners, almost 9% were students with disabilities, less than 1% were
homeless, and almost 41% were socioeconomically disadvantaged.
School District K is a unified school district that served over 23,000 students in grades
preschool through adult. The district’s racial/ethnic demographics for 2020 were over 31%
Hispanic, over 29% Asian, almost 21% White, 4% African American, and almost 9% identifying
as two or more races. For the 2020 school year, over 13% of the student population were English
Learners, over 11% were students with disabilities, less than 1% were homeless, and almost 29%
were socioeconomically disadvantaged.
School District L is a unified school district that served over 11,000 students in grades
preschool through adult. The district’s racial/ethnic demographics for 2020 were as follows:
almost 44% White, almost 28% Asian, almost 14% Hispanic, over 2% African American, and
over 9% identifying as two or more races. For the 2020 school year about 6% of the student
population were English Learners, almost 9% were students with disabilities, less than 1% were
homeless, and about 8% were socioeconomically disadvantaged.
Conceptual Framework
The conceptual framework for this study was derived from three existing theoretical
frameworks informing leadership theory and practice. The three theoretical frameworks
51

represented in Figure 1 assist in understanding and synthesizing theories that impact school
leadership and are relevant to managing the COVID-19 pandemic crisis. These theories include
the four frames described by Bolman and Deal (2017)—political, structural, human resources,
and symbolic—which provide educational leaders the guidance to implement the different
aspects of leadership and create organizational impact. Another set of principles is taken from
Fullan’s The Principal: Three Keys to Maximizing Impact (2014) that addresses the specific role
of the principal in managing change by being a lead learner, district player and change agent.
Lastly, Westover’s (2020) framework provides guiding principles for districts to navigate change
and support continuous improvement. These combined frameworks provide K–12 district and
school leaders with the necessary strategies to lead successfully even through a crisis like the
COVID-19 pandemic.

52

Figure 1
Conceptual Framework for K–12 Leadership as Crisis Management

Instrumentation
After analyzing the current literature and identifying gaps in research, the research team
selected a mixed-method approach which had participants complete a self-administered survey
as well as participate in a semistructured interview. The interview and survey questions were
field-tested beforehand to establish conciseness and to make certain the results addressed the
research study questions. The mixed-method approach was selected to ensure triangulation that
“involves using different methods as a check on one another, seeing if methods with different
strengths and limitations all support a single conclusion” (Maxwell, 2013, p. 102). As part of the
process of increasing credibility, the research team was intentional in looking for data that would
53

answer the research questions and support alternative explanations as a way to challenge the
researchers’ biases and theories.
The team collaboratively developed a 26-question survey. The survey was peer reviewed
by other graduate students in the program. The quantitative survey questions were developed
using a 5-point Likert scale (strongly agree, agree, neutral, disagree, strongly disagree). Each
survey was modified for each type of participant (superintendent, assistant superintendent, and
principal). The goal was to collect a variety of participant surveys across various school district
settings to gain a greater perspective of the impact of COVID-19 on education. According to
Lochmiller and Lester (2017), a “Practitioner-scholar” is someone who uses “a survey in their
research should develop a survey instrument that is: (a) closely aligned with the purpose of their
research study, and (b) that is connected to the existing research literature” (p. 158). The 26-
question, 15-minute online survey was emailed to all participants. The alignment of the survey
protocol to the research questions and conceptual framework is shown in Appendix H.
The research team also created a semistructured interview protocol through a
collaborative process. According to Merriam and Tisdell (2016), such a format “allows the
researcher to respond to the situation on hand to the emerging worldview of the respondent, and
to new ideas on the topic” (p. 111). The goal in conducting a good interview is to pose the right
questions, stay present, be an attentive listener, record the interview, and accurately capture the
responses from the participants. Questions that provide a greater degree of elaboration or “rich,
thick descriptions” from the participants serve to increase validity and reliability (Merriam &
Tisdell, 2016, p. 259).
The 14-question interview protocol was designed for the interview to be about 45
minutes in length. Interviews took place virtually due to health and safety considerations and the
54

schedule constraints of the participants who were still leading schools through a pandemic. All
the interviews were recorded with participants’ permission, and notetaking was also used. The
interview questions were intentionally designed to limit yes/no responses and encourage
elaboration through probing or clarifying questions when necessary. According to Merriam and
Tisdell (2016), “probes or follow-up questions or as Seidman (2013) prefers to call it,
‘exploration’—can be as simple as seeking more information or clarity about what the person has
just said” (p. 123). This qualitative instrument utilized a variety of questions to draw a more
descriptive explanation of the perceptions and working conditions of superintendents, assistant
superintendents, and school principals during the COVID-19 pandemic.
Data Collection
The data collection process for this study began in January 2022 and was based on a
mixed-method of quantitative and qualitative data collected from the online survey (Appendix X)
and interview protocol (Appendix Y). The process also began after approval was granted from
the University of Southern California’s Institutional Review Board (IRB). District and school
administrators who met the study criteria were invited to participate via an emailed letter that
stated the purpose of the study (Appendix Z). The email included a summary of the research
study, a request to participate in an interview, and a link for the survey. In addition, participants
were contacted by phone to encourage responses to the surveys and to coordinate interviews.
Participants were selected based on their expressed interest. The researcher then confirmed
participation when a verbal consent to be recorded during the interview was received.
All participants received the same set of instructions for both the online survey and the
semistructured interview. The surveys were conducted through an online format, Qualtrics, so
participants could complete it on their own time and discretion. Surveys were distributed and
55

completed, including submissions from 12 superintendents, 12 assistant superintendents, and 12
school site principals. Participants spent an average of 15 minutes completing the online survey.
To ensure validity of responses, special consideration was given to the relationship between the
researcher and the participants (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016).
During the interview process, the goal was to demonstrate respect at all times by being a
good listener and respectful of participants’ time and responses. Participants were offered a brief
description of the purpose of the interview and were reminded of their confidentiality. Interviews
were conducted via virtual platforms (i.e., Zoom). Interviews were conducted at the most
convenient time for each participant. Each interview lasted approximately 45 minutes. At the end
of the interview, participants were thanked for their participation. The recordings and
transcriptions of the interviews were saved and downloaded from the virtual platform.
Data Analysis
The mixed-methods study used qualitative data from interviews and quantitative data
from surveys. The responses gathered via these two data collection methods were intended to
answer research questions related to fiscal implications, impact of government and public health
agencies, labor relations, and the responsiveness to community needs and concerns during the
pandemic. The qualitative data collected from the interviews were organized and analyzed to
identify common themes. Researchers analyzed the quantitative data collected. Each
participant’s responses were analyzed using the Likert-scale values 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5. The average
score from each question was calculated for each participant and included an overall average
score across all questions for each participant. Responses were evaluated to determine
commonalities and differences.
56

Merriam and Tisdell (2016), assert that data analysis is a complex process. As a result,
“we sometimes think of it as a dialectic in which you move between seeing the big picture (the
‘forest’), and the particulars (the ‘trees’)” (p. 207). The research team focused on the data
analysis process outlined by Merriam and Tisdell (2016):
1. think about the purpose of the study
2. identify lens on how people construct knowledge or make meaning
3. code data/focus on patterns
4. identify main themes that emerge
5. go back to data coded
6. develop categories using “constant comparative method.” (p. 207–208)
As the impact of COVID-19 pandemic on education and school district leaders was
explored, the research team had to consider unexpected results that may bias the interpretation of
data. This consideration allows for a more accurate assessment of the benefits and challenges
that have occurred in education as a result of the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic.
Ethical Considerations
The proposal for this study was submitted to and approved by the Institutional Review
Board (IRB) at the University of Southern California. However, the importance of ethics in
research studies goes beyond the guidelines prescribed in institutional review boards. Ethical
issues at different stages of the research process were considered. According to Patton (2015),
“rigor resides in, depends on, and is manifest in rigorous thinking—about everything, including
methods and analysis” (p. 703). The necessary codes of ethics were followed to ensure no harm,
confidentiality, and informed consent. The participants were selected from school districts
distinct from the researcher to avoid compromising the researcher-participant relationship. It is
57

important for researchers to be mindful and sensitive throughout every step of the research
process, especially during the collection of data and reporting of findings. Merriam and Tisdell
(2016) assert that ethical dilemmas can likely occur during the collection of data and in the
findings.
When it came to data collection (prior to engaging participants in the surveys and
interviews) it was critical to define the purpose of the study and to address confidentiality. When
analyzing data, researchers reflected on positionality, values, and biases to ensure the
perspectives and voices of participants were represented. Data analysis presents its own ethical
challenges, presenting many opportunities “for excluding data contradictory to the investigator’s
views” (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016, p. 264). Finally, in reporting findings, it was essential to honor
promises, especially of anonymity. Special consideration was given to how participants were
labeled throughout the study. Ultimately, the goal was to honor and respect participants by
ensuring no harm yet remaining transparent and honest about the data gathered. As Rubin and
Rubin (2012) have stated,
Your first ethical obligation is to your interviewees, to do them no harm and to keep
promises you have made. At the same time, however, you also have obligations to the
readers of your work, to report as fully, honestly, and fairly as possible. (p. 29)
Throughout the entire research design and process, the research team strove to maintain
the highest ethical standards and to address potential challenges to ensure trustworthiness of the
study.
Summary
This chapter restated the problem, the purpose of the study, and the research questions.
The research design, which included details of the research methods—including the sample and
58

population, instrumentation, data collection, and data analysis—was also presented in this
chapter. Emphasis was given to the fact that data collection began after the research team
obtained approval for IRB. This study used appropriate tools and followed all ethical standards
to ensure the validity and reliability of the study. The research findings of this study and in-depth
analysis will be presented in Chapter Four.

59

Chapter Four: Findings
In recent years, school district administrators have faced various types of crises that have
impacted schools. During the 2020–2021 academic school year, the unprecedented COVID-19
pandemic significantly impacted school districts. The purpose of this study is to analyze the
impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on Southern California school districts and understand what
district and site administrators, specifically superintendents, assistant superintendents, and school
principals experienced and how they managed during the pandemic. This study examines how
district and school administrators perceived the impacts COVID-19 had on fiscal conditions,
cross-agency collaborations, bargaining units, and families during the first year of the pandemic
(2020-2021).
Chapter Four presents findings from a mixed-methods approach involving an online
survey and a semistructured interview. This study was conducted by a research team of four
doctoral education students from USC Rossier School of Education. Each research team member
was assigned three school districts in Southern California. The confidentiality of each participant
was ensured by each researcher throughout the entire process. Each identified research
participant was asked to participate in a semistructured interview and complete an online survey.
The quantitative data was collected via a self-administered online survey intended to take no
more than 15 minutes. The qualitative data was collected through a one-to-one 35-minute
semistructured interview via Zoom. The semistructured interview was based on an interview
protocol of 25 predetermined questions yet remained flexible to “allow the researcher to respond
to the situation at hand, to the emerging worldview of the respondent, and to new ideas on the
topic” (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016, p. 111). All participants completed the online survey and
interview.
60

Research Questions
The interview and survey questions developed were based on four research questions and
were designed to gather data from district and school administrators that led districts during the
COVID-19 pandemic and 2020–21 academic school year. The findings of this study were guided
by the following research questions:
1. What, if any, are the financial implications that the COVID-19 pandemic has had on
K–12 public school districts in Southern California and how have district
superintendents, assistant superintendents, and principals addressed these
implications?
2. What, if any, have been the impact of federal, state and local health agencies on K–12
public school districts in Southern California, and what strategies have district
superintendents, assistant superintendents, and principals followed to address the
suggested guidelines?
3. How, if at all, have union negotiations played a role in K–12 Southern California
public school districts’ response to the COVID-19 pandemic?
4. How, if at all, have K–12 Southern California public school districts leadership teams
comprised of superintendents, assistant superintendents, and principals addressed the
concerns of the parent community regarding safety, nutrition, distance learning, lack
of technology, academic standing, and how and when to reopen schools due to the
COVID-19 pandemic?
Participants
A total of 12 public Southern California school districts were selected for this study. The
research team identified and assigned three school districts per research team member based on
61

the researcher’s accessibility to the district. The targeted participants included having one
superintendent, one assistant superintendent or director, and one secondary school principal per
district. All participants were required to have worked in the identified role for at least 1 year and
held their positions during the 2020–2021 school year. The final set consisted of 36 participants:
12 superintendents, 12 assistant superintendents/cabinet-level members who oversaw their
division or department, such as student services, educational services, or human resources, and
12 principals.
Demographic Data
Participant Demographic Data
Participant demographic data was gathered via the online survey for all 36 participants.
The participants were asked two demographic questions: How many years have you served as an
educational administrator? and How many years have you served in your current role within your
district? It was important to confirm that each research participant had actual experience leading
their districts and/or school(s) during the COVID-19 pandemic. The research team was also
interested in knowing whether the administrator had experience in their role prior to the
pandemic. Table 1 displays the demographic data collected from participants via the online
survey. As can be seen in Table 1, of the 12 superintendent participants, seven have served in
their current position for 6–10 years, two of them for 3–5 years, and three fairly recent at 1–2
years. All 12 superintendents have experienced leading their school districts through the
COVID-19 pandemic.
As can be seen in Table 2, of the 12 assistant superintendents, four of them have served
in their current position for 6–10 years, four of them for 3–5 years, and four only 1–2 years. All
12 assistant superintendents have experienced leading through the first year of the COVID-19
62

pandemic. Finally, as can be seen in Table 3, of the 12 school principal participants, one has
served in their current position for more than 10 years, six of them have served in their current
position for 6–10 years, three of them for 3–5 years and two fairly recent at 1–2 years. All 12
school principals led their school sites through the first year of 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 1 to 2
Superintendent B 6 to 10 1 to 2
Superintendent C 6 to 10 3 to 5
Superintendent D 6 to 10 6 to 10
Superintendent E 3 to 5 3 to 5
Superintendent F 1 to 2 1 to 2
Superintendent G 6 to 10 6 to 10
Superintendent H 6 to 10 6 to 10
Superintendent I 6 to 10 6 to 10
Superintendent J 3 to 5 3 to 5
Superintendent K 1 to 2 1 to 2
Superintendent L 6 to 10 3 to 5

63

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

Table 4
Quantitative Survey: Principal Demographic Information
Position Years in position Years in position at current district
Principal A 1 to 2 1 to 2
Principal B 6 to 10 6 to 10
Principal C 6 to 10 3 to 5
Principal D 6 to 10 3 to 5
Principal E 6 to 10 6 to 10
Principal F 6 to 10 6 to 10
Principal G 1 to 2 1 to 2
Principal H 3 to 5 3 to 5
Principal I 6 to 10 6 to 10
Principal J 3 to 5 3 to 5
Principal K Over 10 Over 10
Principal L 3 to 5 1 to 2
64

District Demographic Data
Aside from the participant demographic data that was collected, the research team also
gathered district demographic data that was identified in Chapter Three. Table 5 summarizes the
district demographic data. The participating districts included two union high school districts, 5
districts serving preschool–12th-grade students, and 5 districts serving K through 12th-grade
students. With the exception of the 2 union high school districts, there were 6 large school
districts, 2 medium-sized school districts, and 2 small school districts. The majority of the
districts had over 70% socioeconomically disadvantaged students. Three districts had less than
30% socioeconomically disadvantaged students; within those three districts one had less than
10% socioeconomically disadvantaged students. Half of the participating districts had a homeless
student population of less than 1%. One-third of the districts had a homeless student population
ranging 4–15% and only two districts had a homeless student population 30–36%. One-fourth of
the participating districts had a less than 9.0% student population of English Learners, with about
two-thirds of the participating districts having an English Learner population, ranging 12–19%.
Two districts had an English Learner student population over 30%.

65

Table 5
School District Demographic Information
District
Grade
levels
Student
population
Socioeconomically
disadvantaged
Homeless
English
learners
District A
District B
District C
District D
District E
District F
District G
District H
District I
District J
District K
District L
P–12
K–12
K–12
P–12
P–12
P–12
HS
K–12
HS
K–12
K–12
P–12
17,000
1,000
1,200
12,000
8,000
18,000
8,000
14,000
11,000
5,000
23,000
11,000
75.00%
80.00%
89.00%
87.00%
75.00%
73.00%
90.00%
22.00%
71.00%
41.00%
29.00%
8.00%
36.00%
1.00%
30.00%
15.00%
<1.00%
4.00%
5.00%
>1.00%
9.00%
>1.00%
>1.00%
>1.00%
16.00%
29.00%
32.00%
18.00%
17.00%
18.00%
19.00%
12.00%
9.00%
9.00%
13.00%
9.00%

Note: Data was rounded down or up to the nearest hundredth for the student population and the
nearest whole percentage for the remainder of the data in order to preserve greater anonymity.

Coding of Data
The research team coded data from responses gathered from the participant interviews.
This process required reviewing the Zoom transcriptions and verifying what the participants had
stated by listening to the Zoom recordings. Each research team member sorted their assigned
participants’ responses according to the four research questions. A shared Google table was
utilized to sort and color code the responses according to themes. As themes emerged from the
data analysis, they were identified and added to the themes color key at the top of the shared
document. While many themes were shared across all participants, there seemed to be more
66

commonality across superintendents and assistant superintendents. Principals had more variation
in the themes that emerged from their data. Some themes from participating principals included
subcategories, such as the themes for student needs, which included technology, mental health,
and social and physical development. Another theme that emerged included staffing issues,
which subdivided into professional development, building trust, managing change, and crisis
management and planning. After all the data was coded and analyzed, the research team made
connections to the literature review. The coding process of the qualitative data supported the data
analysis process that resulted in the findings for each of the following research questions.
Results for Research Question 1
Research Question 1 asked the following: 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 better understand the ways in which
superintendents, assistant superintendents, and principals addressed the financial implications of
the pandemic for their districts and school sites. The COVID-19 pandemic brought great
financial strain to many families in California due to their lack of disposable income, changes in
the workforce (loss of jobs; inflexible work schedules that prohibited them from working from
home; etc.), and their inability to access affordable healthcare (Benfer & Wiley, 2020). Many
families were unable to access essential goods and services, which forced many school districts
and schools to take on the task of providing such services to their students and families.
As the uncertainties of the COVID-19 pandemic raged on, many school districts looked
to federal, state, and local agencies for guidance and financial support to keep the schools
67

running safely and effectively and support students and families. With the passage of the
Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security (CARES) Act on March 27, 2020, the federal
government provided the greatest source of financial support for schools (CDE, 2020). The
CARES Act provided $30.7 billion to better support and serve students whose education had
been adversely affected by the pandemic. Subsequently the Coronavirus Response and Relief
Supplemental Appropriations Act (CRRSA) passed in December of 2020 that provided $54.3
billion for K–12 education delivered largely through Title I funding. Additionally, the American
Rescue Plan, passed in March of 2021, provided $168 billion to address learning loss (CDE,
2020).
Quantitative Findings
In order to better understand the financial impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on school
districts and individual schools, the 36 research participants answered five survey questions,
reflected in Table 6, that pertain to Research Question 1. The responses for all survey questions
throughout the survey were based on a 5-point Likert scale, indicating the following: 1 = strongly
disagree to 5 = strongly agree. Table 6 and all subsequent qualitative survey tables provide the
mean scores per question for each administrator role: superintendents, assistant superintendents
and principals. Across the board between district leaders and site leaders, the question that
garnered the strongest level of agreement, approximately 4.53, was “the CARES ACT met my
district’s funding needs in the area of personal protective equipment (PPE),” with principals
agreeing the strongest, followed by the assistant superintendents, then superintendents. The
question that addressed the CARES Act, “meeting the funding needs in the area of technology,”
garnered the second highest and unanimous mean score of 4.25 of all categories of participants.
Furthermore, the question that asked whether the CARES “meeting the funding needs in the area
68

of professional learning and/or training” came in third with a mean score of 4.0, with assistant
superintendents having the strongest approval, followed by superintendents, then principals. As
far as the questions that addressed the CARES Act “meeting the funding needs in the area of
personnel,” the mean score was 3.97 with assistant superintendents holding the strongest
agreement of 4.17, principals 4.0, and superintendents with a 3.75. The area that yielded the
lowest mean score or agreement with a 3.42 was with regards to the CARES Act “meeting the
funding needs in the area of facilities upgrades” for school districts and schools.

Table 6
Quantitative Survey: District and Site Leaders’ Perceptions of Financial Implications of
COVID-19
Element Superintendent
Assistant
superintendent
Principal
The CARES Act met my district’s funding needs
in the area of personnel.
3.75 4.17 4.00
The CARES Act met my district’s funding needs
in the area of personal protective equipment
(PPE).
4.33 4.58 4.67
The CARES Act met my district’s funding needs
in the area of technology.
4.25 4.25 4.25
The CARES Act met my district’s funding needs
in the area of professional learning and/or
training.
3.92 4.33 3.75
The CARES Act met my district’s funding needs
in the area of facilities upgrades.
3.25 3.42 3.58

Note. The online Qualtrics survey incorporated a 5-point Likert scale (1 = strongly disagree to 5
= strongly agree).

69

Qualitative Findings
The interview protocol contained the following four questions intended to gather data to
respond to Research Question 1:
1. What have been the biggest financial implications of the pandemic on your
district/school?
2. In what ways, if any, would more spending flexibility/structure have benefitted your
district/school?
3. In what ways has COVID-19 related funding been used to meet student needs in your
district/school?
4. To what extent, if any, did financial incentives influence your district’s/school’s
reopening plan/timeline?
In analyzing the data derived from the four interview questions designed to answer
Research Question 1, the following common themes emerged: staff and student safety, meeting
the needs of students, staffing, and the politics of COVID-19.
Theme 1: Staff and Student Safety
The safety of staff and students was of the utmost importance to district and school
leaders as was evidenced by the responses of all participants. School districts and schools had to
increase spending in the category of safety and personal protective equipment (PPE) as mandated
by county and state public health guidelines. According to Superintendent A:
We could use [our monies] for anything as long as it was to help combat COVID and/or
purchase PPE needs for staff and students, face masks, upgrading filtration systems,
buying standalone units for each classroom, cleaning devices, and everything to do with
reducing the spread of COVID.
70

Across the board, districts spent a large portion of their relief money on bulk orders of
PPE supplies that became essential for school districts and schools to ensure the safety of their
employees as they returned to work. Superintendent B stated that:
Historically we had issues of being underfunded; however, our total revenue has
increased with the American rescue grants and money to mitigate the impact of COVID
through PPE. … We’ve seen just an avalanche in unsurmountable funds that have come
into our system.
The large influx of money that was provided to school districts enabled Superintendent I
to not only focus on safety but also additional student needs:
By the time it was all done, our district received over $40M in COVID Relief funds
which helped us fund PPE, testing, vaccine clinics, technology, and staff training. For the
first time in my 40-year career, funding was not an issue for us.
Assistant Superintendent B described the importance of using relief funds to ensure the
health and safety of staff and students. In order to reopen schools safely, administrators needed
to provide a certain level of assurance that the safety protocols were being followed and that they
had the appropriate PPE readily available:
Well, we’ve received an influx of monies from the state and federal governments to
provide the safety items needed to be able to run schools. But really just trying to
maintain all the safety measures in place with the masks, hand sanitizer, temperature
checks … that all contributed to creating a safe environment to bring kids back.
The influx of money also allowed districts to purchase and update equipment that helped
to combat COVID-19 but was also long overdue for replacement as evidenced by Assistant
Superintendent K:
71

We had to update our HVAC systems. Which was a good outcome, as it’s certainly going
to have continuous benefit for us, but it was not necessarily something that was in the
lineup, so to speak, for the timing in which it happened.
The principals also shared the sentiment that safety was of utmost importance when it
came to spending COVID relief funds, as well in deciding to obtain additional funds. School
districts were not in it for the money, but Principal C stated that:
Our superintendent and board, they erred on the side of caution. I know that there was a
lot of money to be made in the open by this date and reopen by that date. I think the
integrity of safety is of a higher value for all of our staff, our parents, and our families,
just because you know, as the county office of education, we kind of set the standard.
COVID-19 testing was another major expenditure for many school districts as it not only
helped to limit the spread of the virus, but it also provided a certain level of protection and
helped to relieve some of the anxieties about returning to school. Superintendent B stated that “a
tremendous amount of money has been spent by school districts on COVID testing. The tests are
not cheap and can range from $50–$100 apiece, so providing this to students and staff has been
an incredible expenditure.” Principal I reiterated the importance of COVID-19 testing as a
district expenditure stating, “another thing our district did very smartly was investing in COVID
testing . . . so, you know we have daily on demand walk-up rapid testing for students and staff
who want it, can get a test any day.” School districts and superintendents turned to community
partners and agencies to help provide testing to their students and communities. Superintendent J
stated:
We worked with other agencies for the testing. Omni was a great resource for us as they
provided all of our testing. They came in, we held testing clinics, here on the district
72

office site. Provided a drive-thru so it was very easy. The doctors are phenomenal, the
nurses came in and took care of our staff and students, and it was just great.
As a result, the interviews showed that across all participants: superintendents, assistant
superintendents, and principals the safety of staff and students was of the utmost importance.
School districts and school leaders spent a large portion of their COVID-19 relief funds on
helping to ensure the health and safety of their employees and students by investing in PPE,
COVID-19 testing, as well as updating their filtration system and purchasing additional units.
Theme 2: Meeting Student Needs (Technology, Nutrition and Social Emotional Learning)
Even though school districts were receiving unprecedented financial support, there were
still many students struggling to access education, especially among underserved communities.
The COVID pandemic also highlighted preexisting equity and access issues for students and
families nationwide (Devakumar et al., 2020). This was especially true for marginalized groups
and vulnerable populations who were at greater risk of work, economic, and health-related
consequences as a result of COVID-19 (Benfer & Wiley, 2020; Kantamneni, 2020).
According to Herold (2020) the COVID-19 pandemic has also highlighted a digital
divide among our country’s wealthiest and poorest schools and students that significantly limited
access to curriculum and instruction for the latter students. Thus, school districts across Southern
California worked tirelessly to prioritize getting devices in the hands of their neediest students
and also providing them with access to the internet in order to address technological inequities
and ensured equal access to instruction as Malkus et al. (2020) had suggested. For students from
low-income households and communities, distance learning was more difficult, and many had
unreliable internet connection or lack of access to the internet (Van Lancker & Parolin, 2020).
73

According to Superintendent C “what is important and a priority was that kids were
thriving. That is paramount, kids are under a lot of strain, and we need to figure out a way to
better serve them.” One major way in which this district served their students was through their
efforts with the digital divide. Superintendent C stated:
We had 100,000 under connected or not connected [students] to Wi-Fi when the
pandemic first started, so we went to Cox and Verizon and they stepped up. They were
able to provide high speed for $9 a month. Families didn’t have to go through the
application process, we negotiated on behalf of the district for in house Wi-Fi or a hotspot
for $9 a month. However, we raised $10 million, and they didn’t pay a dime. 77,000 kids
got connected in a short amount of time. However, some areas were not connected
because they just didn’t have the infrastructure for it.
School districts focused on providing computers and quickly moved towards a one-to-one
model in order to ensure equal access for all students. Superintendent D states that they
purchased “computers and one-to-one devices, hot spots for students” and the funding for
technology was huge. “As you know, technology is quite expensive, and so we were able to
utilize those funds to purchase devices” they added. Some districts took it a step further than
one-to-one as Assistant Superintendent E stated:
We decided to go, instead of being one-to-one, we went to two-to-one, so that students
could have access to Chromebooks both at home and at school. So, we wouldn’t have the
issue of ‘Oh, I forgot my Chromebook’ or ‘I didn’t charge it’ or’ I left it at school’, that
way they would always have access to it.
We also saw a push to purchase software and programs to enhance the learning in the
virtual setting. Superintendent H stated that they purchased “not only hardware, but also
74

instructional software … that was what we found to be really helpful in elevating the experience
for kids and teachers in the virtual learning time.” Superintendent J added:
We ended up going to an LMS [Learning Management System] and just building a
learning management system in our district and putting in software that would augment
our teachers while they were in a distance learning environment or when they came back
in-person.
The pandemic forced the school districts and teachers to enter the 21st century at light speed.
Superintendent I stated that “if you think about it, we did in 2 weeks what it would have taken us
10 years to do, bringing teachers into this technological age.”
Food insecurity also emerged as a major area of spending for all school districts. The
high unemployment rates during COVID-19 and the closing of schools that typically provide two
meals a day to food-insecure children increased food insecurity among families living in poverty
(Van Lancker & Parolin, 2020). Schools were a place where many food-insecure students were
able to get two to three consistent meals a day. So, when schools closed their doors in March of
2020, school districts quickly pivoted their meal distribution system to provide hot and cold
meals to students and families who were now in quarantine (Kinsey et al, 2020). According to
Superintendent I they “saw food insecurity to be an immediate issue for families, and we heard
that from families and also through our community engagement sessions.”
Assistant Superintendent L described the important role that nutrition and food service
staff played in ensuring that students and families hard hit by the pandemic continued to have
consistent meals:
Our central kitchen and our director of nutrition and food services did an amazing job,
because they turned out more food for the community. We had never served that many
75

kids. We have probably 11 or 12% free and reduced lunch population, maybe a little bit
more, we’ll say 15%. But thousands of meals were served every day in excess of that
number to the community. And that’s where we had our kitchen workers, our food
service workers out there every day in parking lots, handing out food to people in cars, to
people that would walk up, thousands of meals a day went out.
Principal C further described the importance of using relief funds and district resources to
provide meals to students and families by stating that they had:
The ability to provide their students and community with meals, food for their pantries.
But also, food that they can pick up. We had the capacity to distribute food to drop off at
their house, and they needed food to be dropped off. This was all because we already had
the infrastructure in place to support those needs as far as the ability of having a fleet of
county cars if we ever needed and, more importantly or just as importantly, a culture
amongst the staff that was willing to go above and beyond to meet the needs of our
population.
The COVID-19 pandemic also had an enormous effect on the mental health of
marginalized communities across America according to Moore et al. (2021) and Lambert (2020).
As a result, district and school leaders had to quickly mobilize resources in order to meet the
needs of their students and families; wellness and social emotional learning (SEL) became a
necessary part of not only distance learning but also the reopening school plans (Stavely, 2020).
Superintendent A stated that:
We also hired employees for mental health support mental needs. Okay, how can we get
our students to have access to academia, computers, things of that nature? How can we
get them help with mental health support? So, we hired folks for that mental health
76

support—specialist counselors—and they did a phenomenal job of trying to connect with
students at the same time; updating like our web system—we have a web page—a mental
health room where people go for support.
All school districts and leaders interviewed focused a portion of their relief money on
providing mental health and SEL supports. Superintendent D stated that they hired “a lot of
counselors and had additional mental health professionals coming onto campuses.” Similarly,
Superintendent K brought in “mental health therapists, and added full time counselors for each of
our schools.” Superintendent I stated that they “saw the social emotional impact on students, as a
priority immediately.”
Assistant Superintendent D also saw the importance of social emotional learning, stating
that:
We spent a lot of money on that too. … We had one existing program called Second Step
and we added another one called Character Strong. We will be set up with Character
Strong for a few years as we were given the okay from our fiscal department to use the
money now and pay for it up front, so we could get it for years which is great.
Similarly, Assistant Superintendent B shared that they have an initiative:
Called the Mental Health Initiative and we’ve developed what we call the care spaces and
they’re basically mental health centers. Inside our current regional centers and so what
that means is inside that particular area we’ve created a space, almost like a safe space;
we’re calling it a care space. There’s a counselor there where kids can come and get that
social emotional support and mental health support that they need. So, all of our kids
have access to … multiple counselors on campus to provide them support during this
time so that’s huge. We’ve also been … supporting the community and those spaces and
77

so the local community can bring their kids then we do some family therapy in there as
well. So, I think that’s been one of the major pushes that we’ve had.
The push for school districts and leaders to meet the needs of students in the areas of
academic supports and interventions, nutrition, and mental health proved to be not only a
financial implication, but also constituted an increase in spending for said services. That increase
will be described in more detail in the subsequent theme.
Theme 3: Staffing
Another major theme that emerged among school districts and leaders regarding the
financial implications of the pandemic on school districts was an increase in spending on
staffing. Many districts across Southern California provided hazard pay, gave raises, and hired
additional employees to keep schools running and continuing to provide essential services while
both virtual and back in-person.
The pandemic also forced school districts to consider their budget priorities, especially in
the area of staffing when analyzing the financial implications of COVID-19. Superintendent C
stated that they:
Didn’t really look at the financial impact on our county office as much as we reviewed
the financial impact on our families. Our budgets are set priorities, we knew that times
would be difficult, and we made a commitment to retain all programs and staff, because
we could afford to, because we had built our reserve. And even though some programs
like outdoor education, and their staff weren’t going to be holding camp, we made a
commitment to redesign their role and job duties, they felt valued and respected. We were
the only one in the region to not issue layoffs. The most important job of a superintendent
is that of a convener, [we] have to stitch together the various monies (public and private)
78

based on the needs of the students and families, period, regardless of how much money is
flowing, because we will hit a rough spot soon.
Funds were also used to pay staff members that were risking their lives and safety,
distributing technology and meals to students, and cleaning and disinfecting campuses
throughout the pandemic. Superintendent E states that “funds were used to pay those frontline
workers and give them that extra $2 and then it went up to $5 for those essential workers that
were coming in for food services and to our custodians.” Superintendent F stated that:
We could even use it for hero pay, because you were allowed to do that, and so we
actually go to pay extra to employees who were here during that time. We actually also
had some funding last year to do early retirement, so we had about 130 people that
retired, both certificated and classified.
The pandemic also saw a massive increase in hiring of new staff for both certificated and
classified positions. Assistant Superintendent A states:
For example, as part of the AB86, 1.2 million of that was dedicated for peer educators, in
part by paying staff stipends for additional hours to support students. We have also hired
a lot of teachers to help bring class sizes down during this time because of the physical
distancing requirements. And so, we’ve probably hired more than ever in HR this year.
When you couple the number of teachers we’ve added with the mental health services
and support. We have increased our personnel dramatically.
Principal H stated that they used some of their relief money to provide additional hourly
pay to staff such as aides to “provide more interventions, paying teachers to stay after school to
do those small group interventions in math and language arts.” Superintendent H further added:
79

We were really appreciative of the additional funds for personnel because we wouldn’t
have been able to hire like we did without it. However, moving forward we’ll have to
find another way to fund these positions once the funding is gone.
Assistant Superintendent L stated:
We had a summer program last year where we were able to provide expanded learning
opportunities. We also had money that we put towards extended office hours for teachers
where teachers were paid their contractual or their professional rate to work with kids
online. We also used funds to contact a tutoring company to provide more support online.
The COVID relief provided a lot of money to provide programs and increase staffing and
staffing hours to meet the needs of students. However, the year of distance learning had burned
too many teachers out who were then unable to provide the extra support to students after school
or during the summer, even with additional pay. Assistant Superintendent F stated “I literally did
not have the staff to come back and support the programs. So, we actually hired out community
partners to do our learning pods. So, we hired the Boys and Girls Club.”
Theme 4: Politics of COVID-19
The reopening of schools was controversial and polarizing, as many questioned the
schools’ ability to properly implement all safety measures (Lambert & Fensterwald, 2020, May
4). School districts in California were offered financial incentives by the state to reopen schools
by a certain time as long as they met certain safety criteria. However, most district’s reopening
plans were driven by the politics of safety among their constituents. Assistant Superintendent K
states:
80

We always had concerns about safety, and once we felt comfortable and confident in our
ability to manage the conditions then we thought we would be able to reopen safely, and
this was what was in the best interest of everybody.
Superintendent C describes how the politics of COVID-19 entered the educational sphere
and impacted district leaders:
Everything got political and we needed to make sure that we were sticking to our own
guidance that was constructed by doing research. By researching Katrina, we were able to
make predictions, many of which are going on today. What is the best thing to do by our
kids, within constructs of safety protocols by county health. Money has nothing to do
with what is right for kids. Money just gives you freedom to do more stuff than you had
before, if you have more of it. So, we did what was best for our kids, within the
constructs of the safety protocols as determined by the county health department.
The business of schooling and educating students during the pandemic became a
conversation by adults about the needs of adults, not about students. Superintendent B describes:
Kids don’t do well at home, adults are fine, we have beautiful houses and technology.
When you think about the fact that many kids live in mobile home parks or in cramped
motel rooms, or in cars, they don’t do well in those environments. Kids do better in
environments where taxpayers have paid millions of dollars to create beautiful
environments, beautiful playgrounds, beautiful technology rooms, beautiful classrooms
for kids to be in person. For me we have to take the attention off of adults and put that
attention back on kids.
Billions of dollars were promised and allocated to schools during the pandemic.
However, access to these funds didn’t always come when needed or it was extremely difficult to
81

obtain what was needed. Assistant Superintendent E described the economic impact of supply
and demand on school districts as they were trying to spend their money: “Okay, you have $2
million to spend on PPE, great but it was hard to get the PPE in the beginning, especially the
quality people wanted.” Assistant Superintendent G further outlines these struggles:
We still struggle with that because it felt like at the beginning, the first couple months we
didn’t have that funding, but as soon as that started coming in, it was like okay, we had
funding for anything that we needed to get through the pandemic, what do we use it on?
Several of the themes found in Research Question 1 such as safety, staffing, and student
needs were ongoing themes throughout the study and will appear in various degrees throughout
the remaining research questions.
Results for Research Question 2
Research Question 2 asked the following: What, if any, have been the impact of federal,
state, and local health agencies on K–12 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 ways in which
superintendents, assistant superintendents, and principals depended on cross-agency
communication and collaboration to incorporate COVID-19 guidance during the first year of the
pandemic to support their district-level decision-making process and planning. In particular, the
guidance was mainly focused on providing safe reopening of schools. School administrators
utilized federal, state, and local health guidelines to determine their school district’s reopening
plan. According to crisis management research, crises are multi-stakeholder phenomena,
involving corporations, government agencies, the public, victims, and other actors (Shrivastava
82

et al., 2013, p. 10). The following sections highlight the findings from the quantitative and
qualitative data that was gathered from the study’s participants to address Research Question 2.
Quantitative Findings
Participants responded to three survey questions specifically pertaining to the impact of
health and safety guidelines. Table 7 provides the mean scores per question for each
administrator role: superintendents, assistant superintendents, and principals. The mean score for
superintendents’ responses was 2.92, which indicates that superintendents neither agreed nor
disagreed that the federal, state, and local health guidelines were clear in providing information
to support the safe reopening of schools. As for understanding how to safely bring back staff
during the fall of 2020 to work sites based upon public health guidance, the superintendents’
average score was a 3.50, which indicates that superintendents were between having neutral
perceptions to agreeing. The superintendents’ responses “the health guidelines impacted our
district’s return to school plan in the Spring of 2021” resulted in a mean score of 3.75, which
inclined towards agreement. The mean scores for assistant superintendent were more closely
aligned with the superintendents. However, the mean scores for principals’ responses were
higher compared to the superintendents.

83

Table 7
Quantitative Survey: District and Site Leaders’ Perceptions of the Impact of Health and Safety
Guidelines
Element Superintendent
Assistant
superintendent
Principal
The federal, state, and local health
guidelines were clear in providing
information to support the safe
reopening of schools.
2.92 3.08 3.92
I understood how to safely bring back
staff during the fall of 2020 to work
sites based on the public health
guidelines.
3.50 3.58 4.08
The health guidelines impacted our
district’s return to school plan in the
spring of 2021.
3.75 4.50 4.42

Note. The online Qualtrics survey incorporated a 5-point Likert scale (1 = strongly disagree to 5
= strongly agree).

Qualitative Findings
The interview protocol contained four questions and one probing question intended to
gather data to address 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?
a. Probing Question (PQ): What agencies?
b. Probing Question (PQ): What organizations?
84

2. To what degree, if any, did the various agencies align COVID-19 guidance for
schools?
3. What strategies have been effective for your district in implementing health
guidelines/policies?
4. Who in your district was primarily in charge of interpreting and implementing the
health guidelines/policies?
In analyzing the data derived from the four interview questions designed to answer
Research Question 2, the following common themes emerged among the participants of this
study: ongoing communication; inter- and intra-collaboration; and constant change and
inconsistencies.
Theme 1: Ongoing Communication
Upon the declaration of the COVID-19 pandemic in March 2020, school administrators
throughout California immediately mobilized as they received state and local mandates requiring
school closures and coordination of government, public health agencies, and schools. The CDE
recommended “that schools develop comprehensive communication plans targeting key
audiences—such as students, parents and caregivers, employees, and community members—that
are responsive to stakeholder concerns” (CDE, 2020b; 2021, p. 37). In addition, what was
highlighted throughout the CDE Stronger Together guidebook as well as the state and local
mandates was the importance of communication and coordination. This section highlights what
superintendents, assistant superintendents, and principals from Southern California school
districts shared related to communication. Across all participants, they emphasized the
importance of maintaining ongoing communication as well as the extraordinary amount of
communication required to keep all necessary stakeholders informed and updated. Assistant
85

Superintendent D stated the following, which was also shared by all superintendents and most
assistant superintendents.
Wow! This is, I mean I could talk forever about this. I will start with the whole LACOE
[Los Angeles County Office of Education] and LA County Department of Public Health
phone calls … [T]hose weekly phone calls that really did start on March 13th, and I think
it was the 12th the day before with the superintendents. I was in all those calls.
Superintendent B indicated that beyond participating in weekly meetings with LACOE
and LACDPH, these collaborations were all about constantly communicating to multiple
stakeholders to keep everyone updated on the latest COVID-19 guidelines.
For us, it has been communicating as much as possible on the guidelines, through
negotiations, emails, updates, morning messages, questionnaires, surveys, and including
site and management teams to keep the community informed.
Assistant Superintendent F expressed that there was a high demand for communication.
She stated:
So, it was all about communication. … So, lots and lots of meetings … lots of days where
I literally would sit in this chair at 8 o’clock in the morning or before and not leave it
until 10 or 12 at night, those were the worst nights. Or they would follow you home …
You’re talking in the car. It was just—I would call it Zoomageddon or Zoomerang,
because the whole day was … trying to reassure people and building a plan together.
Participants also expressed that it wasn’t just about relaying and providing information to
multiple stakeholders, but it was also about establishing open and two-way communication and
relationships. Principal K stated:
86

I think the biggest strategy comes under the umbrella of communication. It’s not just a
distribution of rules and information without there being a dialogue... you know, I built a
great rapport with my community and built those relationships and trust over time. And I
really believe that the constant communication and understanding of the “what” and the
“why” and the “how” were very important.
Finally, the last thing to highlight were the key communicators. In many districts, the
superintendents and assistant superintendents played a critical role in disseminating information
and engaging multiple stakeholders. Districts also established special committees formed by
cross-division staff, including nurses, custodians, and secretaries. Superintendent I indicated that
it was a team approach working at various levels:
Our executive cabinet quarterbacked the understanding and interpreting of the protocols.
It was then handed to the COVID compliance team to figure out and then passed down to
our principals who would add to the plans.
Communication was clearly taking place at all levels and at all times. These findings are
consistent with previous studies on crisis management in educational settings, which emphasized
“communications and relationships with external audiences, and visibility and involvement of
district and school leadership” (Gainey, 2009, p. 279).
Theme 2: Inter- and Intra-Agency Collaboration
A critical expectation for all superintendents was to “establish mechanisms of
coordination with public health authorities so that education actions are in sync and help advance
public health goals” (Reimers & Schleicher, 2020, p. 5). Governor Newsom’s executive order N-
2620 requested coordination of schools and public health agencies. Additionally, a letter was
issued on behalf of Governor Newsom, State Superintendent of Instruction Tony Thurmond,
87

State Board of Education President Linda Darling-Hammond, and Health and Human Services
Agency Secretary Mark Ghaly, stating the following to superintendents and school leaders,
Please continue to be guided by federal, state, and local public health authorities in your
decision-making. We believe that public health and education officials, in collaboration,
are best positioned to measure and balance these very difficult, and often competing,
considerations. Continue to collaborate with your city and county officials on how best to
work within your community and we encourage all members of the school community,
administrators, employees, and families, to communicate and consult with one another as
we plan and implement services for students. (California Health and Human Services,
2020)
Superintendent A stated the following about their collaborations with county-level
agencies:
So, we worked primarily with the Los Angeles County Department of Public Health, as
well as the Los Angeles County Office of Education to ensure that we were following all
of the COVID protocols. And number two, to leverage their resources and support as to
how to move forward with reopening schools and maintain safety.
Besides coordinating with public health and county-level agencies, school districts also
created partnerships and collaborated with their local level agencies. Superintendent G stated:
We also worked with our city legislators and community partners. … City Council and
other dignitaries to not duplicate efforts. … Our local city partners, they have been
aligned … with scheduling … to make sure that we had certain areas within the
community taken care of whether it was food distribution or whether it was a vaccination
clinic, etc.
88

Other community level partnerships included mental health services. Superintendent J
shared that in their district they:
partnered with a mental health agency to provide services for students. They offered a 24-
hour mental health call in number. It is private and it is HIPAA compliant for students.
And we also have a partnership with LACOE for the EASE program for our staff who
needed mental health services 24/7. Staff could call and just get access to an EASE
counselor. They offered help for staff members who were dealing with loss or struggling
with fears related to the pandemic. That was really essential.
Principal L also shared the important partnerships that were in place to support student
mental health needs.
Throughout the whole time, we tried really hard to make sure we had resources available
to our kids and to do some outreach, right. Partnering with some local tutoring agencies
… to support our kids. We had already been partnering with a mental health group that
provides our school-based therapist, but we also did a lot of work around parent resources
… so, working with other local groups to provide parent workshops on how to support
your kid during the pandemic and things like that. So, I really worked with some local
agencies in our area to provide some family resources.
Collaborations were taking place with county-wide, local, and community agencies as
well as within school district staff members. As Assistant Superintendent L indicated,
One of things that we did from the outset, which was, I think beneficial to us, was that we
had a ton of committees. We had an academic committee, a medical committee, a
superintendent staffing committee, etc. Every day of the week, after three, there was at
least one committee that was meeting, and they were composed of community members,
89

professionals, faculty, staff, in some cases, students. So, we really made sure that
everyone’s voice was heard.
The participants from this study demonstrated that they engaged in inter- and intra-
agency collaborations; this was consistent with best practices for crisis management. According
to research, “school leaders must look for opportunities to more fully engage their communities,
forge new collaborations, strengthen two-way communication with key constituencies, and
demonstrate visionary leadership to maintain successful, safe, and crisis-ready school districts”
(Gainey, 2003, as cited in Gainey, 2010, p. 91).
Theme 3: Navigating Constant Change and Inconsistencies
Another common theme that emerged from the participants’ responses was the difficulty
to manage the constant changes in directives and information. It was also challenging to navigate
the inconsistencies that were present across agencies as well as the diverse perspectives within
the school community. “Each stakeholder sees the crisis differently. Furthermore, the definitions
and redefinitions of a crisis emerge from a stakeholder’s interactions with it” (Shrivastava et al.,
2013, p. 10). As several participants in the study stated, the most challenging aspect of their job
during the pandemic was addressing the constant changes and inconsistencies. As Principal G
stated, “The discrepancies were the differences between state, local, and county guidelines. So,
that was probably one of the most stressful parts of my job to be honest with you. Superintendent
F similarly stated, “So, I just think the amount of change required, you know, week after week,
was very tiresome for the system, and I would say for personnel.” Principal D shared the
challenges with constant change and inconsistencies:
It was challenging and when I say challenging, you know, it was day to day … because
every other day, it would be changing or being modified. We were constantly adjusting
90

all the time, and I’m not just talking about the academic piece, because we also had to
deal with the social emotional piece, and the athletics and activities piece. LA county’s
standards and protocols were different from that of Orange County … different from that
of another county and people had differences in opinions on those things. So, it was
tough, and I really wanted to have one uniform standard. That would have been perfect,
right? ... to make life a little bit easier, but I know that would have been in a perfect
world.
Superintendent K stated, “LA County was very restrictive and very difficult to navigate,
because they kept changing their minds. And then we’d have to implement it, and then not too
long later they would change or modify.” Assistant Superintendent E stated:
There was a lot of confusion. … People would say … the state said this. But the county
was different. I realized the frustration was that we were more restrictive. So then, people
would say, “but my friend teaches here or there,” and even the difference between
Orange County, San Bernardino, and LA County was really confusing for us, so that was
frustrating. So, there wasn’t alignment in a sense.
While participants in this study expressed frustration with the constant changes and
inconsistencies that existed across counties and agencies, they persevered. As Principal D stated,
“it was about reassuring the public’s trust and ensuring that safety was being maximized not for
parents and students but also for teachers … custodians and classified staff.” This was certainly
necessary to manage the crisis. Aside from critical thinking, school leaders need “high levels of
awareness of oneself, others and the environment, as well as high levels of tolerance for
complexity, ambiguity, and uncertainty” (Cohn et al., 2000; Fineman, 2000 as cited in
Shrivastava et at., 2013, p. 11).
91

Results for Research Question 3
Research Question 3 asked the following: How, if at all, have union negotiations played a
role in K–12 Southern California public school districts’ response to the COVID-19 pandemic?
This research question was aimed at better understanding both the adaptive and technical
approaches Southern California school district leadership teams and their school board members
took in negotiating with both certificated and classified staff in response to the COVID-19
pandemic. It was designed to better understand how negotiations with both certificated and
classified employees, whose working groups constitute the labor side of public-school districts,
impacted the shift to distance learning, ongoing instructional practices throughout school
closures, continued operation of school sites, and eventual reopening of schools (including
hybrid reopening).
On the local level, negotiations regularly occur, resulting in collective bargaining
agreements and memoranda of understanding agreements that are legal contracts between the
employer and the union on behalf of its members (Hemphill & Marianno, 2021). These unions
have become very powerful forces in shaping local and state policy (Mertz, 2014) and continue
to play a major role in ongoing negotiations, as COVID-19 restrictions are reassessed. As
previously highlighted, when school districts in Southern California began their shift to distance
learning in March of 2020, essentially closing their doors to in-person instruction, a new
approach to meeting both the instructional needs as well as the social emotional well-being of
students was required. What would become one of the most extensive responses to a crisis in the
districts’ history ended up being a catalyst for how district leaders worked with their bargaining
units.
92

Quantitative Findings
The participants were surveyed on three questions in the areas of negotiations with
certificated and classified unions, and how they influenced the way their corresponding districts
effectively responded to the COVID-19 pandemic for students and families, as well as how
negotiations with their corresponding teacher’s union impacted the quality of instruction offered
to students during distance learning. As seen in Table 8, with mean scores of 4.08, 4.42, and
4.25, superintendents, assistant superintendents, and principals agreed or strongly agreed that
negotiations with certificated unions influenced the way their districts effectively responded to
the COVID-19 pandemic for both students and families. Insofar as negotiations with classified
unions and the influence those bargaining members had on the way their districts effectively
responded to the COVID-19 pandemic for both students and families, with mean scores of 3.92,
4.00, and 4.00, superintendents neither agreed, nor disagreed, while assistant superintendents,
and principals agreed. Table 8 also highlights strong agreement among the participants around
negotiations with the teacher’s union and impact they had on the quality of instruction offered to
students during distance learning, as evidenced by the positive mean scores from
superintendents, assistant superintendents, and principals of 4.08, 4.33, and 4.33.

93

Table 8
Quantitative Survey: District and Site Leaders’ Perceptions of the Impact of Union Negotiations
Element Superintendent
Assistant
superintendent
Principal
Negotiations with certificated unions
influenced the way my district
effectively responded to the COVID-19
pandemic for students and families.
4.08 4.42 4.25
Negotiations with classified unions
influenced the way my district
effectively responded to the COVID-19
pandemic for students and families.
3.92 4.00 4.00
Negotiations with the teacher’s union
impacted the quality of instruction
offered to students during distance
learning.
4.08 4.33 4.33

Note. The online Qualtrics survey incorporated a 5-point Likert scale (1 = strongly disagree to 5
= strongly agree).

Qualitative Findings
The interview protocol contained the following four questions intended to gather data to
address Research Question 3:
1. What were the most important issues negotiated with your teacher’s union and how
were they resolved?
2. What were the most important issues negotiated with your classified union and how
were they resolved?
3. In what ways, if any, were instructional programs influenced by union negotiations in
your district?
94

4. In what ways, if any, were safety protocols influenced by union negotiations in your
district?
In analyzing the data derived from the four interview questions designed to answer
Research Question 3, the following common themes emerged among the participants of this
study: safety, scheduling, and compensation and expectations.
Theme 1: Safety
During closures, both certificated and classified staff remained on school sites to provide
ongoing support to school communities. As such, there was a need to shift safety measures to
address this new instructional landscape. There was now a need to address an entirely new
category of school supplies. Hand sanitizer, temperature scanners, plexiglass barriers, hands-free
paper towel dispensers, surgical masks, face shields, latex gloves, and protective coveralls
became necessary school supplies alongside paper, pencils, crayons, and glue (EdSource,
2020b). Such supplies became requirements for ensuring safe working and schooling conditions,
and though Governor Newsom signed Executive Order N-26–20 in March of 2020, which called
for, amongst other safety measures, the continued delivery of high-quality educational
opportunities to students to the extent feasible through, among other options, distance learning
and/or independent study, and the providing of school meals (State of California, 2020),
teachers’ unions continued to advocate for increased safety measures and for distance learning
until vaccinations were made available for all teachers. This coincided with Governor Newsom’s
announcement that California would require all teachers and school employees to be vaccinated
or submit to weekly COVID-19 testing amid growing Delta variant concerns (Mays, 2021).
These union concerns were exacerbated by the Omicron variant, which increased infection rates
in Southern California at the start of the 2022 spring semester.
95

Along with what plans were to be enacted, as a response to the COVID-19 pandemic,
distance learning protocols, and policies related to back to in-person instruction, throughout
negotiations, school leaders found themselves in a position, in which the safety issues they were
addressing with their labor partners, were more than precautionary. As highlighted by Assistant
Superintendent A, they were negotiating around people’s safety:
You’re talking about very sensitive issues and so there were delicate conversations that
we needed to have to come to an agreement so that when we did reopen, we would have
our partners there to welcome our kids and try not to miss a beat.
According to Principal E, a primary concern was that a lot of the teachers didn’t want to
come back because they didn’t feel it was safe to have students on campus during that time.
Principal E went on to state:
I think the union really fought for not rushing to bring teachers back onto campus. They
also wanted to make sure that we had all the masks we needed, any cleaning supplies,
they want to make sure that was all in place before the teachers came back to campus as
well as they provided air scrubbers for each of the classes, for each of those teachers who
returned, as well as the summer school classes for last year. They wanted to make sure
that the teachers and even classified staff were safe returning back to campus and that we
were following everything that we needed to follow.
A key area addressed during negotiations centered around enforcement, meaning, how
would leadership ensure that requirements, such as maintaining physical distance and students
(and others) wearing masks, be adhered to. For teachers it was about safety in the classroom.
Teachers wanted plexiglass items, that in turn would make them more comfortable. Teachers
also wanted shields between students, updated AC filters, stand-alone hand sanitizers, portable
96

sinks (soap and water), foggers for disinfecting, and other types of safety items. Labor partners
wanted assurances that district leadership utilized newly available funds to be used for individual
desk shields. Assistant Superintendent D stated, “I know a lot of districts didn’t go that route, but
that was important with our labor partner to be willing to come back to work and get back on
campus, so we did.”
According to Assistant Superintendent F, other key questions were, “What would safety
protocols be if students were back based on the knowledge, the science that we had at the time?
What would the classrooms look like? So, we really went through all those steps.” Assistant
Superintendent F went on to state that “ would have liked to be out on distance learning again
this year (2021–2022) because they continue to say we’re not safe.” Therefore, as Assistant
Superintendent G stated, “it was incumbent on district leadership to model reopening protocols
that were coming from the Department of Public Health to model and reassure labor partners of
all processes and procedures that were put in place.” Essentially reiterating a common theme,
that preparedness on behalf of the district was key, and that districts were not going to put
anybody into a situation that is unhealthy for them. This includes students, staff, and all other
stakeholders.
An area that varied was addressing anxieties around health, especially with staff that
worked with students at grade levels that were not eligible for vaccines. Additionally, having
clear and precise communication on any type of positive cases was key in negotiations, as was
ensuring that daily cleaning (with accessible schedules) was taking place, and maximizing the
safe distance rule, which meant keeping kids a safe distance from each other. Questions that
needed to be addressed included the following, as highlighted by Principal D:
97

You had 30 kids in the classroom, you know, how can we manage that? We didn’t want
people to feel like they’re too packed into their classrooms. We were trying to really hold
those 15 kids in a room because we still had to do the six feet of social distancing. When
that went away, we knew that we could put more in, but we also didn’t want to have
classes 40 either you know. For some teachers, their biggest concern was ventilation,
questions around the HVAC system. That was the big piece, and our district did a
fabulous job of making sure that they got all our HVAC systems up to par which gave
some comfort and relief.
What is evident, based on the interviews conducted, was that it took time to come to
agreements. Will masks be mandated? Will six feet social distance be required? Will there be
plexiglass provided for all classrooms and offices? Will there be air scrubbers throughout the
campus? These are questions that took time to agree to. As Superintendent I highlighted:
From the beginning, my biggest goal was to come out of the pandemic with our
outstanding union relationships intact. Our district has long prided itself on being partners
in the process of educating our kids. We have always believed we need to take care of
those who take care of our kids. It’s really nothing more than Maslow’s hierarchy, that if
the employee needs are met, then they can focus on their students without worrying about
who is taking care of them. In all the MOUs that we put forward, in the beginning our
unions were like, “We don’t even need an MOU. We’re fine.” And I’m like, “No, you
need an MOU. We need an MOU because you have to communicate this up to all of your
constituents too.” And so, they really are communication tools. And that’s how we saw
them (MOUs).

98

Theme 2: Scheduling
Scheduling, meaning work and bell schedule, and what the instructional program looks
like both for distance learning, hybrid, and full reopening, as well as the expectations of
instructional methodology, were important negotiating points. As Assistant Superintendent F
highlighted, the amount of time one spent in asynchronous instruction versus synchronous were
key components of ongoing negotiations with the teacher’s union.
Superintendent G stated that when the shift to distance learning began in March of 2020,
district leadership worked with unions, with the focus on “what this journey would look like”
and “what face to face time with our students would look like.” Superintendent G went on to
state, discussions focused on what the appropriate amount of time online (both synchronous and
asynchronous minutes) would be healthy for both students and staff. As Superintendent A
highlighted:
Instructional programs were not so much influenced by the negotiations. The rank and
file were not fighting against teaching. It was more to do with the instructional time. We
wanted more prep time and they wanted less instructional minutes because they were
exhausted, working extra hours uploading info and communicating with families.
As districts headed into the summer ahead of the 2020–2021 school year, negotiations
focused on what the fall of 2021 would look like. Think-tanks of teachers and district leadership
worked to envision what classrooms would look like and what would work (Superintendent I).
Think-tanks expanded to include school site leaders and additional teachers. In the case of one
Southern California district, the year was divided into four phases depending on what the
pandemic dictated. According to Superintendent I, Phase 1 was fully remote and Phase 4 was
fully in person. In between Phase 1 and Phase 4 was 25% capacity and 50% capacity.
99

Teams of teachers and principals were divided into phases and worked on what it would
look like in each phase. Again, all of this was done during the summer preceding the
remote year. Once the plan came together, the plan was taken to the school board for
approval. Once that work was done, we just followed the plan. No matter what stage the
pandemic was in (later to be designated by the state color system) we knew what we were
doing. We took some heat from some community members for not revising our plans, but
our plans were based on the rise and fall of COVID-19 cases. We had agreements for
each phase, and although we never got to Phase 4 in 2020–21, we got to Phase 3 by the
end of the year. This became important for us to reopen completely in person in 2021–22.
Teachers were comfortable with the safety procedures we had in place and trusted that we
were looking out for their well-being.
This approach was not unique to District I. As was highlighted by Superintendent C, the
creation of committees made up of various stakeholders helped lead the reopening work:
What we did which was different was we established a reopening committee that had all
of our unions, management, teachers, HR, and had healthy discussions for reopening and
getting kids back on campus and staff safe. So, we did open, I would not say early, but
we did. We built a team outside of collective bargaining and MOUs. It was not only a
think-tank, but it made recommendations to the MOU, and we were able to get a lot of
stuff and put things through that we might not have otherwise agreed and would have
been slowed down by the collective bargaining process. We had more voices at the table
and had diverse perspectives and opinions that were honored.

100

Theme 3: Compensation and Expectations
As district leaders and teachers were focused on full return to work, leadership staff were
aware that they were calling staff back to work at a time when “many were concerned, as some
school site personnel had passed away” (Assistant Superintendent B). That was a reality that
many districts had to face. Both certificated and classified union members were being asked to
risk their lives, so the trepidation was understandable. According to Assistant Superintendent B,
the teacher’s union goal was, and is “to improve their welfare and benefits.” Therefore, as part of
their negotiation plan, their district provided a $1,500 stipend for staff to come back. The
superintendent of that same district was adamant that it was about compensation: “For teachers it
was definitely money, salary. Ensuring they were getting increases in salary. Ironic because what
were we paying them more money for? Teachers saw it as an opportunity to get more money.”
As one district decided to bring Special Education teachers back prior to full reopening, a
stipend for those teachers and instructional aides was provided. “It was an incentive for those
teachers to come back on the campus” (Principal E). For classified staff, superintendents
interviewed shared that compensation, based on the underlying thought that they were seen as
“essential workers,” guided their negotiations, and though some classified union members
looked to approach negotiations in an adversarial way, a collaborative approach by district
leadership ensured that negotiations were fruitful. As was stated by Superintendent E, “with the
classified, I think it was more about, you know, how much are you going to incentivize the
essential workers?” Superintendent I said:
Obviously, the classified union was a little different, but we were able to work with them
through their concerns. Complicating it was a CSEA regional rep who wanted to make
everything adversarial, but we kept working with our own folks to get to our agreements.
101

We found that whenever someone was looking just to be contrary or pick a fight that we
would step aside and turn it around, asking them what we can do to make them
comfortable. I don’t think they were ready for that response and when they suggested
alternate solutions that worked for us, we agreed. They usually walked away feeling
heard and cared for.
As school districts implemented never-utilized block schedules, it had a huge
instructional impact. This was because the blocks incorporated both synchronous and
asynchronous minutes. This essentially minimized the instructional minutes for teachers to
provide direct instruction. Assistant Superintendent D stated that even teachers expressed
concerns that by doing that they had fewer instructional minutes with which to meet their
student’s needs. This exemplifies a harsh truth: there was an instructional impact given the
accommodations around schedules. Assistant Superintendent D went on to state:
Not only did we now have fewer instructional minutes in front of our students, but there
was a sense of having to pack those direct minutes into a shorter period (time). There was
also the impact on the students’ grades because there was not much time to address credit
recovery, and before you know it, you are done with that course and for the whole year.
Based on findings, there was a clear indication that the COVID-19 pandemic impacted
the instructional program at all grade levels. Assistant Superintendent D observed:
I think it was an added stressor on top of the fact that students and staff were virtual (and
literally) anyway, and the impact it had on teachers’ pacing plans and guides. [We] as
district and school leaders were very cognizant of rigor (lack of) and instructional
minutes (less) and the negative impact it was having on our students.
According to Assistant Superintendent F,
102

We asked ourselves, have we tried to follow the guidelines of, you know, screen time?
We also wanted what seemed reasonable for our youngest learners and our older students.
So, we went through that, but we also wanted to be sure that people didn’t just log on for
five minutes and say okay kids have fun here’s your assignment.
Results for Research Question 4
Research Question 4 asked the following: 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 reopen schools
due to the COVID-19 pandemic?
Research Question 4 was designed to explore the relationship that K–12 Southern
California public school districts and their leadership had with parent community concerns
during the COVID-19 pandemic. Smith and Riley (2012) describe the importance of leadership
in times of crisis, and how leaders must do more than what is expected under a “normal” school
climate. The COVID-19 pandemic has asked educational leaders such as superintendents,
assistant superintendents, and principals to listen to different perspectives so that they can
understand their position in times of crisis and comprehend how to help their educational
organization and key stakeholders in times of uncertainty (Scherrey, 1989; Supovitz et al., 2019).
Ultimately, in crisis situations such as that caused by the COVID-19 pandemic, educational
leaders must provide hope, optimism, and certainty for their organizations and key stakeholders
due to uncertainty in the areas of safety, nutrition, distance learning, technology, academic
standing, and the reopening of schools (Smith & Riley, 2012). It is imperative for leaders to act
decisively and in an appropriate manner during crises (Smith & Riley, 2012).
103

Quantitative Findings
The participants were surveyed on seven questions in the areas of communication,
nutrition, technology, social emotional wellbeing, health and safety, and academic needs to better
understand how their school districts met the needs of their parent community concerns. As seen
in Table 8, with mean scores of 4.25, 4.42, and 4.58, superintendents, assistant superintendents,
and principals agreed or strongly agreed that their school district maintained good
communication with families during the pandemic. With respect to nutrition, participants also
agreed or strongly agreed that their districts met the nutritional needs of students and families
with mean scores of 4.67, 4.92, and 4.67. Table 8 also highlights strong agreement among the
participants in the areas of their district meeting the technological needs of students and families,
specifically, computer/devices and internet service. Positive mean scores were also seen in
districts meeting health and safety student and family needs.
As observed in Table 9, there were two key areas where participants were not in strong
agreement. In the area of their districts meeting student and family social emotional wellbeing
needs, mean scores ranged from 3.58 to 4.33. Principals were in greater agreement, whereas
superintendents and assistant superintendents on average fell between neither agreeing nor
disagreeing and agreeing. Finally, the area of districts meeting the academic needs of students
had the lowest mean scores from all seven survey questions, with scores ranging from 3.67 to
3.75. All participants fell between neither agreeing nor disagreeing and agreeing on the matter.

104

Table 9
Quantitative Survey: District and Site Leaders’ Perceptions of Parent Concerns
Element Superintendent
Assistant
superintendent
Principal
My district maintained good
communication with families during
the pandemic.
4.25 4.42 4.58
My district met the needs of students and
families in the area of nutrition.
4.67 4.92 4.67
My district met the needs of students and
families in the area of technology
(computers/devices).
4.67 4.75 4.67
My district met the needs of students and
families in the area of technology
(internet service).
4.17 4.25 4.42
My district met the needs of students and
families in the area of social emotional
wellbeing.
3.92 3.58 4.33
My district met the needs of students and
families in the area of health and
safety.
4.42 4.42 4.08
My district met the academic needs of
students.
3.67 3.75 3.67

Note. The online Qualtrics survey incorporated a 5-point Likert scale (1 = strongly disagree to 5
= strongly agree).

Qualitative Findings
The interview protocol contained the following two questions with several probing
questions intended to gather data to address Research Question 4:
1. In what ways did your district/school gather input from and communicate to the
community?
105

2. What were the biggest concerns from your district’s community and how were they
addressed?
a. PQ: Were there any safety concerns?
b. PQ: Were there any nutrition concerns?
c. PQ: Were there any academic concerns?
d. PQ: Were there any technology concerns?
e. PQ: Were there any reopening concerns?
In analyzing the data derived from the two interview questions designed to answer
Research Question 4, the following common themes emerged among the participants of this
study: ongoing communication, student needs, and safety.
Theme 1: Ongoing Communication
The successful implementation of new COVID-19 related guidelines, policies, and
practices to meet parent and community concerns and overall student and family needs required
effective communication as educational leaders sought feedback when making decisions in the
best interest of their stakeholders (Canlé, 2020; Child, 2020; Hemphill & Marianno, 2021).
Schools relied on traditional communication tools like newsletters, emails, websites, and phone
messages to keep stakeholders in the loop of important decisions (Canlé, 2020). As
Superintendent J indicated:
We had a lot of ongoing phone calls and surveys with our community, especially with
regard to who wants to come back into in-person learning and who wants to go to virtual
learning. And then how would you want that virtual learning constructed? So many of
our families said we want in-person teachers. And so, we were like, “Okay, well, we’re
going to now build the in-person virtual academy.” So, we had surveys come back and
106

forth. And then we also had virtual superintendent forums which were about once a
month and just so that they would have the latest, greatest updates, guidelines and what
the district was doing. What is the focus of the district right now?
Superintendent F added, “I also do a monthly newsletter. … We are very active on social
media. … Public relations firm posts just about every day. You know, different things on all
three social media platforms, Instagram, Facebook and Twitter.”
Traditional communication also evolved during the pandemic as many educational
leaders employed new communication styles such as holding virtual meetings for essential
updates and recorded presentations (Canlé, 2020). The new “normal” for educational systems
shed light on how imperative it is to communicate with all stakeholders. During times of distress,
school leaders must remain positive and transparent (Canlé 2020). The COVID-19 pandemic
also saw an increase in family community involvement, as Superintendent L shared:
What I found was that our parents, our community wanted to be involved. So, we set up
these superintendent round tables, and now we’re up to like nine or ten of them. So, we
have a high school parent committee, middle school parent committee, an elementary
school parent committee, a special ed parent committee, and a curriculum advisory
committee. Let’s see what else? A staff advisory committee, a middle school student
advisory committee, a high school student advisory committee.
Principal D stressed the importance of having different ways of communicating and
indicated:
It’s a tool in your toolbox and here’s one tool, here’s another tool. This Friday we are
going to have a Webex meeting and if you’re not able to make it, that’s okay, because it’s
going to be recorded and we’re going to put that on the website so you can watch it after
107

work or you can watch it the next day, and your own convenience. We have the questions
in the chat going and he’s going to put the PowerPoint up there as well.
Theme 2: Student Needs
Superintendent L described the success his school district had in the area of nutrition and
highlighting the importance of state and governmental support. “It was really successful,”
Superintendent L observed, “providing free lunches from the state and the government ultimately
was a great decision. … We handed out a ton of free lunches. And so, the food service program
has been a real success.”
Superintendent C described how their schools went above and beyond and ensured that
everybody had access to meals: “[They] fed millions of kids and worked with food banks to
provide food for families. They would ask for extra because they knew how important nutrition
is during this time. Schools became family feeding centers.”
Assistant Superintendent K described how their district adapted to the high demand and
did their best to ensure the feeding centers were run efficiently and safely:
There was one little period of time where a couple of our locations got a little overrun by
folks and you know we decided to put some security in those places, just because people
were not maintaining their distance and we wanted to make sure people were comfortable
and safe and were in and out in a quick manner. We felt very fortunate to be able to
provide what we did.
Principal C added how their school site delivered meals to homes because they
understood they had families that could not come to them, and food scarcity was possibly
affecting them at home:
108

Initially there was a concern, the fear of everything was pandemic, people were stocking
up on everything. They live paycheck to paycheck. They couldn’t stock up; they were
reliving paycheck to paycheck. Food scarcity was legitimately a thing, they were
struggling pre-pandemic. Everything was going away; shelves were empty, and they had
to wait a week to get a paycheck. One of the biggest pushes was to provide food to
families. Get hot meals, breakfast and lunch. We delivered boxes of food twice a week.
At the start of the COVID-19 pandemic came the evolution of learning model structures,
from the traditional, in-person style to full distance learning from home or hybrid option
(EdSource, 2020a). The new learning model structures for many districts included synchronous
and asynchronous online learning (via Zoom and Google Meet), take-home instructional
material, and televised supplemental content on a voluntary basis (Diliberti et al., 2020;
EdSource, 2020a; LAUSD, 2021; Malkus et al., 2020a). With these changes came academic
concerns from families and communities. Superintendent B shared a comparison of two different
takes on academic concerns during the COVID-19 pandemic:
Depends on demographic and region. Affluent areas were demanding schools stay open,
their teachers be present and visible. … They were very aware that if any teacher was out
that they would get quality subs. In high poverty areas, however, they are working trying
to put food on the table and not aware of what is happening. Some classes had revolving
subs almost every day. There was a diversity of expectations.
Superintendent C described how differences in instruction can be overwhelming for
parents and magnify academic concerns:
Concerns came from parents having them navigate this new environment. Kinder
[students] navigating the Canvas platform, being able to check in with their teachers, all
109

of that. Parents were put in the role of educational assistant, which caused levels of
discomfort. So many families, and women gave up jobs to do this. This placed an
additional strain on families, some kids got great education, others didn’t. Some kids
fully engaged others did not. Some parents liked having their kid in this virtual
environment but overall, it was a mixed bag.
Superintendent L shared that learning loss was a key academic concern in their district
and what programs they were implementing to mitigate learning loss. Assistant Superintendent C
shared that some of the academic concerns were due to reasons outside their control. They shared
that students had to decrease their school load and manage the instructional program due to work
and care for younger siblings. There were also families living in shelters, cars, and moving home
to home that caused severe disruptions for students’ education. Finally, Principal K shared that
although there were plenty of academic concerns around learning loss, the instructional program
was constantly worked on to keep up with student needs. For example, teachers at their school
constantly reflected on previous lessons and sought additional support and training to prepare for
new semesters under the influence of the COVID-19 pandemic.
One of the major concerns during distance learning was how not all students had access
to technology and the internet to learn from home. Of the 1.5 billion students affected by school
closures in 191 countries during the COVID-19 pandemic, 50% did not have computer access,
40% did not have internet access, and a total of 56 million students lived in areas that are not
served by mobile networks (Walters, 2020). This created a digital divide, where access to
technology and the internet was limited, and schools were obligated to provide access to online
learning (Walters, 2020). Superintendent A indicated that this was a major issue in their district:
110

Many of our students required access to computers so we got to them quickly. Then we
focused on Wi-Fi, and we bought hotspots. Families who didn’t have access or know how
to do the platforms, we held parent nights for them for support. We also hired staff who
spoke Spanish to provide a hotline for parents to use to get support with technology in
English and Spanish.
Superintendent B added that at their district technology varied, and they had to be
creative to ensure access for their students:
We had a campaign, “All for One Campaign,” in order to try and close the digital divide.
$10 million to focus on areas where remote areas couldn’t get connectivity. That’s what
we were working towards: creating an infrastructure to get access to the internet in our
areas where there were no towers, access to technology or internet, Wi-Fi, or tech
support.
Assistant Superintendent J added how crucial it was to build a network of new and
reliable technology capable of handling the huge demand:
We had anticipated the need, I think, but not to the level that we were experiencing. Our
networks were having a difficult time in supporting all the devices now. And so, we are
having to address that concern. I think that’s the biggest thing. And then we had a lot of
outdated technology, so we replaced the old Chromebooks and the old laptops because of
the supply chain issues. I think the running joke all last year was that the computers were
sitting on a boat somewhere in the Pacific Ocean and it took a pandemic to highlight how
important new and reliable technology is.
Principal B agreed that new and reliable technology is a necessity, and their school site
did their due diligence to see what technological needs they were facing:
111

Took us time to get everything, and make sure students were well equipped. We had a
good three weeks where kids didn’t have tech. Through trial and error, we learned what
student needed what, what family needed what, what the needs were. We were knocking
on doors and handing out new Chromebooks, fresh out of the box, and families felt
important with new equipment. They used it for education, they now have tools for their
own entertainment, no filters or blockers. Now they can access Netflix, YouTube, to
learn and keep them entertained.
Theme 3: Safety and Reopening
The COVID-19 pandemic revolutionized health and safety in many educational systems
across the country (EdSource, 2020b). Schools had to create a new category of health/safety
precautions that included a wide array of items to combat the COVID-19 pandemic to minimize
risk during in-school learning and concerns when schools reopened (EdSource, 2020b). The use
of supplies such as PPE and other necessities fell under new health and safety guidelines from
several bodies including the Governor’s office, the CDC, local county health agencies, and the
CDPH. School district and site leaders such as superintendents, assistant superintendents, and
principals had to ensure that these new health and safety guidelines were followed to create the
safest environment possible for students, staff, and visiting families (Fotheringham et al., 2020).
Superintendent I described a mixed reaction from the parent community regarding safety
and school closures/reopening:
As with most places, our community was split. The vast majority of the community has
been concerned with the pandemic and keeping their families safe. In one survey, the #1
concern of our kids was to keep their grandmothers safe. However, we also have a small
vocal minority who have complained about closing the schools in the first place. They do
112

not believe in the pandemic and believe that it is all politically motivated. Although there
have certainly been some politics involved in state and county responses to the pandemic,
there is no denying that the pandemic has killed people and needs to be taken seriously.
Superintendent L concurred as they had to take into account two different concerns at
their school district and how safety was connected to their reopening process:
Well, we had a divided community. 80% of the families were very pleased with what we
did for the students. Probably 10% wanted more restrictive policies in place and 10%
wanted less restrictive. So, it was a constant tug of war around that and trying to follow
guidelines and keep both sides happy. In terms of reopening a ton of people didn’t want
to come back to school. That’s one of the reasons we set up an online school. And with
COVID-19 variants and surges, we have people on short-term independent studies. So,
that’s always a concern of ours in trying to serve all the needs of the diverse needs of the
community. And a lot of people don’t want to come back, and a lot of people want to
come back. So, we try to do our best to meet everyone’s needs.
Superintendent H shared that their district understood the concerns and were sensitive
and empathetic towards their parent community and their beliefs regarding safety and reopening:
We understood, we were empathetic, we let them voice or concern, but made it clear, this
is what we have to offer, and we did offer multiple options, which I think helped. … We
didn’t back people in the corner saying you have to do it this way. … There are different
routes that you can take, and I think they appreciated having some say in how their kid
would be educated. … We have a strong parent group that I meet with every month, and
not only me, but our entire executive cabinet and we were able to take questions. … We
then put questions/answers back out and information out to the school leader, parent
113

leaders, and then they would be able to share that information with their local parents at
their school sites and I think that helped a lot.
Superintendent C also agreed that the parent and community voice was key and needed to
be heard, as their district advocated for them and their students on the political side:
What I was adamant about is that we provide whatever option our parents want or feel
comfortable with. When we fought with the legislature, when it got political, and they
said okay everybody had to go back, I didn’t feel we have the right to tell a mom who lost
their spouse and uncle that they need to bring their kids back to school when they are not
ready. That’s why we saw the virtual school option. Fought for that. We need to honor
and respect the voice of our community, good, bad or indifferent. Their opinion matters,
[and] we need to do the best we can to accommodate [it].
Assistant Superintendent L emphasized how important safety was as they were bringing
students back during reopening and for live instruction:
Bringing kids back on the school campuses safely is huge. It was addressed by following
what the county said. County said, “You could come back, but you had to have six feet of
distance. You had to have barriers and partitions up.” So, that’s what we did. Our
maintenance, our building and operations staff, worked weekends putting down stickers
and assembling partitions and barriers and putting them up in the classrooms. Our admin
services team walked every classroom to ensure that we were meeting the social
distancing requirements. We had the spacing of the desks. If we were able to bring kids
back, the only way we can do it is to make sure the kids were brought back safely. And
faculty and staff also had the PPE necessary to make sure that they were safe as well.
114

Because if not, then we were going to put people at risk and that’s not something that you
can do in good conscience.
Assistant Superintendent K shared the importance of building trust with staff and the
parent and community to be able to have a successful school reopening process and ensure
people feel safe upon their return:
Probably the biggest concerns in the area of safety were just whether it was an employee
or student: were we going to keep them safe? Some might have felt when schools were
opening that they had no other choice but to come back because the virtual options were
really not going to be all that great and they weren’t ready, you know. So, in every case
where we had families who indicated to us that they were troubled, principals met with
them, one on one, and in some cases I can think of a high school that has. But there was a
trust that was built that we had the best interest of their child at heart and worked. Take
the responsibility seriously to keep them healthy.
Principal A shared how nervous parents were about the safety or their student if another
got sick. There needed to be clear communication about the process. Principal A indicated:
Families asked the same questions: PPE equipment, rooms getting cleaned and the social
distancing of students. There were also questions around protocols and what to do if
students feel sick, come down with COVID-19, or come in contact with COVID-19 and
what that means for their education. We needed to be as clear as possible about what to
do, how to do it, and how safety is the number one priority and concern for us.
Principal J attributed the success of their school to relationship-building, trust, and hope:
There was a lot of fear of returning. I’ve had to do a lot of conversations, a lot of coaxing
of, “We’re fine. We can do this.” But there is a lot of trust in this school, of me, of my
115

staff. There’s just a natural trust here that I didn’t have to work that hard. Maybe other
people had to. But our culture here is what has allowed us to remain safe and the
reopening process being successful.
Summary
Chapter Four reported the findings from 36 surveys and 36 interviews conducted with 12
superintendents, 12 assistant superintendents, and 12 principals in Southern California school
districts. The results from this study indicate that school districts and school district
administrators were impacted by the COVID-19 pandemic. The findings highlight how district
and site administrators, specifically superintendents, assistant superintendents, and school
principals perceived the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on public school districts. Most
importantly, the findings reveal how district and site administrators provided leadership during
the first year of the COVID-19 pandemic. The findings confirm the critical role that district, and
site-level administrators have in managing crises. These findings align with the research on crisis
leadership, such as Maak et al. (2021) which found that “responsible leadership provides an
integrative view of leadership in context of COVID-19 and suggests that effective leadership in a
crisis is a result of a relational approach to leadership that integrates leaders’ personal traits and
qualities and a clear understanding of the complex leadership challenges posed by a global
pandemic” (p. 68).
Three themes emerged from the data analyzed in response to Research Question 1. The
first theme was staff and student safety. Participants indicated that their school districts and
schools had to increase spending in the category of safety and protective equipment as specified
by state and county public health guidelines. The second theme identified was meeting the
student needs. In particular, the areas of highest need for students were technology, nutrition, and
116

social-emotional support. The third theme was addressing staffing issues. Participants indicated a
variety of applications of funds, including hazard pay, raises, and hiring additional employees to
continue providing essential services. The fourth theme that emerged was the politics of COVID.
Participants in the study indicated that the reopening of schools was controversial and polarizing.
An additional three themes emerged from the data analyzed in response to Research
Question 2. The first theme was ongoing communication. Participants emphasized the
importance of maintaining ongoing communication as well as the extraordinary amount of
communication required to keep all necessary stakeholders informed regarding health and safe
reopening guidelines. The second theme was inter- and intra-agency collaboration. Participants
indicated that collaborations were taking place with county-wide, local, and community
agencies, as well as within school district staff members. The third theme was navigating change
and inconsistencies. Participants shared that the most challenging aspect of their job during the
pandemic was addressing the inconsistencies in guidelines presented across state and county
agencies as well as the diverse perspectives that existed within the school community.
Three themes were identified from the data gathered and analyzed in response to
Research Question 3. Safety reemerged as a theme for question 3. Participants shared that the
main reason teachers did not want to return to school was that they didn’t feel it was safe for
students and teachers; this demanded a considerable amount of time and energy in negotiating
with labor unions. The second theme that emerged related to labor negotiations was scheduling.
Participants expressed those important points of negotiation included: work and bell schedules,
instructional program for distance learning, hybrid, and full reopening. Compensation and
expectations comprised a theme that re-emerged for Question 3. Both certificated and classified
117

unions were concerned with improving the welfare and safety of their staff and were adamant
about compensation and working conditions.
Data analyzed in response to Research Question 4 illuminated 3 themes. Once again,
ongoing communication, student needs, and safety emerged as themes. Traditional and new
modes of communication emerged during the pandemic: greater use of public relation strategies,
social media, and technology. The same student needs that were identified in Research Question
1 emerged, such as nutrition and technology. In addition, parents and the broader community
were concerned with students’ academic learning. Finally, the third theme for this question and
recurring theme throughout the entire study was safety. Participants had to ensure that all the
health and safety guidelines were being implemented to create the safest environment possible
for students, staff, and visiting families.
The participants in this study concurred that ensuring the safety of the entire school
community, meeting the needs of students and families, and staffing and labor relations were
among the highest priorities. Participants shared that the most effective strategies in leading and
managing the crisis included ongoing communication, collaboration, and maintaining a sense of
trust despite all the uncertainties. Chapter Five presents a summary of the findings, implications
for practice, and recommendations for future research.

118

Chapter Five: Discussion
The COVID-19 pandemic has been an unprecedented event. Schools throughout
California were prompted to close in March 2020 through state mandates including Governor
Newsom’s Executive Order. These school closures and the effects of the COVID-19 pandemic
have impacted school districts for over two years. As the pandemic evolved, school leaders dealt
with many multifaceted challenges. Federal and state governments assisted school districts
financially to help address the challenges of distance learning and safety. State and local
agencies also provided guidance and protocols to schools to operate in these new circumstances.
As these guidelines changed, so did the roles and expectations of superintendents, assistant
superintendents, and site principals. District and site administrators had the responsibility to
navigate all the challenges of COVID, including being responsive to staff, students, and families’
needs. Unions renegotiated aspects of their working conditions through memoranda of
understandings, including, but not limited to safe work environments, instructional time, and
compensation. Parents relied on schools not just for education but also for food, mental health,
and social-emotional well-being of their children. All of these stakeholder concerns drastically
changed the role of school leadership, both at the district and site levels. The participants in this
study became crisis managers to see their school districts through the tumultuous first year of the
COVID-19 pandemic in 2020–21. The significance of this study is that it contributes to the
growing body of research addressing the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on public school
districts and its district and site administrators.
Chapter Two provided an overview of the study, described the statement of problem,
explained the purpose of the study, identified the research questions, stated the significance of
the study, addressed limitations, defined terms, and outlined the organization of the study.
119

Chapter Three presented a review of the literature, including the history of pandemics, crisis
events in education, impact of outside agencies, and leadership in crisis situations. Chapter Three
described the methodology, which involved a mixed-method approach. Besides restating the
purpose of the study, this chapter introduced the research team and explained the research
design, including a description of the quantitative and qualitative methods. This chapter also
presented the conceptual framework and described the sample population, instrumentation used,
data collection and data analysis process, as well as addressed the ethical considerations. Chapter
Four provided a description of the coding and data analysis process that presented the findings
for four research questions. Several themes emerged per research question, and findings were
presented as such. Quantitative data collected via surveys was also analyzed and presented in
tables. Chapter Five summarizes the findings, makes connections to the literature, states
implications for practice, suggests recommendations for future studies, and provides concluding
remarks.
Statement of Problem
The COVID-19 Pandemic presented a disruption in K–12 public school districts in
Southern California, causing unforeseen consequences within the education system and
highlighting financial implications, the impact of agencies, negotiations with unions, and the
impact on students and community. COVID-19 shifted the roles and scope of schools and school
leaders beyond instructional leaders and transforming them into crisis managers.
Purpose of the Study
The purpose of this study is to analyze the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on K–12
public school districts in Southern California and understand what district and site
administrators, specifically superintendents, assistant superintendents, and principals have
120

learned from their experiences and their decision-making responsibilities in managing the crisis.
This study brings to light the impact of the pandemic on students, families, leaders, schools, and
districts. Most importantly, this study examines how district and school leadership influences
administrative practices, student achievement, financial responsibility, union leadership, and
community/parent support as they responded to the COVID-19 crisis.
Research Questions
The study was guided by four research questions:
1. What, if any, are the financial implications that the COVID-19 pandemic has had on
K–12 public school districts in Southern California and how have district
superintendents, assistant superintendents, and principals addressed these
implications?
2. What, if any, have been the impact of federal, state, and local health agencies on
K–12 public school districts in Southern California, and what strategies have district
superintendents, assistant superintendents, and principals followed to address the
suggested guidelines?
3. How, if at all, have union negotiations played a role in K–12 Southern California
public school districts’ response to the COVID-19 pandemic?
4. How, if at all, have K–12 Southern California public school districts leadership
teams, comprised of superintendents, assistant superintendents, and principals,
addressed the concerns of the parents regarding safety, nutrition, distance learning,
lack of technology, academic standing, and how and when to reopen schools due to
the COVID-19 pandemic?
121

Methodology
A mixed-methods approach was selected for this study. This is as follows:
An approach to research in the social, behavioral, and health sciences in which the
investigator gathers both quantitative (closed-ended) and qualitative (open-ended) data,
integrates the two and then draws interpretations based on the combined strengths of both
sets of data to understand research problems. (Creswell, 2015, p. 2 as cited in Merriam &
Tisdell, 2016, p. 45)
A mixed-methods approach was selected for this study to establish triangulation for more
accurate findings and make the research study more holistic (Maxwell, 2013). Triangulation “is a
powerful strategy for increasing the credibility or internal validity of your research” as it makes
use of more than one data collection method and multiple sources of data, as well as multiple
investigators or investigators of multiple theories (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016, p. 245). This study
utilized a survey and a semistructured interview to gather data. This study was conducted with
school superintendents, assistant superintendents, and principals of Southern California K–12
public school districts. This study involved the collection of qualitative data from open-ended
interview questions with superintendents, assistant superintendents, and school site principals
and quantitative surveys completed by the same district and school leaders that were interviewed.
This method enabled further triangulation within the results, which in turn allowed for improved
cross-checking of the data to better support the findings of the study (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016).
Findings
Findings for Research Question 1
The first research question asked, “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
122

implications?” This research question was designed to better understand the ways in which
superintendents, assistant superintendents and principals responded to the financial implications
of the pandemic for their districts and school sites in both a survey and through an interview. The
self-administered survey asked five questions that were designed to better understand the
financial implications of the CARES Act on the leaders in five major areas: personnel, personal
protective equipment (PPE), technology, professional learning/training, and facilities upgrades.
Overall, all three levels of participants—superintendents, assistant superintendents, and
principals—agreed that the CARES Act funding adequately met their district or schools needs in
all areas except facilities upgrades with a rounded score of 4.0 or above. Assistant
Superintendents yielded the highest mean scores in all but PPE and facilities upgrades, which
was held by the principals.
The interviews for Research Question 1 contained four questions:
1. What have been the biggest financial implications of the pandemic on your
district/school?
2. In what ways, if any, would more spending flexibility/structure have benefitted your
district/school?
3. In what ways has COVID-19 related funding been used to meet student needs in your
district/school?
4. To what extent, if any, did financial incentives influence your district’s/school’s
reopening plan/timeline?
In analyzing the data derived from the four interview questions designed to answer
Research Question 1, the following common themes emerged among the participants of this
study: staff and student safety, meeting the needs of students, staffing, and politics of COVID-
123

19. Maintaining the safety of staff and students was of the utmost importance to district and
school leaders. As a result, school districts and schools had to increase spending and use large
portions of their relief funds on acquiring safety and PPE in order to keep their staff and students
safe and provide them and the county/state with the assurance that they were following the
proper safety protocols to enable them to open and stay open. This also included heavy
investments with community partners to provide fast and convenient COVID-19 testing to their
students, staff, and families.
The COVID-19 pandemic also exacerbated preexisting equity and access issues for
students and families (Devakumar et al., 2020). All 12 school districts interviewed shared that
they focused a large portion of their spending on meeting the needs of students in the areas of
technology, nutrition, and social-emotional learning. The data showed that like Herold (2020)
claimed, a digital divide was present between our wealthiest and poorest students. As a result,
superintendents, assistant superintendents, and principals in all school districts we interviewed
prioritized purchasing and getting devices into the hands of their students and helping to provide
internet access or hotspots so that they could effectively access the curriculum and instruction.
Food insecurity emerged as another area of need for students and thus district spending. The high
unemployment rates during COVID-19 and the closing of schools that typically provide two
meals a day to food insecure children increased food insecurity among families living in poverty
(Van Lancker & Parolin, 2020). The qualitative data showed that as Kinsey et al. (2020) stated,
these school districts were forced to quickly pivot their meal distribution systems to provide hot
and cold meals to students and families in quarantine through a grab-and-go format. Several
school districts delivered not only individual meals but also food for their pantries. A final need
of students that emerged during the pandemic was for mental health support and services,
124

especially among marginalized communities (Moore et al., 2021; Lambert, 2020). As a result,
district and school leaders had to quickly mobilize resources to meet the needs of their students
and families; wellness and social-emotional learning (SEL) became a necessary part of not only
distance learning but also the reopening school plans (Stavely, 2020). School districts created
SEL and mental health websites, partnered with mental health companies and agencies to
provide such support, and hired counselors in all levels for student consultations. The push for
school districts and leaders to meet the needs of students in the areas of nutrition and mental
health led to our third theme of increased spending for staffing.
Staffing emerged as the third major theme for school districts and leaders with respect to
the financial implications of the pandemic on school districts. Many districts across Southern
California provided hazard pay, gave raises, and hired additional employees to keep schools
running to provide essential services such as distributing technology and meals to students and
disinfecting and sanitizing campuses during distance learning and when they were back for in-
person instruction. The data showed that the pandemic also caused a massive increase in hiring
of new staff for both certificated and classified positions to provide intervention and academic
support to students. The COVID relief provided money for programs and to increase staffing and
hourly pay to meet the needs of students. However, the year of distance learning also found that
many teachers were burnt out, and thus, were unable to provide the extra support to students after
school or during the summer, even when offered additional pay. As a result, many school
districts were forced to contract outside of the education field to provide these services.
The final theme that emerged from the financial implications of the pandemic on school
districts was just how political COVID-19 became. This was apparent in securing the funds on
time, acquiring the necessary goods and services, and getting all stakeholders on the same page
125

regarding what the education of students would look like during distance learning and when
schools reopened. The reopening of schools was controversial and polarizing, as many
questioned the schools’ ability to implement necessary safety measures (Lambert & Fensterwald,
2020). While school districts in California were offered financial incentives by the state to
reopen schools by a certain time, most of the districts’ reopening plans were driven by the
politics of safety among their constituents. Several superintendents reported that the business of
schooling and educating students during the pandemic became a conversation by adults about the
needs of adults, not the students. When it came to the relief money, billions of dollars were
promised and allocated to schools during the pandemic. Unfortunately, access to these funds did
not always come when needed, and/or obtaining the goods became extremely difficult.
Several of the themes found in Research Question 1 such as “staff and student safety”
along with “meeting student needs” were ongoing themes throughout the study and reappeared in
varying degrees throughout the remaining research questions.
Findings for Research Question 2
The second research question asked the following: What, if any, have been the impact of
federal, state and local health agencies on K–12 public school districts in Southern California,
and what strategies have district superintendents, assistant superintendents, and principals
followed to address the suggested guidelines? The research question was designed to better
understand the ways in which superintendents, assistant superintendents, and principals
depended on cross-agency communication and collaborations to incorporate COVID-19
guidance during the first year of the pandemic to support their district-level decision-making
process and planning. The self-administered survey asked three questions and there were five
interview questions that were designed to better understand the guidance focused on providing
126

safe reopening of schools. The research team found that school administrators utilized federal,
state, and local health guidelines to determine their school district’s reopening plan.
As for understanding how to safely bring back staff during the fall of 2020 to work sites
based upon public health guidance, the superintendents’ average score was a 3.50, which
indicates that superintendents’ responses fell between having neutral perceptions to agreeing.
The mean scores for assistant superintendent were more closely aligned with the superintendents.
However, the mean scores for principals’ responses were higher compared to the
superintendents’ average score of 3.50.
The interviews for Research Question 2 contained the following four primary questions
and one probing question:
1. In what ways did your district collaborate with federal, state, and local government
agencies and community organizations to support your school district during
COVID?
a. Probing Question (PQ): What agencies?
b. Probing Question (PQ): What organizations?
2. To what degree, if any, did the various agencies align COVID-19 guidance for
schools?
3. What strategies have been effective for your district in implementing health
guidelines/policies?
4. Who in your district was primarily in charge of interpreting and implementing the
health guidelines/policies?
In analyzing the data derived from the four interview questions designed to answer
Research Question 2, the following common themes emerged among the participants of this
127

study: ongoing communication, inter-and intra-collaboration, and constant change and
inconsistencies.
A significant theme that emerged from the findings was ongoing communication. This
finding is consistent with past research that emphasizes crisis communication as the best practice
for educational leaders responding to crises (Gainey, 2009, 2010; Elbedour et al., 2020; Kaul et
al., 2020; Shrivastava et al., 2013). District superintendents, assistant superintendents, and
principals identified communication as a key strategy to ensure that all stakeholders were
updated with all developments related to health and school reopening guidelines.
Communication took place at all levels within the school district and beyond, in cross-divisional,
cross-functional teams, and cross-agency groups. According to the findings, the most important
communication strategy was the weekly superintendents’ meetings with the Los Angeles County
Office of Education (LACOE) and Los Angeles County Department of Public Health (LACPD).
The information, guidelines, and updates received at these weekly meetings impacted the
communication at the school district level. The manner in which school superintendents
responded to the pandemic was in alignment with best practices according to past research. “To
be most effective, this emphasis on crisis response and crisis communication must be a priority
of the superintendent, as educational CEO, and his or her leadership team, which should include
a full-time public relations professional” (Gainey, 2003 as cited in Gainey, 2010, p. 91). The
findings indicate that all participants, whether superintendent, assistant superintendent, or
principal were responsible for maintaining regular communication. While superintendents and
assistant superintendents were the individuals primarily in charge of interpreting and
implementing the health guidelines and policies, many districts established cross-functional
committees, in some cases including parents and students, to interpret, disseminate, and
128

implement plans. Again, these practices are consistent with best practices for crisis management.
“Crisis management planning requires communication with staff, the community, emergency
authorities, media outlets, students, and parents to develop and disseminate effective plans
(Coombs, 2014; Mitroff, 2005, as cited in Elbedour et al., 2020, p. 209).
Another theme that emerged from the responses was the inter- and intra-agency
collaborations. According to the findings based on survey and interview questions, all study
participants agreed that the health guidelines impacted their district’s return to school plan in
spring 2021. Therefore, having the opportunity to directly collaborate with the Los Angeles
County Department of Public Health, which had more restrictive guidelines than the state, was
extremely beneficial for superintendents and assistant superintendents. A critical expectation for
all superintendents was to “establish mechanisms of coordination with public health authorities
so that education actions are in sync and help advance public health goals” (Reimers &
Schleicher, 2020, p. 5). Superintendents and assistant superintendents had the opportunity to
obtain resources from the Los Angeles County Office of Education. All participants shared how
helpful it was to partner with county and local agencies as well as with private businesses to
offer resources and support to students and families. The additional support obtained from these
partnerships included mental health services, food, and COVID-related resources. “The literature
on effective leadership and crisis management emphasizes the importance of trust and
cooperation among key actors and groups who will be material to addressing the crisis”
(Mintrom & O’Connor, 2020, p. 214). The findings from this study are consistent with the crisis
management research. Participants indicated that having strong collaboration within the district
and having special teams, such as a COVID compliance team, composed of a diverse set of
stakeholders, including nurses, mental health specialists, and facilities staff, was effective in
129

addressing the COVID health guidelines. Boin et al (2017) suggest that “effective and legitimate
crisis management is enhanced by the performance of several managerial functions: early
recognition, sense making, decision making and coordination, meaning making, accounting, and
learning” (Boin et al., 2016 as cited in Boin et al., 2017, p. 30).
The final theme that emerged from the health and safety guidelines of the pandemic on
school districts was constant change and inconsistencies in public health guidelines. The
inconsistencies in public health guidelines across different counties as well as between county
and state was one of the things that was most challenging to school administrators. Participants
expressed their confusion and frustration with the constantly changing guidelines. The COVID
pandemic was an unprecedented event that presented many uncertainties.
Even companies that have developed some crisis plans cannot be fully prepared for every
type of crisis that could afflict them. In crisis conditions, it is an organization’s culture,
more than any other feature, that shapes its crisis management responses. (Shrivastava et
al., 2013, p. 13)
In general, participants expressed misalignment of state, county, and local COVID
guidelines and policies. Not only did superintendents, assistant superintendents, and principals
have to manage the constant updates and changes that were being provided by the LA County
Department of Health, but they also had to address the variation of guidelines and policies that
existed across counties as well as with other school districts. Participants expressed how they
managed the constant changes and inconsistencies by maintaining the trust of their school
communities through ongoing communication with all their stakeholders. These findings are
consistent with the literature review. “In establishing a crisis-ready organizational culture,
130

several values should be considered, such as trust, safety, reliability, care and embracing diverse
perspectives to name a few” (Shrivastava et al., 2013, p. 13–14).
Findings for Research Question 3
Research Question 3 asked the following: How, if at all, have union negotiations played a
role in K–12 Southern California public school districts’ response to the COVID-19 pandemic?
On the local level, negotiations regularly occur resulting in collective bargaining agreements and
memoranda of understanding agreements that are legal contracts between the employer and the
union on behalf of its members (Hemphill & Marianno, 2020). This research question was
designed to better understand how negotiations with both certificated and classified employees,
whose working groups constitute the labor side of public-school districts, impacted the shift to
distance learning, ongoing instructional practices throughout school closures, continued
operation of school sites, and eventual reopening (including hybrid reopening). It is important to
note that these unions have become very powerful forces in shaping local and state policy
(Mertz, 2014) and continue to play a major role in ongoing negotiations, as COVID-19
restrictions are reassessed.
The self-administered survey asked three questions centered around how both certificated
and classified unions, and the subsequent negotiations, influenced the way Southern California
districts effectively responded to the COVID-19 pandemic and how negotiations have impacted
the quality of instruction offered to students during distance learning. The study included four
interview questions that were designed to better understand the most important issues negotiated
with both certificated and classified union members, and how both instructional and safety
protocols were influenced by negotiations.
The interviews for Research Question 3 contained the following four questions:
131

1. What were the most important issues negotiated with your teacher’s union and how
were they resolved?
2. What were the most important issues negotiated with your classified union and how
were they resolved?
3. In what ways, if any, were instructional programs influenced by union negotiations in
your district?
4. In what ways, if any, were safety protocols influenced by union negotiations in your
district?
After analyses of the data that resulted from the four interview questions designed to
answer Research Question 3, the following common themes emerged among the participants of
this study: safety, scheduling, and compensation and accommodations.
A significant theme that emerged from the superintendent, assistant superintendent, and
principal interviews, was the need to negotiate around safety measures and protocols. Adhering
to social distancing, including classroom count numbers, as well as ensuring that all stakeholders
wore masks, per health department requirements, and updating the filtration systems were key.
Additionally, what visitor policies would be and what school gathering events (school
celebrations and school-wide meetings) would look like played an important role. In classrooms,
teachers’ unions wanted to ensure that plexiglass was being provided and that breakfast in the
classroom not be enforced. Teachers expressed concerns, as they did not want masks taken off in
classrooms, so moving activities outdoors, such as breakfast in the classroom, and creating other
outdoor spaces for classroom activities, were an important part of negotiations.
Scheduling was another theme that emerged from the findings. In California, schools are
required to provide 180 days of instruction per year (175 days for charter schools). However, to
132

offer teachers more flexibility during COVID-19 distance learning, the minimum number of
instructional minutes was reduced. For the 2020–21 school year, the daily instructional minutes
required dropped to 180 minutes for kindergarten, 230 for grades 1 to 3, and 240 for grades 4 to
12. The state, however, did not set requirements stating how many minutes should be
“synchronous,” or live, versus “asynchronous,” or delivered via online platforms or pre-recorded
videos (Harrington, 2020); therefore, teachers unions bargained in and around flexibility.
Bargaining highlights included providing for additional hours of on-site preparation time,
accommodating for different work schedules such as staggered start times, adding non-
instructional professional development days, adding advisory days (and hours) to address the
SEL needs of students, and creating alternating schedules (for multiple cohorts).
In addition to safety and scheduling, compensation and accommodations emerged as
themes. Negotiations with certificated and classified unions included providing for differentials
(or stipends). These differentials were provided to classified employees that were required to
report to a campus or work site to complete essential tasks such as device distribution or support
with grab-and-go, or COVID-19 testing sites. For teachers, additional compensation was
negotiated for additional preparation for both distance learning and eventual reopening.
Instructional accommodations included non-requirement of simultaneous instruction (for
students in class and logging on remotely) and in some cases, extending the school day for
preparation, with teachers being paid for additional time. In other cases, teachers were allowed to
remain remote for health reasons so long as they continued to provide instruction virtually. Other
accommodations included providing childcare, and for employees seeking medical
accommodations, management engaged in the “reasonable accommodation process” with those
employees and offered full vaccinations for all unit members.
133

Findings for Research Question 4
The fourth research question asked, “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 reopen schools due to the
COVID-19 pandemic?” The research question was designed to explore the relationship that
K–12 Southern California public school districts and their leadership had with parent community
concerns during the COVID-19 pandemic.
After analyzing the Research Question 4 data, three common themes emerged: ongoing
communication, student needs, and safety. Superintendents, assistant superintendents, and
principals demonstrated tremendous leadership during the COVID-19 pandemic crisis, as they
had to do more than what is typically expected of those roles (Smith & Riley, 2012). The
COVID-19 pandemic required educational leaders to be empathetic, sensitive, and understanding
towards the parent community perspective and its concerns. For example, at the onset of the
pandemic, educational systems were entering a new world, and very little information was
known about the virus. There were a lot of concerns shown by many individuals in the areas of
safety, nutrition, academics, technology, and school reopening, and ongoing communication was
an essential tool during the time of crisis. The research participants were content with their
ability to communicate valuable COVID-19 information with stakeholders and expressed
positive results from seeking feedback while making decisions in the best interest of students and
families. Educational leaders were seen relying on traditional communication tools like
newsletters, emails, websites, and phone messages to keep stakeholders in the loop of important
134

decisions and new communication styles such as holding virtual meetings for essential updates,
and recorded presentations (Canlé, 2020).
Superintendents, assistant superintendents, and principals were successful in ensuring
that the nutritional needs of their school districts/sites were met by converting them to food
distribution centers and handing out hundreds and hundreds of free meals per day to students and
their families. They were able to adapt to the high demand and provide food to those who were
unable to make it to campuses. Some districts collaborated with one another and shared
resources to ensure that many had access to nutrition. In the area of technology, the research
participants faced success as well, being able to provide Chromebooks/laptops and hotspots for
their students in order to successfully navigate the online world of education. Some districts
created an infrastructure to get access to the internet in areas where there were no towers, access
to technology or internet, Wi-Fi, or tech support.
Learning loss was a key academic concern for the parent community, and research
participants commended their districts for exercising a keen focus towards implementing an
instructional program tailored towards the needs of their students. Teachers were provided
opportunities for professional development to build upon previous training and grow the online
and live instructional program during the pandemic (Diliberti et al., 2020). Finally, there were a
multitude of safety and school reopening concerns and research participants shared the
importance of being sensitive and empathetic towards their parent community and its beliefs
regarding safety and reopening by providing them with information and opportunities to work
together and be heard. Research participants understood the importance of building relationships
grounded in optimism, trust, and responsibility with staff and the parent community to be able to
135

navigate a successful school reopening process and ensure comfort and safety with proper
health/safety precaution resources (Fotheringham et al., 2020).
Comparative Analysis and Common Themes
Since this study was conducted by four researchers compiling quantitative and qualitative
data from surveys and interviews, it employed a mixed-methods approach that enabled
triangulation for more accurate findings (Maxwell, 2013). Triangulation as a strategy increases
the credibility and internal validity of one’s research as it makes use of more than one data
collection method, multiple sources of data, as well as multiple investigators or investigators of
multiple theories (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016, p. 245). This study utilized a self-administered
survey and a semistructured interview to gather quantitative and qualitative data respectively.
This study was conducted with school superintendents, assistant superintendents, and principals
of Southern California K–12 public school districts. This study involved the collection of
qualitative data from open-ended interview questions with superintendents, assistant
superintendents, and school site principals and quantitative surveys completed by the same
district and school leaders that were interviewed. The researchers worked individually to collect
the quantitative and qualitative data from their three participating districts and then worked
collaboratively to analyze the data. In the analysis, common themes emerged within each
research question and then among the study as a whole. This method enabled further
triangulation within the results, which in turn allowed for improved cross-checking of the data to
better support the findings of the study (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016).
The study was developed to better inform the researchers of the impact the COVID-19
pandemic had on Southern California public K–12 school districts and site administrators,
specifically superintendents, assistant superintendents, and principals, and what they have
136

learned from their experiences and their decision-making responsibilities in managing the crisis.
This study brought to light three major themes in examining how district and school leadership
responded to the crisis through administrative practices in the areas of student achievement,
financial responsibility, union leadership, and community/parent support. The three themes that
emerged and were present in all 12 school districts were a focus on ensuring: the safety of staff
and students, that student needs were being met in the areas of technology, nutrition, curriculum
and instruction, and mental health, and that there was effective communication between all
stakeholders.
First, the pandemic highlighted for district leaders that the safety of staff and students
was of the utmost importance as was evidenced by the responses of all participants. Districts and
schools had to increase spending and utilize large portions of their relief funds in the category of
safety and PPE in order to ensure the safety of their employees as they returned to work, and for
students as they returned to school later into the pandemic. The theme of safety recurred in all
four research questions, from how districts spent their COVID-19 relief aid, the impact of
government departments and health agencies, and negotiations with certificated and classified
unions, to how they communicated and responded to community members. The government
departments and health agencies set safety guidelines and protocols, then school districts worked
with their labor and community partners to implement them.
A second theme that emerged as a result of the pandemic and school closures was
ensuring that the needs of students were still being met in the areas of technology, nutrition,
curriculum and instruction, and mental health. The COVID pandemic highlighted preexisting
equity and access issues especially among underserved communities. A digital divide existed
among students. As a result, school districts were forced to mobilize their funds to ensure that
137

students had access to technology and internet service in order to access the curriculum while at
home in quarantine. Some districts went as far as negotiating with internet providers to secure
the lowest rates possible and ultimately secured the funding to provide it cost free to families. All
school leaders also commended their districts’ nutritional services departments for quickly
pivoting to provide grab-and-go meals to students and families in need and alleviate the food
insecurity the pandemic had created when it closed down the schools, which at times was the
only source of consistent food for some students. Several leaders shared that they even delivered
meals and groceries to their neediest families who were unable to pick up the food themselves.
All districts also quickly provided their staff and students with learning management systems
such as Google Classroom and Schoology along with digital platforms such as Zoom so that
students could access the curriculum while in quarantine. Districts also noted that in many cases,
packets were also created and distributed for those students who could not access their online
platforms and needed the curriculum in paper form. The need to focus on SEL and provide
mental health services to students and families was the final component district and school
leaders needed to address in order to ensure they were meeting the needs of their students.
The final theme that resonated among the participants was the need to ensure that there
was consistent and effective communication between all stakeholders: the schools and families,
district leaders and site leaders, the district and their labor partners, and finally between schools
and their students, staff, and families. All participants emphasized the importance of maintaining
ongoing communication as well as the extraordinary amount of communication that was required
to keep all necessary stakeholders informed and updated. Effective communication with their
stakeholders was required for district and school leaders in order to get feedback when making
decisions in the best interest of their stakeholders. Schools relied on traditional communication
138

tools such as newsletters, emails, websites, and phone messages and new methods brought on by
the pandemic like virtual town hall meetings on Zoom and through social media in order to keep
stakeholders in the loop of important decisions. School districts also engaged in formal and
informal union negotiations in order to keep their labor partners informed and in order to make
important educational decisions. Districts also instituted more frequent virtual leadership
meetings to keep their site leadership informed on changing policies or mandates. Schools and
teachers communicated with students via digital platforms beyond email like Schoology and
Google Classroom to stay better connected and provide the necessary information and support to
students.
Implications of Study
Findings from this study identified how Southern California public school districts and
site-level administrators utilized their leadership and administrative practices to respond to the
crisis presented during the first year of the COVID-19 pandemic. The findings of this study
contribute to the existing literature on successful crisis management in educational settings. This
study’s implications for practice and policy are targeted toward district and site-level
administrators who are responsible for leading in times of crisis, navigating change, and
maintaining communication and problem-solving. As Gainey (2009) states,
As part of the public sphere, school-district leaders must observe crisis trends and ensure
that their school systems are crisis-ready for both traditional school crises (e.g., inclement
weather, discipline issues) and crises that originate elsewhere (e.g., economic crises,
health scares). (p. 267)
The following are implications derived from the findings of this study.
139

Maintain Inter- and Intra-Agency Collaborations
Participants from this study revealed that collaborating with county-level agencies, local
organizations, and within the school district community was a common practice. The findings
indicated that the most important collaboration to address the health and safety of school
communities were with the Los Angeles County Department of Public Health and the Los
Angeles County Office of Education. The data also revealed that creating cross-functional teams
met the demands and needs of the school community. This is consistent with other findings on
handling school crises. There is a need to identify and train “multidisciplinary crisis team
members comprising the school principal, who led the team, and school social workers, school
psychologists, nurses, counselors, school police and support staff such as the custodian and the
school secretary” (Jaycox et al., 2014, p. 285). The recommendations are to maintain ongoing
collaborations with key stakeholders as well as maintain a cross-functional crisis management
team to engage in ongoing reflection and planning to address the current pandemic and future
crisis impacting school communities. “A crisis offers a reservoir of potential lessons for
contingency planning and training for future crises,” yet, “lesson drawing is one of the most
underdeveloped aspects of crisis management” (Boekema, 2016; Lagadec, 1997; Stern, 1997, as
cited in Boin et al., 2017, p. 33).
Establish a Communication Plan Equipped to Manage Crises
The data from this study revealed that the demand for ongoing communication was
extremely high during the pandemic. Participants shared the various communication strategies
and communication platforms (i.e., webtools and social media) that were utilized to keep all
stakeholders informed of the ever-changing health guidelines, updates, and plans. Participants
from this study reported having to spend a lot of time assuring stakeholders and being responsive
140

to their concerns. Additionally, this study revealed the critical role that superintendents played in
disseminating the most timely and accurate information. Research on crisis management in
educational settings suggests, “to be most effective, this emphasis on crisis response and crisis
communication must be a priority of the superintendent, as educational CEO, and his or her
leadership team, which should include a full-time public relations professional” (Gainey, 2003,
as cited in Gainey, 2010, p. 91).
Strengthen Collaborative Relationships With Certificated and Classified Labor Unions
This study highlighted the need for district leadership to continuously, and faithfully,
engage with both certificated and classified labor unions during a time when circumstances were
constantly changing. What was learned was that districts and their respective bargaining units
agreed upon a diverse set of changes during the COVID-19 pandemic, which in turn, highlighted
the localized nature of responses to the COVID-19 crisis, and showed that there is no one-size-
fits-all approach (Hemphill & Marianno, 2021). A focus on strengthening relationships with both
labor unions could not only lead to more equitable collective bargaining agreements but will also
set the stage for swifter responses to potential future crises. As Hemphill and Marianno (2021)
highlight, if district leadership and bargaining unions plan for multiple scenarios with labor
partners from the beginning, school districts can mitigate any late “surprises’’ from labor groups
that might occur when it comes time to implement or change learning plans in response to crises.
Leaders can keep a pulse on teacher morale and safety and avoid perceptions of careless working
condition changes by maintaining transparency and communication with teachers’ union leaders
(Hemphill & Marianno, 2021).
141

Address the Students’ Mental Health and Social-Emotional Needs
The data from this study indicated that the entire community underwent trauma from
COVID-19. Participants indicated the various ways in which they addressed the mental health
and social-emotional needs of students, parents, and staff, such as accessing and coordinating
resources. Data indicated that some districts invested in social-emotional learning curriculum and
mental health specialists. The effects of the pandemic will be evident for years to come. As part
of the crisis management process, “school mental health staff, including social workers, ought to
be centrally involved in all aspects of school crisis management, including planning for a
catastrophic event, addressing longer-term psychological concerns, and helping students cope
with individual life events” (Brock et al., 2013; Sandoval, 2013, as cited in Elbedour et al., 2020,
p. 208). The implication for schools is to promote SEL and address the current trauma caused by
the pandemic through trauma- and healing-informed practices.
Deepen Learning of Digital Age Pedagogy
Besides meeting the social-emotional needs of students, one of the biggest challenges
addressed by participants was providing students access to learning through technology devices,
hotspots for internet connectivity, and appropriate web tools. Findings from the study indicated
that districts that had existing technological infrastructure to support instruction had an easier
time adjusting to the distance learning and hybrid modes of instruction. Some of the findings
suggest that having technology TOSAs (Teachers on Special Assignment) and learning
management systems, such as Canvas, facilitated and maintained high levels of engagement and
learning for students.
With the advent of the pandemic, even greater efforts are called for in meeting the social-
emotional needs of children and implementing trauma- and healing-informed practice, all
142

while making up for learning loss and preparing for the coming unpredictable
combinations of distance learning, blended learning, and in-classroom learning. (Darling-
Hammond & Hyler, 2020, p. 457)
According to the findings all districts were able to provide each student a tech device and
a hot spot as necessary. In some cases, students were even provided two devices, one for home
use and one for school. This was made possible through additional state and federal funds. The
recommendation is to ensure teachers have the capacity to use technology to amplify learning.
Recommendations for Future Research
This study collected data from a total of 36 participants who served as district level or site
level administrators during the first year of the COVID-19 pandemic, 2020–2021. The impact of
the pandemic on Southern California public school districts is extensive and multifaceted which
offers many opportunities for future research. The following are some recommendations:
1. Explore how school administrators apply the crisis management model to prepare,
prevent, respond, manage, recover, and learn from crisis events, in particular the
COVID-19 pandemic.
2. Expand research on the role of mental health specialists in public school systems
before, during, and after a school crisis.
3. Investigate the impact on student learning for students that remained in distance
learning during the COVID-19 pandemic.
4. Explore the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on students’ mental health, social-
emotional development, and academic learning.
5. Explore the differences between county-level health agency guidelines and how they
influenced planning and implementation for school districts.
143

Conclusion
While the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on schools is still being assessed, this study
confirmed the critical role of superintendents, assistant superintendents, and school principals as
crisis managers. This study revealed the strategies that were utilized by district and site
administrators to navigate and lead through a pandemic. The literature on crisis management in
educational settings recommends that school leaders must now look for opportunities to be better
prepared to deal with ongoing crises, as “issues of school safety and school crises rank among
the most distressing problems in modern education” (Elbedour et al., 2020, p. 208). It is the
researcher team’s expectation that the insights gained from this study will offer districts and
school administrators a set of best practices to manage the current pandemic and manage future
school crises. This study’s findings concluded that inter- and intra-agency collaborations,
ongoing communication, positive relations with labor unions, mental health supports, social-
emotional well-being, and new ways of using technology will support learning through
pandemics or school crises.

144

References
Anderson, E., Hayes, S., & Carpenter, B. (2020). Principal as caregiver of all: Responding to
needs of others and self. CPRE Policy Briefs.
https://repository.upenn.edu/cpre_policybriefs/92/
Anyon, J. (2014). Radical possibilities: Public policy, urban education, and a new social
movement (2nd ed.). Routledge.
Benfer, E. A., & Wiley, L. F. (2020). Health justice strategies to combat COVID-19: Protecting
vulnerable communities during a pandemic. Health Affairs Blog.
https://www.healthaffairs.org/do/10.1377/forefront.20200319.757883/full/
Bishop, W. E., Fifolt, M. Peters, G. B., Gurley, D. K., & Collins, L. (2015). Perceptions and
experiences of K–12 educational leaders in response to the 27 April 2021 tornadoes.
School Leadership & Management, 35(2), 215–235.
https://doi.org/10.1080/13632434.2015.1041487
Bjork, L. G, & Gurley, D. K. (2005). Superintendent as educational statesman and political
strategist. In L. G. Bjork & T. J. Kowalski (Eds.), The contemporary superintendent:
Preparation, practice, and development (pp. 163–186). Sage.
Bjork, L. G, & Kowalski, T. J. (2005). The contemporary superintendent: Preparation, practice,
and development. Corwin Press.
Blumenthal, D., Fowler, E. J., Abrams, M., & Collins, S. R. (2020). COVID-19—Implications
for the health care system. New England Journal of Medicine, 383(15), 1483–1488.
https://doi.org/ 10.1056/NEJMsb2021088
145

Boin, A., Kupers, S., & Hart, P. (2017). The crisis approach. In H. Rodriguez et al. (Eds.)
Handbook of disaster research: Handbooks of sociology and social research (pp. 23–38).
Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-0-387-32353-4_3
Bolman, L. G., & Deal, T. E. (2017). Reframing organizations: Artistry, choice, and leadership.
John Wiley & Sons.
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
Browne-Ferrigno, T., & Glass, T. E. (2005). Superintendent as organizational manager. In L. G.
Bjork & T. J. Kowalski (Eds.). The contemporary superintendent: Preparation, practice,
and development (pp. 137–162). Sage.
Burke, M. (2020, May 27). Classes outside, face coverings and one-way hallways: How Los
Angeles schools may reopen – L.A. County releases guidelines for reopening schools
ahead of state’s own guidance. EdSource. https://edsource.org/2020/classes-outside-face-
coverings-and-one-way-hallways-how-los-angeles-schools-may-reopen/632399
California Commission on Teacher Credentialing (2021). California.gov: Commission on
Teacher Credentialing. https://www.ctc.ca.gov/
California Department of Education. (2020). Coronavirus response and school reopening
guidance. https://www.cde.ca.gov/ls/he/hn/coronavirus.asp
California Department of Education. (2020b). Stronger together: A guidebook for the safe
reopening of California’s public schools. Updated May 2021.
https://www.cde.ca.gov/ls/he/hn/documents/strongertogether.pdf
146

California Department of Education. (2021). Federal stimulus funding. Federal stimulus funding
– Finance & grants. https://www.cde.ca.gov/fg/cr/
California Department of Public Health. (2021). About us: Protecting the health of all
Californians. Updated February 24, 2022.
https://www.cdph.ca.gov/pages/about.aspxhttps://www.cdph.ca.gov/pages/about.aspx
California Department of Public Health (2020). Summary for California “Safe schools for all”
plan. https://www.cdph.ca.gov/Programs/CID/DCDC/Pages/COVID-19/Safe-Schools-
for-All-Plan-Summary.aspx?te=1&nl=california-today&emc=edit_ca_20210129
California Federation of Teachers. (2020a, April 6,). Food service workers whip up millions of
Grab & Go meals. https://www.cft.org/article/food-service-workers-whip-millions-grab-
go-meals
California Federation of Teachers (2020b, April 6). Custodians on the front lines of COVID-19
pandemic: Keeping campuses clean, supporting food service workers.
https://www.cft.org/article/custodians-front-lines-covid-19-pandemic
California School Employees Association. (2021). California School Employees Association:
About CSEA. https://www.csea.com/about-us.
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
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. (2017, December 6). Severe Acute Respiratory
Syndrome (SARS). https://www.cdc.gov/sars/
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. (2019a, March 20). Influenza (Flu): 1918 Pandemic.
https://www.cdc.gov/flu/pandemic-resources/1918-pandemic-h1n1.html
147

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. (2019b, June 11). Influenza (Flu): 2009 H1N1
pandemic (H1N1pdm09 virus). https://www.cdc.gov/flu/pandemic-resources/2009-h1n1-
pandemic.html
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. (2021). About CDC 24-7: Mission, Role and
Pledge. https://www.cdc.gov/about/organization/mission.htm
Cipriano, C. & Brackett, M. (2020). Teachers are anxious and overwhelmed – They need SEL
now more than ever. EdSurge. https://www.edsurge.com/news/2020-04-07-teachers-are-
anxious-and-overwhelmed-they-need-sel-now-more-than-ever
Cohn, R., Carley, K. M., Harrald, J. R., & Wallace, W. A. (2000). Emotions in crisis
management: An analysis of the organizational response of two natural disasters.
International Journal of Technology Management, 19(3-5), 313-335.
https://doi.org/10.1504/IJTM.2000.002817
D’Souza, K., & Marquez Rosales, B. (2020, November 11). Why Los Angeles County’s neediest
school districts don’t apply for waivers to reopen campuses: Few public schools have
received waivers: only one has a high number of low-income students. EdSource.
https://edsource.org/2020/why-los-angeles-countysneediest-school-districts-dont-apply-
for-waivers-to-reopen-campuses/643453
Darling-Hammond, L., & Hyler, M. E. (2020). Preparing educators for the time of COVID ...
and beyond. European Journal of Teacher Education, 43(4), 457–465.
https://doi.org/10.1080/02619768.2020.1816961
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
148

Devakumar, D., Bhopal, S. S., & Shannon, G. (2020). COVID-19: The great unequalizer.
Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine, 113(6), 234–235.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0141076820925434
Diliberti, M., Schwartz, H. L., Hamilton, L. S., & Kaufman, J. H. (2020). Prepared for a
pandemic? How schools’ preparedness related to their remote instruction during
COVID-19. Rand Corporation. https://doi.org/10.7249/RRA168-3
Douglas, T. R., & Nganga, C. (2015). What’s radical love got to do with it: Navigating identity,
pedagogy, and positionality in pre-service education. International Journal of Critical
Pedagogy, 6(1), 58–82. http://libjournal.uncg.edu/ijcp/article/view/237/771
Duardo, D. (2020, June 8). Educators must address the trauma that students have endured these
past weeks. EdSource. https://edsource.org/2020/educators-must-address-the-trauma-
students-have-endured-these-past-weeks/633137
EdSource Staff. (2020a, September 10). The next big hurdle: California schools grapple with
how, when or if to reopen. EdSource. https://edsource.org/2020/the-next-big-hurdle-
california-schools-grapple-with-how-when-or-if-to-reopen-campuses/639797
EdSource Staff. (2020b, September 17). Families face the demands of online learning: Stories
from sixteen families across the state. EdSource. https://edsource.org/2020/families-face-
the-demands-of-online-and-hybrid-learning/639224
EdData. (2021, April 6). Negotiating teachers’ contracts in California. Education Data
Partnership. https://www.ed-data.org/article/Negotiating-Teachers’-Contracts-in-
California
Elbedour, S., Alsubie, F., al-Uqdah, S. N., Bawalsah, J. A. (2020). School crisis management
planning. Children & Schools, 42(4), 208–215. https://doi.org/10.1093/cs/cdaa021
149

Exceptional Lives Team. (2019, September 14). Special education: A glossary of terms and
acronyms. Exceptional Lives Blog. www.exceptionallives.org/blog/special-education-a-
glossary-of- terms-and-acronyms
Fensterwald, J. (2021, January 20). More school organizations urge revising Gov. Newsom’s
reopening plan: They warn that districts will ignore offer as too burdensome for the extra
funding. EdSource. https://edsource.org/2021/more-school-organizations-urge-revising-
gov-newsoms-reopening-plan/647298
Fensterwald, J., Burke, M., Stavely, Z., and Johnson, S. (2021, June 26). Lawmakers, Newsom
cut deal on state budget: Record spending on pre-K through college. EdSource.
https://edsource.org/2021/lawmakers-newsom-cut-deal-on-state-budget-record-spending-
on-prek-through-college/657001
Fineman, S. (2000). Emotions in organizations. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Fotheringham, P., Harriott, T., Healy, G., Arenge, G., McGill, R., & Wilson, E. (2020). Pressures
and influences on school leaders as policy makers during COVID-19. SSRN Electronic
Journal (January 2022), 1–27. https://doi.org/10.1002/berj.3760
Fullan, M. (2014). The principal: Three keys to maximizing impact. John Wiley and Sons.
Fullan, M. (2006). Change theory: A force for school improvement. Centre for Strategic
Education.
Fullan, M. (2007). Leading in a culture of change. Jossey-Bass.
Fullan, M., & Quinn, J. (2015). Coherence: The right drivers in action for schools, districts, and
systems. Corwin Press.
Fusarelli, B. C, & Fusarelli, L. D. (2005). Reconceptualizing the superintendency:
Superintendents as applied social scientist and social activists. In L. G. Bjork & T. J.
150

Kowalski (Eds.). The contemporary superintendent: Preparation, practice, and
development (pp. 187–206). Sage.
Gainey, B. S. (2009). Crisis management’s new role in educational settings. The Clearing
House: A Journal of Educational Strategies, Issues, and Ideas, 82(6), 267–274.
https://doi.org/10.3200/TCHS.82.6.267-274
Gainey, B. S. (2010). Crisis management in public school districts. Organization Development
Journal, 28(1), 89–95. https://doi.org/10.3200/tchs.82.6.267-274
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
Glossary of Educational Reform. (2021). The Glossary of Educational Reform for Journalist,
Parents, and Community Members. https://www.edglossary.org/
Gouwens, J. & Lander, D. (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), 273–296.
https://doi.org/10.1080/10824660802350276
Gundersen, C., Hake, M., Dewey, A., & Engelhard, E. (2021). Food Insecurity during COVID‐
19. Applied Economic Perspectives and Policy, 43(1), 153–161.
https://doi.org/10.1002/aepp.13100
Harrington, T. (2020, October 1). Quick guide: What California parents and students should
know about the coronavirus. EdSource. https://edsource.org/2020/coronavirus-qa-what-
california-parents-and-students-should-know-about-covid-19/624413
151

Harrington, T. (2021, February 2). Quick guide: What California’s color-coded county tracking
system means for schools? EdSource. https://edsource.org/2021/quick-guide-what-
californias-color-coded-county-tracking-system-means-for-schools/639357
Hemphill, A. A., & Marianno, B. D. (2021). Teachers’ Unions, Collective Bargaining, and the
Response to COVID-19. Education Finance and Policy, 16(1), 170–182.
https://doi.org/10.1162/edfp_a_00326
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. (2020). The Disparities in Remote Learning Under Coronavirus (in Charts).
Education Week, 39(30), 12–13.
http://68.77.48.18/randd/education%20week/remote%20learning%20disparities%20unde
r%20coronavirus%20-%20edweek.pdf
Honigsfeld, A. & Nordmeyer, J. (2020). Teacher collaboration during a global pandemic.
Educational Leadership, 77(10), 47–50.
https://energyrights.info/sites/default/files/artifacts/media/pdf/3e_teacher_collaboration_d
uring_a_global_pandemic_-_educational_leadership.pdf
Jaycox, L. H., Stein, B. D., Wong, M. (2014). School intervention related to school and
community violence. Child Adolescent Psychiatric Clinics of North America, 23(2), 281–
293. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chc.2013.12.005
Johnson, S. (2021, January 14). California school officials push for standardized testing waiver
amid COVID-19 spike. EdSource. https://edsource.org/2021/california-school-officials-
push-for-standardized-testing-waiver-amid-covid-19-spike/646901
152

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
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(June),
103439. https://dx.doi.org/10.1016%2fj.jvb.2020.103439
Kaul, M., VanGronigen, B. A., & Simon, N. S. (2020). Calm during crisis: School principal
approaches to crisis management during the COVID-19 pandemic [Policy Briefs].
Consortium for Policy Research in Education.
Kinsey, E. W., Hecht, A. A., Dunn, C. G., Levi, R., Read, M. A., Smith, C., … & 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://dx.doi.org/10.2105%2fajph.2020.305875
Kowalski, T. J, & Keedy, J. L (2005). Preparing superintendents to be effective communicators.
In L. G. Bjork & T. J. Kowalski (Eds.). The contemporary superintendent: Preparation,
practice, and development (pp. 207–226). Sage.
Ladson-Billings, G. (1995). But that’s just good teaching! The case for culturally relevant
pedagogy. Theory Into Practice, 34(3), 159–165.
https://doi.org/10.1080/00405849509543675
Ladson-Billings, G. (2006). From the achievement gap to the education debt: Understanding
achievement in U.S. schools. Educational Researcher, 35(7), 3–12.
https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189x035007003
153

Lambert, D. (2020, June 1). Emotional schools chief Tony Thurmond vows to address racism in
public education. EdSource. https://edsource.org/2020/emotional-schools-chief-tony-
thurmond-vows-to-address-racism-in-public-education/632843
Lambert, D., & Fensterwald, J. (2020, May 4, 2020). Can California schools put safety measures
in place in time to open early? Many school leaders were skeptical. EdSource.
https://edsource.org/2020/can-california-schools-put-safety-measures-in-place-in-time-to-
open-early-many-district-leaders-skeptical/630741
Lochmiller, C. R. & Lester, J. N. (2017). An introduction to educational research: Connecting
methods to practice. Sage.
Los Angeles Unified School District. (2021). At-home learning: A California Public Education
Partnership. LAUSD. https://achieve.lausd.net/pbs
Maak, T., Pless, N. M., & Wohlgezogen, F. (2021). The fault lines of leadership: Lessons from
the global Covid-19 crisis. Journal of Change Management. 21(1), 66–86.
https://doi.org/10.1080/14697017.2021.1861724
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://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED606200
Malkus, N., Christensen, C., & West, L. (2020b). School district responses to the COVID-19
pandemic: Round 2, districts are up and running. American Enterprise Institute for
Public Policy Research. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED606201
Manhken, K. (2020, April 14) Half of all school employees aren’t teachers. This recession will
endanger their jobs. The74million. https://www.the74million.org/article/half-of-all-
school-employees-arent-teachers-this-recession-will-endanger-their-jobs/
154

Maxwell, J. A. (2013). Qualitative research design: An interactive approach (3rd ed.). Sage.
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, March 1). Newsom strikes school reopening deal with California lawmakers.
Politico. https://www.politico.com/states/california/story/2021/03/01/newsom-strikes-
school-reopening-deal-with-california-lawmakers-1366270
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
Merriam, S. B. & Tisdell, E. (2016). Qualitative research: A guide to design and implementation
(4th ed). Jossey-Bass.
Mertz, A. (2014, October 30). A century of teacher organizing: What can we learn? Labor and
Working-Class History Association. https://www.lawcha.org/century-teaching-
organizing/
Mintrom, M. & O’Connor, R. (2020). The importance of policy narrative: Effective government
responses to Covid-19. Policy Design and Practice, 3(3), 205–227.
https://doi.org/10.1080/25741292.2020.1813358
Moore, S. E., Wierenga, K. L., Prince, D. M., Gillani, B., & Mintz, L. J. (2021).
Disproportionate impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on perceived social support, mental
health and somatic symptoms in sexual and gender minority populations. Journal of
homosexuality, 68(4), 577–591. https://doi.org/10.1080/00918369.2020.1868184
155

Murthy, V. H. (2016). Food insecurity: A public health issue. Public Health Reports, 131(5),
655–657. https://doi.org/10.1177/0033354916664154
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.
Northouse, P. G. (2019). Leadership: Theory and practice. Sage.
Office of Governor Gavin Newsom. (2020, March 14). Governor Newsom signs executive order
ensuring state funding for schools even in event of physical closure.
https://www.gov.ca.gov/2020/03/13/governor-newsom-signs-executive-order-ensuring-
state-funding-for-schools-even-in-event-of-physical-closure/.
Patton, M. (2015). Integrating theory and practice. Qualitative Research and Evaluation
Methods. 4
th
ed. Sage Publications in., Thousand Oaks, CA.
Pearson, C. M., & Clair, J. A. (1998). Reframing crisis management. The Academy of
Management Review, 23(1), 59–76. https://doi.org/10.2307/259099
Petersen, G. J., & Barnett, B. G. (2005). The superintendent as instructional leader: Current
practice, future conceptualizations, and implications for preparation. In L. G. Bjork & T.
J. Kowalski (Eds.). The contemporary superintendent: Preparation, practice, and
development (pp. 107–136). Sage.
Pfefferbaum, B., & North, C. S. (2020). Mental health and the Covid-19 pandemic. New England
Journal of Medicine, 383(6), 510–512.
https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/nejmp2008017
156

Powley, E. H., & Taylor, S. N. (2014). Pedagogical approaches to develop critical thinking and
crisis leadership. Journal of Management Education, 38(4), 560–585.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1052562913519081
Reich, J. et al. (2020). Remote learning guidance from state education agencies during the
Covid-19 pandemic: A first look. MIT Teaching Systems Lab.
https://jwel.mit.edu/sites/mit-jwel/files/assets/files/stateedcovid_v3.pdf
Reimers, F. M., & Schleicher, A. (2020). A framework to guide an education response to the
COVID-19 Pandemic of 2020. OECD Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1787/6ae21003-en
Rubin, H. J. & Rubin, I. S. (2012). Qualitative interviewing: The art of hearing data (3rd ed).
Sage.
Scherrey, A. P. (1989). The relationship between self-actualization of principals and the
organizational health of their schools [Unpublished doctoral dissertation]. University of
Arkansas. http://libproxy.usc.edu/login?url=https://www.proquest.com/dissertations-
theses/relationship-between-self-actualization/docview/303662343/se-
2?accountid=14749
Scott, I. (2020). Education during COVID-19: Pivots and consequences. The Clinical Teacher,
17(4), 443–444. https://doi.org/10.1111/tct.13225
Shrivastava, P., Mitroff, I., & Apasian, C. M. (2013). Imagining an education in crisis
management. Journal of Management Education. 37(1), 6–20.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1052562912455418
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(1),
1-13. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-021-81814-3
157

Smith, L., & Riley, D. (2012). School leadership in times of crisis. School Leadership &
Management, 32(1), 57–71. https://doi.org/10.1080/13632434.2011.614941
Spillane, J. P., & Healey, K. (2010). Conceptualizing school leadership and management from a
distributed perspective: An exploration of some study operations and measures.
Elementary School Journal, 111(2), 253–281. https://doi.org/10.1086/656300
State of California (2021). State of California Safe Schools for All Hub.
https://schools.covid19.ca.gov/
Stavely, Z. (2020, August 11). Why some California classrooms will reopen for childcare,
though barred from in-person instruction. EdSource. https://edsource.org/2020/why-
some-california-classrooms-will-reopen-for-child-care-though-barred-from-in-person-
instruction/638010
Stern, A. M., Cetron, M. S., & Markel, H. (2009). Closing the schools: Lessons from the 1918–
19 US influenza pandemic – Ninety-one years later, the evidence shows that there are
positive and negative ways to do it. Health Affairs, 28(Supplement 1), w1066–w1078.
https://doi.org/10.1377/hlthaff.28.6.w1066
Supovitz, J. A., D’Auria, J., & Spillane, J. P. (2019). Meaningful & and sustainable school
improvement with distributed leadership. CPRE Research Reports.
https://repository.upenn.edu/cpre_researchreports/112
Tai, D. B. G., Shah, A., Doubeni, C. A., Sia, I. G., & Wieland, M. L. (2021). The
disproportionate impact of COVID-19 on racial and ethnic minorities in the United
States. Clinical Infectious Diseases, 72(4), 703–706. https://doi.org/10.1093/cid/ciaa815
United Nations. (2020, August). Education during COVID-19 and beyond [Policy Brief]. United
Nations. https://www.un.org/development/desa/dspd/wp-
158

content/uploads/sites/22/2020/08/sg_policy_brief_covid-
19_and_education_august_2020.pdf
U.S. Department of Education. (2021). Education in a pandemic: The disparate impacts of
COVID-19 on America’s students. U.S. Department of Education, Office for Civil Rights.
https://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ocr/docs/20210608-impacts-of-covid19.pdf
United States Department of Labor. (2021). Personal protective equipment – Overview:
Occupational safety and health administration. OSHA. https://www.osha.gov/personal-
protective-equipment.
Van Lancker, W. & Parolin, Z. (2020). COVID-19, school closures, and child poverty: A social
crisis in the making. The Lancet Public Health, 5(5), 243–244.
https://doi.org/10.1016/S2468-2667(20)30084-0
Walters, A. (2020). COVID-19 and racism: A mental health crisis. The Brown University Child
and Adolescent Behavior Letter, 36(12), 1–8. https://doi.org/10.1002/cbl.30510
Westover, J. (2020). Districts on the move: Leading a coherent system of continuous
improvement. Corwin Press.
Will, M. (2020, July 10). are wary of reopening schools. Here’s what they’re saying. Education
Week. https://www.edweek.org/leadership/teachers-unions-are-wary-of-reopening-
schools-heres-what-theyre-saying/2020/07
World Health Organization. (2015, July 24). Summary of probable SARS cases with onset of
illness from 1 November 2002 to 31 July 2003. WHO International.
https://www.who.int/publications/m/item/summary-of-probable-sars-cases-with-onset-of-
illness-from-1-november-2002-to-31-july-2003
159

World Health Organization. (2021). World Health Organization: Who we are. WHO
International. www.who.int/about/who-we-are.
World Health Organization. (2021, July 19). WHO Coronavirus (COVID-19) Dashboard. WHO
International. https://covid19.who.int/
Xiong, J., Lipsitz, O., Nasri, F., Lui, L. M., Gill, H., Phan, L., ... & McIntyre, R. S. (2020).
Impact of COVID-19 pandemic on mental health in the general population: A systematic
review. Journal of Affective Disorders, 277(Dec), 55–64.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jad.2020.08.001

160

Appendix A: Superintendent Survey
Thank you for participating in this research project. The goal is to understand how the
COVID-19 pandemic affected K–12 school districts, and in doing so, transformed the role of
district and school site leaders into crisis managers. You were chosen to participate in this survey
because you demonstrated leadership as a superintendent during the COVID-19 crisis.
Your participation in this study is entirely voluntary. Your identity, position, and any
identifying information about your district will be anonymized to secure confidentiality. Thank
you again for your participation. We also invite you to take part in a virtual 30-minute interview
to be scheduled at your convenience after the survey.

Table A1
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
161

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
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
162

Survey items Response choices
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
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
163

Survey items Response choices
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 and safety.
1 = strongly disagree
2 = disagree
3 = neither agree nor disagree
4 = agree
5 = strongly agree
20. My district met the academic needs of
students.
1 = strongly disagree
2 = disagree
3 = neither agree nor disagree
4 = agree
5 = strongly agree
Overarching
21. The board of education supported my district’s
response to the COVID-19 pandemic?
1 = strongly disagree
2 = disagree
3 = neither agree nor disagree
4 = agree
5 = strongly agree
22. District administrators supported my district’s
response to the COVID-19 pandemic?
1 = strongly disagree
2 = disagree
3 = neither agree nor disagree
4 = agree
5 = strongly agree
23. District facilities and operations teams
supported my district’s response to the
COVID-19 pandemic?
1 = strongly disagree
2 = disagree
3 = neither agree nor disagree
4 = agree
5 = strongly agree
24. Teachers supported my district’s response to
the COVID-19 pandemic?
1 = strongly disagree
2 = disagree
3 = neither agree nor disagree
4 = agree
5 = strongly agree
164

Survey items Response choices
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]

Closing
We appreciate your willingness to participate in the survey. Your responses will help us
better understand the perspectives of district Superintendents during the COVID-19 Pandemic
and experiences as crisis-managers.
We will be in touch to invite you to take part in a virtual 35-minute interview to be
scheduled at your convenience.
Thank you for participating in this survey.

165

Appendix B: Assistant Superintendent Survey
Thank you for participating in this research project. The goal is to understand how the
COVID-19 pandemic affected K–12 school districts, and in doing so, transformed the role of
district and school site leaders into crisis managers. You were chosen to participate in this survey
because you demonstrated leadership as an assistant superintendent during the COVID-19 crisis.
Your participation in this study is entirely voluntary. Your identity, position, and any
identifying information about your district will be anonymized to secure confidentiality. Thank
you again for your participation. We also invite you to take part in a virtual 30-minute interview
to be scheduled at your convenience after the survey.

Table B1
Survey Items
Survey items Response choices
1. How many years have you served as an assistant
superintendent?
Open ended (demographic)
● Less than 1 year
● 1 to 2 years
● 3 to 5 years
● 6 to 10 years
● Over 10 years
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
166

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 facilities upgrades.
1 = strongly disagree
2 = disagree
3 = neither agree nor disagree
4 = agree
5 = strongly agree
RQ2: Health and safety guidelines
8. The federal, state, and local health guidelines
were clear in providing information to support the
safe reopening of schools.
1 = strongly disagree
2 = disagree
3 = neither agree nor disagree
4 = agree
5 = strongly agree
9. I understood how to safely reopen work sites
based on the public health guidelines.
1 = strongly disagree
2 = disagree
3 = neither agree nor disagree
4 = agree
5 = strongly agree
10. The health guidelines impacted the district’s
return to school plan in the spring of 2021.
1 = strongly disagree
2 = disagree
3 = neither agree nor disagree
4 = agree
5 = strongly agree
RQ3: Union negotiations
167

Survey items Response choices
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
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
168

Survey items Response choices
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 and safety.
1 = strongly disagree
2 = disagree
3 = neither agree nor disagree
4 = agree
5 = strongly agree
20. My district met the academic needs of students. 1 = strongly disagree
2 = disagree
3 = neither agree nor disagree
4 = agree
5 = strongly agree
Overarching
21. The board of education supported my district’s
response to the COVID-19 pandemic?
1 = strongly disagree
2 = disagree
3 = neither agree nor disagree
4 = agree
5 = strongly agree
22. District administrators supported my district’s
response to the COVID-19 pandemic?
1 = strongly disagree
2 = disagree
3 = neither agree nor disagree
4 = agree
5 = strongly agree
23. District facilities and operations teams supported
my district’s response to the COVID-19
pandemic?
1 = strongly disagree
2 = disagree
3 = neither agree nor disagree
4 = agree
5 = strongly agree
24. Teachers supported my district’s response to the
COVID-19 pandemic?
1 = strongly disagree
2 = disagree
3 = neither agree nor disagree
4 = agree
5 = strongly agree
169

Survey items Response choices
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

Closing
We appreciate your willingness to participate in the survey. Your responses will help us
better understand the perspectives of district assistant superintendents during the COVID-19
pandemic and experiences as crisis-managers.
We will be in touch to invite you to take part in a virtual 35-minute interview to be
scheduled at your convenience.
Thank you for participating in this survey.

170

Appendix C: Principal Survey
Thank you for participating in this research project. The goal is to understand how the
COVID-19 pandemic affected K–12 school districts, and in doing so, transformed the role of
district and school site leaders into crisis managers. You were chosen to participate in this survey
because you demonstrated leadership as a principal during the COVID-19 crisis.
Your participation in this study is entirely voluntary. Your identity, position, and any
identifying information about your school will be anonymized to secure confidentiality. Thank
you again for your participation. We also invite you to take part in a virtual 30-minute interview
to be scheduled at your convenience after the survey.

Table C1
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
171

Survey items Response choices
4. The CARES Act met my school’s funding
needs in the area of personal protective
equipment (PPE).
1 = strongly disagree
2 = disagree
3 = neither agree nor disagree
4 = agree
5 = strongly agree
5. The CARES Act met my school’s funding
needs in the area of technology.
1 = strongly disagree
2 = disagree
3 = neither agree nor disagree
4 = agree
5 = strongly agree
6. The CARES Act met my school’s funding
needs in the area of professional learning
and/or training.
1 = strongly disagree
2 = disagree
3 = neither agree nor disagree
4 = agree
5 = strongly agree
7. The CARES Act met my school’s funding
needs in the area of facility upgrades.
1 = strongly disagree
2 = disagree
3 = neither agree nor disagree
4 = agree
5 = strongly agree
RQ2: Health and safety guidelines
8. The federal, state, and local health guidelines
were clear in providing information to support
the safe reopening of my school.
1 = strongly disagree
2 = disagree
3 = neither agree nor disagree
4 = agree
5 = strongly agree
9. I understood how to safely reopen my work
site based on the public health guidelines.
1 = strongly disagree
2 = disagree
3 = neither agree nor disagree
4 = agree
5 = strongly agree
10. The health guidelines impacted my school’s
return to school plan in the spring of 2021.
1 = strongly disagree
2 = disagree
3 = neither agree nor disagree
4 = agree
5 = strongly agree
RQ3 Union negotiations
172

Survey items Response choices
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
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
173

Survey items Response choices
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 and 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
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
174

Survey items Response choices
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

Closing
We appreciate your willingness to participate in the survey. Your responses will help us
better understand the perspectives of school principals during the COVID-19 Pandemic and
experiences as crisis-managers.
We will be in touch to invite you to take part in a virtual 35-minute interview to be
scheduled at your convenience.
Thank you for participating in this survey.

175

Appendix D: Letter to Superintendents

Date

Dear Superintendent XXXX,

Knowing the many challenges districts are addressing, I sincerely hope that this email finds you
well during these seemingly interminable unprecedented times driven by the COVID-19
pandemic.

As a member of the research team from the University of Southern California, we are
investigating “THE IMPACT OF COVID 19 PANDEMIC ON K–12 PUBLIC SCHOOL
DISTRICTS IN SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA: RESPONSES OF SUPERINTENDENTS,
ASSISTANT SUPERINTENDENTS AND PRINCIPALS.”

With this in mind, we are looking for first-hand information from your district and school leaders
as to how leaders have adapted to the challenges of the COVID-19 pandemic. In terms of our
current progress to our investigation, we have passed our defense proposal and will be collecting
data pending IRB (institutional review board) approval from the university.

It is my hope that I can contact you directly, at your convenience, to schedule the research
interview over zoom (interview should be no more than 40 minutes). In addition, I will be asking
you to complete a brief survey as part of our data collection. I will also be requesting an
interview and have the survey completed from one assistant superintendent and one site principal
who worked in this capacity during the 2020-2021 school year in your district.

I would be happy to answer any questions you may have, and I look forward to hearing from
you! Please let me know your availability, and I will work to schedule a mutually convenient
time to conduct our interview.

Thank you in advance for your assistance,

[Researcher’s Name]
USC Rossier Doctoral Candidate
[Researcher’s Email]
176

Appendix E: Superintendent Interview Protocol

Interviewer: _____________________________________ Date: _________________________

Interviewee: _____________________________________ Location: _____________________

Job Title: _______________________________________ Contact Information: ____________

Length of Time in Your Position: __________________________________________________

Introduction

[Introduce yourself and your affiliation.]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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?
177

a. PQ: What agencies?
b. PQ: What organizations?
2. To what degree, if any, did the various agencies align COVID-19 guidance for schools?
3. What strategies have been effective for your district in implementing health
guidelines/policies?
4. Who in your district was primarily in charge of interpreting and implementing the health
guidelines/policies?

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

1. What were the most important issues negotiated with your teacher’s union and how were
they resolved?
2. What were the most important issues negotiated with your classified union and how were
they resolved?
3. In what ways, if any, were instructional programs influenced by union negotiations in
your district?
4. In what ways, if any, were safety protocols influenced by union negotiations in your
district?

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?

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

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

178

Appendix F: Assistant Superintendent Interview Protocol

Interviewer: _____________________________________ Date: _________________________

Interviewee: _____________________________________ Location: _____________________

Job Title: _______________________________________ Contact Information: ____________

Length of Time in Your Position: __________________________________________________

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

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

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

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

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

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

179

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

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

1. What were the most important issues negotiated with your teachers’ union and how were
they resolved?
2. What were the most important issues negotiated with your classified union and how were
they resolved?
3. In what ways, if any, were instructional programs influenced by union negotiations in
your district?
4. In what ways, if any, were safety protocols influenced by union negotiations in your
district?

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?

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

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

180

Appendix G: Principal Interview Protocol

Interviewer: _____________________________________ Date: _________________________

Interviewee: _____________________________________ Location: _____________________

Job Title: _______________________________________ Contact Information: ____________

Length of Time in Your Position: __________________________________________________

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

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

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

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

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

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

181

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

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

1. What were the most important issues negotiated with your teachers’ union and
how were they resolved?
2. What were the most important issues negotiated with your classified union and
how were they resolved?
3. In what ways, if any, were instructional programs influenced by union
negotiations at your school?
4. In what ways, if any, were safety protocols influenced by union negotiations at
your school?

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?

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

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

182

Appendix H: Alignment of the Survey Protocol to the Research Questions and Conceptual
Framework

Question RQ1 RQ2 RQ3 RQ4 Bolman
and Deal
Westover Fullan
Demographics
1
2
Section I
3 √ √ √ √
4 √ √ √ √
5 √ √ √ √
6 √ √ √ √
7 √ √ √ √
Section II
8 √ √
9 √ √ √ √
10 √ √
Section III
11 √ √ √ √
12 √ √ √ √
13 √ √ √ √
Section IV
14 √ √ √
15 √ √ √ √
16 √ √ √ √
17 √ √ √ √
18 √ √ √ √
19 √ √ √ √
20 √ √ √ √
Section V
21 √ √ √
22 √ √ √
23 √ √ √ √
24 √ √ √ √
25 √ √ √ √
26 √ √ √ √

Abstract (if available)

Abstract The purpose of this study was to analyze the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on K–12 public school districts in Southern California and understand what district and site administrators, specifically superintendents, assistant superintendents or cabinet level district administrators, and principals have learned from their experiences and their decision-making responsibilities in managing the crisis. This study brings to light the impact of the pandemic on students, families, leaders, schools, and districts. Most importantly, this study examines how district and school leadership influences administrative practices, student achievement, financial responsibility, union leadership, and community/parent support as they responded to the COVID-19 crisis. This study implemented a mixed-methods approach to establish triangulation for more accurate findings and make the research study more holistic. This study utilized surveys and semi-structured interviews to gather data from 12 school superintendents, 12 assistant superintendents or cabinet level district administrators, and 12 principals from 12 public school districts. The study’s findings indicated that inter- and intra-agency collaborations, ongoing communication, positive relations with labor unions, mental health supports, social emotional well-being, and new ways of using technology will support learning through pandemics or school crises. Finally, this study recommends that school administrators apply the crisis management model to prepare, prevent, respond, manage, recover and learn from crisis events, in particular the COVID-19 pandemic and their impact on student learning, mental health, and social emotional development. School administrators must also explore the differences between county-level health agency guidelines and how they influenced planning and implementation for school districts during times of crisis.

Linked assets

University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Conceptually similar

PDF

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

PDF

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

PDF

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

PDF

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

PDF

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

PDF

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

PDF

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

PDF

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

PDF

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

PDF

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

PDF

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

PDF

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

PDF

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

Asset Metadata

Creator Hernandez Aguilar, Diana (author)

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

School Rossier School of Education

Degree Doctor of Education

Degree Program Educational Leadership

Degree Conferral Date 2022-05

Publication Date 05/06/2022

Defense Date 05/06/2022

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

Tag academic concerns,agencies,assistant superintendent,CARES Act,COVID-19 pandemic,crisis leadership,district responses to COVID-19,ESSR funding,financial impact,fiscal impact COVID-19 guidance,health and safety,K–12 school districts,learning loss,mixed methods,OAI-PMH Harvest,pandemic,Principal,social emotional,spending flexibility,superintendent,technology nutrition,unions

Format application/pdf (imt)

Language English

Contributor Electronically uploaded by the author (provenance)

Advisor Castruita, Rudy (committee chair), Cash, David (committee member), Gothold, Paul (committee member)

Creator Email dianah88@usc.edu,dianatigg@gmail.com

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-oUC111271661

Unique identifier UC111271661

Document Type Dissertation

Format application/pdf (imt)

Rights Hernandez Aguilar, Diana

Type texts

Source 20220506-usctheses-batch-939 (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