Close
About
FAQ
Home
Collections
Login
USC Login
Register
0
Selected
Invert selection
Deselect all
Deselect all
Click here to refresh results
Click here to refresh results
USC
/
Digital Library
/
University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses
/
The impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on K-12 public school districts in southern California: responses of superintendents, assistant superintendents and principals
(USC Thesis Other)
The impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on K-12 public school districts in southern California: responses of superintendents, assistant superintendents and principals
PDF
Download
Share
Open document
Flip pages
Contact Us
Contact Us
Copy asset link
Request this asset
Transcript (if available)
Content
The Impact of the COVID-19 Pandemic on K–12 Public School Districts in Southern
California: Responses of Superintendents, Assistant Superintendents, and Principals
by
Brennan James Pope
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 Brennan James Pope 2022
All Rights Reserved
The Committee for Brennan James Pope certifies the approval of this Dissertation
Gregory Franklin
James Elsasser
Rudy Castruita, Committee Chair
Rossier School of Education
University of Southern California
2022
Abstract
The purpose of this study was to analyze the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on K–12
Southern California public school districts and to understand what superintendents, assistant
superintendents, and principals learned from their experiences and their decision-making
responsibilities in managing the crisis. This study implemented a mixed-methods approach in
which 23 Southern California public school district superintendents, assistant superintendents,
and principals completed a survey and also participated in a structured interview. Through the
process of triangulation, the study!s findings indicate that the CARES Act funding met the school
districts’ funding needs and provided them with additional staffing, technology support, and
safety equipment. The findings also show that the guidance provided to school districts by
federal, state, and local health agencies caused frustration and confusion and affected reopening
plans. Furthermore, the findings reveal that negotiations with unions were a major player in the
reopening of schools, and negotiations were effective because of the already-set relationships
between the districts and labor unions. Lastly, the study!s findings bring to light how
superintendents, assistant superintendents, and principals maintained frequent communication
with the parent community and addressed their main concerns about technology, safety, nutrition,
and mental health. Overall, this study provides a guide for future leaders in crisis situations.
iv
Dedication
To my family. I would like to dedicate this to my two sons, Ethan and William, their mother,
Marianne, my mom and dad and all people who would like to be thanked.
v
Acknowledgements
I would like to acknowledge everybody who supported me in this process, friends and
family. Diana and Katie were such strong supporters from start to finish and I have to recognize
the Avengers who motivated me to become a stronger, more superhero-like version of myself.
My dissertation committee and the entire team were also such a special group of people to fortify
the research and writing of this huge project.
vi
Preface
Some of the chapters of this dissertation were co-authored. While jointly authored
dissertations are not the norm of most doctoral programs, a collaborative effort is reflective of
real-world practices. To meet their 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 venture.
This dissertation is part of a collaborative project between three doctoral candidates:
Diana Eloisa Cisneros, Kathleen Marie Johns, and Brennan James Pope. We three doctoral
students met with 23 K–12 Southern California public school district superintendents, assistant
superintendents, and principals to understand the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on K–12
Southern California public school districts and what superintendents, assistant superintendents,
and principals learned from their experiences and their decision-making responsibilities in
managing the crisis. The process for dissecting and acquiring a thorough constructive perspective
from the selected participants was too large for a single dissertation. As a result, the three
dissertations produced by our inquiry team collectively examined the impact of the COVID-19
pandemic on Southern California school districts.
vii
Table of Contents
Abstract ...........................................................................................................................................iv
Dedication ........................................................................................................................................v
Acknowledgements ........................................................................................................................vi
Preface ...........................................................................................................................................vii
List of Tables ..................................................................................................................................xi
List of Figures ...............................................................................................................................xii
Chapter One: Overview of the Study ..............................................................................................1
Background of the Problem .................................................................................................2
Statement of the Problem ....................................................................................................3
Purpose of the Study ............................................................................................................3
Significance of the Study .....................................................................................................4
Research Questions ..............................................................................................................4
Limitation and Delimitations ...............................................................................................5
Definition of Terms ..............................................................................................................6
Organization of the Study ..................................................................................................12
Chapter Two: Review of Literature ...............................................................................................13
Historical Perspectives of School Closures .......................................................................13
A Rush to Normalcy ..........................................................................................................17
Disparities and Inequities in the United States and California ..........................................24
Conclusion .........................................................................................................................32
Chapter Three: Methodology .........................................................................................................35
Statement of the Problem ..................................................................................................35
viii
Purpose of the Study ..........................................................................................................35
Research Questions ............................................................................................................36
Research Team ...................................................................................................................36
Research Design ................................................................................................................37
Sample and Population ......................................................................................................39
Instrumentation and Conceptual Framework ....................................................................42
Data Collection ..................................................................................................................45
Data Analysis .....................................................................................................................46
Ethical Considerations .......................................................................................................47
Summary ............................................................................................................................47
Chapter Four: Findings ..................................................................................................................49
Participants ........................................................................................................................50
Demographic Data .............................................................................................................51
Research Question 1 ..........................................................................................................55
Research Question 2 ..........................................................................................................65
Research Question 3 ..........................................................................................................76
Research Question 4 ..........................................................................................................85
Summary ............................................................................................................................98
Chapter Five: Discussion .............................................................................................................101
Statement of the Problem ................................................................................................101
Purpose of the Study ........................................................................................................102
Research Questions ..........................................................................................................102
Methodology ....................................................................................................................103
Sample and Population ....................................................................................................103
ix
Data Collection ................................................................................................................104
Discussion of Findings ....................................................................................................104
Limitations .......................................................................................................................111
Implications for Practice ..................................................................................................111
Recommendations for Future Research ...........................................................................116
Conclusion .......................................................................................................................116
References ....................................................................................................................................118
Appendix A: Letter of Invitation .................................................................................................135
Appendix B: Letter of Invitation .................................................................................................137
Appendix C: Letter of Invitation .................................................................................................139
Appendix D: Superintendent Survey ...........................................................................................141
Survey Items ....................................................................................................................141
Closing .............................................................................................................................144
Appendix E: Assistant Superintendent Survey ............................................................................145
Survey Items ....................................................................................................................145
Closing .............................................................................................................................147
Appendix F: Principal Survey .....................................................................................................149
Survey Items ....................................................................................................................149
Closing .............................................................................................................................151
Appendix G: Superintendent Interview Protocol ........................................................................153
Introduction .....................................................................................................................153
Conclusion .......................................................................................................................155
Appendix H: Assistant Superintendent Interview Protocol .........................................................156
Conclusion .......................................................................................................................158
x
Appendix I: Principal Interview Protocol ....................................................................................159
Introduction .....................................................................................................................159
Conclusion .......................................................................................................................161
xi
List of Tables
Table 1: School District Demographic Information 49
Table 2: Participant Demographic Information 50
Table 3: Survey: Financial Implications of the COVID-19 Pandemic 52
Table 4: Survey: Federal, State and Local Health and Safety Guidelines of the COVID-19
Pandemic 63
Table 5: Survey: Union Negotiations of the COVID-19 Pandemic 73
Table 6: Survey: Addressing the Concerns of the Parent Community 81
xi
List of Figures
Figure 1: Conceptual Framework 42
xii
1
Chapter One: Overview of the Study
The COVID-19 pandemic has been both rapidly evolving and lingering. This is unusual
for the types of crises schools more typically face, which tend to be either immediate, like an
active shooter, or persistent, like underachievement (Gainey, 2009). The pandemic prompted
schools to close on very short notice under “hold harmless” guidelines from state agencies
overseeing education, except for school closures lasting several weeks (Fensterwald, 2020).
However, the complete and partial school closures caused by COVID-19 have continued to
impact school districts for over a year. As the pandemic lasted, the issues facing school leaders
and their school communities became more complex.
Federal and state governments assisted school districts financially to help address the
challenges of distance learning and safety. Governmental agencies also provided rules, guidance,
and protocols to help schools operate in these new circumstances. While these were sometimes
helpful, they were also often contradictory and difficult to enforce, which caused problems for
school districts. As these rules and regulations evolved, so too did the roles and expectations of
district employees. Unions renegotiated fundamental aspects of working conditions to keep
members safe and express how the pandemic impacted their work.
The pandemic also heavily impacted parents and guardians as students stayed home to
learn. Parents and guardians often rely on schools not just for education but also for childcare,
food, as well as social, emotional, and medical care for their children. With children staying at
home, parents and guardians had to readjust their own professional lives and their personal lives
to accommodate their children being home. These stakeholder concerns drastically changed the
2
role of school leadership, both at the district and site levels. School leaders became crisis
managers to see their organizations through this tumultuous time of the COVID-19 pandemic.
Background of the Problem
Throughout U.S. history, natural disasters, high-profile violent events, and infectious
diseases have caused unrest within society, but specifically for this study, a disruption in
education. Pandemics such as the Spanish Flu (i.e., the Flu Pandemic of 1918), Severe Acute
Respiratory Syndrome (SARS), Swine Flu (H1N1 influenza virus of 2009), and the current
coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), have forced school leaders to face the difficult decision
on whether to have the schools remain open and continue to serve the community or to close
their doors to limit the spread of the virus (Braunack-Mayer et al., 2013; Stern et al., 2009; Viner
et al., 2020).
In February 2020, the World Health Organization (WHO) introduced the most recent
global health crisis, the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). This ongoing disease has caused
tremendous suffering, death, and disruption of everyday life worldwide. Because of the
COVID-19 pandemic, the school closures impacted students and their families in K–12
education (Hebebci et al., 2020; Xiong et al., 2020). When the COVID-19 was declared a
pandemic in March 2020, public school districts across California shut down to align with state-
mandated social distancing protocols. The decision to close schools impacted student instruction
and many community social structures. School closures have required consistent and clear
communication between school officials, government agencies, health agencies, and the school
and families.
3
The current pandemic exacerbated inequalities within the education system and among
disadvantaged families (Baptiste et al., 2020; Combe, 2020; Kantamneni, 2020). Technology
access became crucial, as did access to other school supports, such as food, housing, and safe
employment. Eventually, California schools reopened to limited in-person instruction in spring
2021, many after being closed to most students for more than 1 year. The pandemic would
forever change the way educators would deliver education, and, as it turns out, educational
leadership was critical in finding solutions for all, including those students who are considered
the most marginalized. It remains unclear what the long-term impacts of COVID-19 on students,
educators, and leaders will be. Further exploration is needed on how educational leaders dealt
with the pandemic and the long-term effects on all stakeholders.
Statement of the Problem
The COVID-19 pandemic presented a disruption in Southern California K–
12 public school districts, causing unforeseen consequences within the education system and
highlighting financial implications, the impact of agencies, negotiations with unions, and the
impact on students and the community. COVID-19 shifted the roles and scope of schools and
school leaders beyond instructional leaders 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
Southern California K–12 public school districts and understand what district and site
administrators have learned from their experiences and their decision-making responsibilities in
managing the crisis. This study brings to light the impact of the pandemic on students, families,
leaders, schools, and districts. Most importantly, this study examines how district and school
4
leadership influences administrative practices, student achievement, financial responsibility,
union leadership, and community/parent support as they respond to the COVID-19 crisis.
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 public school superintendents, assistant
superintendents, and principals during the COVID-19 pandemic. COVID-19 shifted the roles and
scope of schools and school leaders beyond instructional leaders by transforming them into crisis
managers. This unprecedented event in history forced educational leadership to quickly make
changes in a strategic way to support students and families. Educational leadership was on
display in California, from the Governor’s office to K–12 school educators and classified staff
members who prioritized student safety at the expense of academic excellence. Difficult
decisions had to be made to support a myriad of student needs throughout school closures. By
analyzing how leaders on the frontline (i.e., superintendents, assistant superintendents, and
principals) took action, the study will provide insight into prevention and implementation as
future crises occur in education. If a pandemic ever arises again, this study will support how the
crises would be addressed through the systems in place by school leaders, educators, boards of
education, and community stakeholders that are meant to reimagine and revolutionize a new
educational landscape that is committed to building a culture of equity to repay the educational
debt.
Research Questions
The study was guided by four research questions:
5
1. What, if any, are the financial implications that the COVID-19 pandemic has had on
K–12 public school districts in Southern California, and how have district
superintendents, assistant superintendents, and principals addressed these
implications?
2. What, if any, has been the impact of federal, state, and local health agencies on K–12
public school districts in Southern California, and what strategies have district
superintendents, assistant superintendents, and principals followed to address the
suggested guidelines?
3. How, if at all, have union negotiations played a role in K–12 Southern California
public school districts’ 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?
Limitation and Delimitations
There are some boundaries of the study beyond the control of the research team that may
affect internal validity. Limitations of this study include the following: the ongoing disruptions
caused by the COVID-19 pandemic on public education; the participants are only from Southern
California public schools; surveys are self-reported; interview questions may contain researcher
bias; interviews were conducted virtually, and the sample may not accurately represent all school
6
districts in California. The following steps would include a similar process to include a larger
representation from different districts throughout California or the United States.
In addition, delimitations of the study relate to the generalizability of the findings and are
associated with the availability of time and resources. To narrow the focus of this study, the
superintendents, assistant superintendents, and principals selected for this study are current
leaders in large urban public school districts in Southern California who were willing to
participate in the study.
Definition of Terms
•
Assembly and Senate Bill 86: This bill provides $2 billion as an incentive for schools
that have not already done so to offer in-person instruction beginning April 1, 2021,
starting with the earliest grades. The legislation also allocates $4.6 billion for all
school districts regardless of whether they meet the timetable Gov. Gavin Newsom
called for in his “Safe Schools for All” plan (Jones & Freedberg, 2021).
•
Assembly and Senate Bill 129: A landmark state budget agreement that adds a year of
school for all 4-year-olds, significantly expands Cal Grants and middle-class
scholarships for college students, and provides record funding for pre-K–12 schools
anxious to use billions in one-time funding to bounce back from a 15-month
pandemic (Fensterwald et al., 2021).
•
Asynchronous learning: Asynchronous learning occurs without direct, simultaneous
interaction of participants, such as pre-recorded videos featuring direct instruction of
new content students watch on their own time (California Department of Education,
2020).
7
•
California Department of Education (CDE): Governmental body that oversees the
state’s diverse public school system, which is responsible for the education of more
than six million children and young adults in more than 10,000 schools with 300,000
teachers. Specifically, they oversee enforcing education laws and regulations and
continuing to reform and improve public school programs (California Department of
Education, n.d.).
•
California Department of Public Health (CDPH): A public agency that focuses on
infectious disease control and prevention, food safety, environmental health,
laboratory services, patient safety, emergency preparedness, chronic disease
prevention, and health promotion, family health, health equity and vital records and
statistics (California Department of Public Health, 2021).
•
California School Employees Association (CSEA) is the largest classified school
employees’ union in the United States, representing more than 250,000 school
support staff throughout California. CSEA members perform a wide range of essential
work in our public schools and community colleges, including security, food services,
office and clerical work, school maintenance and operations, transportation, academic
assistance, paraeducator services, library, and media assistance, computer services,
and more (California School Employees Association, 2021).
•
The Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act (CARES Act) was passed by
Congress on March 27, 2020. This bill allotted $2.2 trillion to provide fast and direct
economic aid to the American people negatively impacted by the COVID-19
pandemic. Approximately $14 billion was given to the Office of Postsecondary
8
Education as the Higher Education Emergency Relief Fund (California School
Employees Association, 2021).
•
Center for Disease Control (CDC): Nation’s health agency that “conducts critical
science and provides health information” and responds to health crises (Centers for
Disease Control and Prevention, 2021; n.d.).
•
Cohort is a group of individuals who have something in common, such as the same
grade level or specific student groups such as English Language Learners
(EdGlossary, 2013).
•
Collective bargaining agreement (CBA): The primary activity of a union is to
represent the teachers in negotiating the terms of employment contracts, called
collective bargaining. Under the Rodda Act, passed in 1975, the school board and the
union must review the terms of the existing agreement at least once every 3 years.
This negotiation determines the salaries and benefits, hours, calendar, and most
aspects of teachers’ working conditions. Negotiators can also discuss problems and
address new issues that have arisen during the contract period. This can be especially
significant when the Legislature and governor have passed new laws regarding
COVID-19 safety measures, school finance, or teacher training and evaluation. A
district can implement these laws only after the impact has been collectively
bargained (EdData, 2021).
•
COVID-19: A novel strain of coronaviruses that shares 79% genetic similarity with
SARS-CoV from the 2003 SARS outbreak. COVID-19 was declared in March 2020
9
by the World Health Organization (WHO) as a global pandemic (World Health
Organization Coronavirus Dashboard, 2021; Xiong et al., 2020).
•
Distance learning: Instruction in which the pupil and instructor are in different
locations and pupils are under the general supervision of a certificated employee of
the local educational agency (California Department of Education, 2020).
•
Elementary and secondary school emergency relief (ESSER) was established in the
CARES Act to provide emergency relief funds to address the impact the COVID-19
pandemic has had on elementary and secondary schools across the Nation (U.S.
Department of Education, 2021).
•
Essential workers are those who conduct a range of operations and services that are
typically considered necessary or essential to continue critical infrastructure
operations (National Conference for State Legislatures, 2021).
•
Free and appropriate public education (F APE): A civil right for students ages three to
22 to receive a free public education that meets their educational needs. They have a
right to participate in school life, including after-school activities. (Exceptional Lives,
2019).
•
Hybrid (blended) learning: Combination of in-person and distance learning
(California Department of Education, 2020).
•
In-person: Learning that takes place live and in-person with teachers and other peers
(CA Safe Schools for All, 2021).
10
•
Learning loss: “Refers to any specific or general loss of knowledge and skills or
reversals in academic progress, most commonly due to extended gaps or
discontinuities in a student’s education” (Edglossary.org, 2013).
•
Pandemic: The International Epidemiology Association’s Dictionary of Epidemiology
defines a pandemic as “an epidemic occurring worldwide, or over a very wide area,
crossing international boundaries and usually affecting a large number of people”
(Singer et al., 2021).
•
Personal protective equipment (PPE) 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
gloves, safety glasses and shoes, earplugs or muffs, hard hats, respirators, coveralls,
vests, and full-body suits (United States Department of Labor, 2021).
•
Social-emotional learning (SEL): Reflects the critical role of positive relationships
and emotional connections in the learning process and helps students develop a range
of skills they need for school and life (California Department of Education, 2020).
•
Stakeholders: Refers to anyone who is invested in the welfare and success of a school
and its students, including administrators, teachers, staff members, students, parents,
families, community members, local business leaders, and elected officials such as
school board members, city councilors, and state representatives. Stakeholders may
also be collective entities, such as local businesses, organizations, advocacy groups,
committees, media outlets, and cultural institutions, in addition to organizations that
11
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). Stakeholders have a “stake” in the
school and its students, meaning personal, professional, civic, or financial interests or
concerns (Edglossary.org, 2014).
•
Synchronous learning takes place in real-time, with the 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 (California Department of
Education, 2020).
•
Williams Compliance Act: The 2000 Eliezer Williams et al., vs. the State of California
et al. (Williams) case was a class action suit against the State of California and state
education agencies. The plaintiffs included nearly 100 San Francisco County students
who claimed that these agencies failed to provide public school students 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 the Williams case settlement
(California Department of Education, n.d.).
12
•
World Health Organization (WHO): A team of more than 8000 professionals that
includes the world’s leading public health experts, including doctors, epidemiologists,
scientists, and managers. Together, WHO coordinates the world’s response to health
emergencies, promotes well-being, prevents disease, and expands access to health
care (World Health Organization, 2021).
Organization of the Study
This research study is organized into five chapters. Chapter One introduces the study, the
statement of the problem, the purpose of the study, the significance of the study, four research
questions, limitations and delimitations, and the definitions of key terms. Chapter Two reviews
the existing literature relevant to the problem under study. Chapter Three presents the research
design methodology, sampling and data collection procedures, instruments designed for data
collection, and data analysis procedures. Chapter Four details the findings and significant themes
of the research and analyzes the data. Chapter Five provides a summary of the study’s findings, a
conclusion, an examination of possible implications for further research, and recommendations
for future research.
13
Chapter Two: Review of Literature
On February 11, 2020, the Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 (SARS-
CoV-2) was identified as the cause of illness in multiple pneumonia-related cases and was
labeled as the 2019 coronavirus disease (COVID-19) by the World Health Organization (Colizzi
et al., 2020; World Health Organization Coronavirus Dashboard, 2021). In efforts to control this
highly contagious disease, worldwide shutdowns took place to minimize the risk of exposure and
to encourage social distancing (Colizzi et al., 2020; World Health Organization Coronavirus
Dashboard, 2021). A pandemic ensued for more than a year, killing millions of people, triggering
economic downturns and exposing societal disparities on a global scale (Colizzi et al., 2020;
Herold, 2020b; World Health Organization Coronavirus Dashboard, 2021). In the wake of
pandemic-related school shutdowns, United States educators scrambled to bring school online
and make learning accessible even when in-person learning was not possible (Herold, 2020b).
This unprecedented response to an unprecedented worldwide event had unforeseen
consequences, positive and negative, but was not the first time school closures had been forced
due to emergency situations.
Historical Perspectives of School Closures
Historically, schools have closed for extended periods of time for a variety of health and
safety reasons. The Spanish Flu was a deadly influenza caused by the H1N1 influenza A virus
that spread across the globe from 1918–1920 (Stern et al., 2009). Causing one of the deadliest
pandemics in human history, the Spanish Flu infected 500 million people and killed more than 20
million people (Stern et al., 2009). In response to social distancing, many schools shut down for
extended periods of time, up to 15 weeks (Stern et al., 2009).
14
Severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS) appeared in 2003 in Asia and, despite having
minor effects in the United States, spread rapidly worldwide as a viral respiratory illness by close
contact with coronavirus (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 2004). School closures
were minor, and there have been no new cases of SARS since 2004 (Centers for Disease Control
and Prevention, 2004).
In 2009, the second H1N1 influenza (Swine Flu) pandemic spread with an estimated
12,000 deaths in the United States, affecting younger people in larger proportions (Centers for
Disease Control and Prevention, 2019). Based on Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
(CDC) guidelines, more than 600 schools were closed in the United States for a few days to a
few weeks in an effort to stop the spread of the virus (NBC News, 2009).
California wildfires are another recent occurrence that have forced schools to close. In
Ventura County, there have been a series of recent wildfires that have created unhealthy air
quality and destroyed homes and businesses, forcing intermittent stay-at-home orders and
extended school closures for several days to several weeks (Cornell, 2018). In 2017, the Thomas
Fire triggered weeks of school closures for thousands of Ventura County students, which then
blended into the scheduled winter break, meaning students were disconnected from their schools
for at least one month and others much more (D’Angelo, 2018). Outside of Ventura County,
recent fires throughout California have forced school and district closures, such as the Paradise
School District’s battle with the Camp Fire in 2018 (Lardieri, 2019). In the past 20 years,
wildfires affected more than 3 million California students at 6,500+ schools, losing 21,442 days
of instruction (Al Alew et al., 2021).
15
The past pandemics forced necessary school closures, but, during the COVID-19
pandemic, school closures forced new ways to deliver learning and support to students so that
education was not completely interrupted (EdSource Staff, 2020b; Lieberman, 2020).
COVID-19 School Closures in Spring 2020
After a statewide stay-at-home order in March 2020, California schools made
preparations for distance learning so that students could follow the stay-at-home order and still
be able to reach their learning objectives (Bubb & Jones, 2020; EdSource Staff, 2020a, 2020b;
Herold, 2020b; Kurtz, 2020b; Lieberman, 2020). School shutdowns can support social distancing
and stay-at-home mandates, which have been proven to slow the spread of COVID-19 (Bhamani
et al., 2020; Bubb & Jones, 2020; Garbe et al., 2020; Kurtz, 2020b). The widely-adapted solution
was to offer instruction online, either through a live video conference or learning management
system (LMS), such as Blackboard, for the remainder of the school year (EdSource Staff, 2020a;
Herold, 2020b; Kurtz, 2020a; Lieberman, 2020).
School Reopening Plans for Fall/Winter 2020
As classes ended, summer break gave schools an opportunity to calibrate and create new
plans for fall 2020—one where the shutdown (and online learning) continued, one where the
schools were fully open and other plans that fell in between those two extremes (EdSource Staff,
2020b; Kurtz, 2020a; Lieberman, 2020). Not only was the role of educators changing, but they
were asked to learn multiple roles and be ready to implement each when the time was right
(Herold, 2020b; Pulham & Graham, 2018). A return to the traditional role did not seem likely by
the fall, and most schools implemented an online-only learning platform with key improvements
to support students and the evolving role of teachers (Ferlazzo, 2020; Kurtz, 2020a; Lieberman,
16
2020). As the school year progressed, the pandemic continued and reopening prospects varied
from district to district; some stayed fully online while others attempted a hybrid model, mixing
online and in-person learning (EdSource Staff, 2020b; Herold, 2020b; Kurtz, 2020a; Lieberman,
2020). In a study conducted by EdWeek of 790 nationally-representative educators in October
2020, students from low-socioeconomic schools were more likely to be fully remote than their
White counterparts (Kurtz, 2020a). 33% of respondents in high poverty areas were fully remote,
while 13% of those in lower-poverty areas reported being fully remote (Kurtz, 2020a). For
comparison, majority White school districts were only 8% fully remote and, overall, “15 percent
of district leaders are providing this form of instruction, down from 23 percent in August”
(paragraph 6).
School Reopening Plans for Spring 2021
As the spread of the virus dwindled and more people were vaccinated, many California
schools began reopening for in-person learning in spring 2021, encouraged by the $2 billion state
incentives that would be provided through the Safe Schools for All initiative if students returned
to in-person instruction (Cowan, 2021; EdSource Staff, 2021). The hybrid model was a widely
popular tool to allow students to attend school online a few days per week and also on campus
the remainder of the week (EdSource Staff, 2020b; Kurtz, 2020a). Additional funds would be
given to districts to increase safety measures and equipment, as well as provide mental health
and student learning supports outside regular, in-person school hours, such as tutoring (Blume,
2021b, 2021c; Cowan, 2021; EdSource Staff, 2021; Fay & Ghadimi, 2020; Hemphill &
Marianno, 2020). In an attempt at inclusivity, Governor Gavin Newsom boasted that there were
many voices involved in the final initiative (Cowan, 2021). The effective learning models put in
17
place in spring 2021 were expected to set the stage for what in-person learning will look like in
the 2021 – 2022 school year (Fay & Ghadimi, 2020; Hemphill & Marianno, 2020). This program
had its critics and supporters but it accomplished what it set out to do: Help California schools
safely reopen (Blume, 2021b, 2021c; Cowan, 2021).
A Rush to Normalcy
In an attempt to return to normalcy, the rush to online, hybrid and in-person learning may
have been implemented before educators were ready, highlighting the changing role of educators
during this time (Bubb & Jones, 2020; Kurtz, 2020b; Ferlazzo, 2020; Lieberman, 2020).
Professional learning evolved and teachers were trained on new learning management systems,
online teaching software and new strategies for an online environment (Ferlazzo, 2020; Herold,
2020b; Kurtz, 2020b; Lieberman, 2020; Pulham & Graham, 2018). Pulham and Graham (2018)
state that hybrid teaching requires a different skill set than in-person teaching and, as a result,
teachers had to find new ways to assess student learning, give grades and motivate students to do
their best in an online environment. In some cases, teachers were overwhelmed by the sheer
amount of online resources available to them for learning and others could not find ways to use
their traditional classroom strategies effectively online (Canle, 2020). According to one EdWeek
survey of 790 K–12 educators in fall 2020, teachers explained that they worked an additional
three hours per day more than the previous May (Kurtz, 2020a). Teacher mental health was
another concern, as educators were living through a global pandemic, opening up their home life
and balancing the various roles as teacher, parent, and human, which can create additional stress
(Canle, 2020). The evolving world of educators marked a sudden shift from what traditional
18
classroom teaching looked like and that created obstacles which teachers had to overcome in new
ways (Ferlazzo, 2020; Lieberman, 2020).
The Impact of Unions
Certificated and classified unions throughout California and the United States actively
sought to renegotiate collective bargaining agreements (CBAs), and California unions made their
stance on returning to schools clear in a seven-page handbook titled Classroom Learning and
Safe Schools for Employees and Students (CLASSES, 2021; Fensterwald, 2021). This handbook
provided a pathway to returning to schools safely and could be used by local certificated and
classified unions when conducting negotiations to create instructional thresholds based on tiers,
priority access to vaccinations, a phased-in approach in returning to schools and a variety of
added health/safety standards (Fay & Ghadimi, 2020; Fensterwald, 2021; Hemphill & Marianno,
2020). Hemphill and Marianno (2020) reviewed the contract changes of more than 100 school
districts across the United States and found that the major area of negotiation focused on
“compensation, workload, non-teaching duties, evaluation, leave and technology” (p. 170). The
overlap between this CLASSES document and Hemphill and Marianno’s findings illustrate that
the certificated and classified unions worked together to create a unified voice assuring that
schools reopen safely for all (Fay & Ghadimi, 2020; Fensterwald, 2021; Hemphill & Marianno,
2020).
Schools As Community Centers
As the delivery of education was changing for teachers and students, so, too, were the
districts and schools that remained empty (Kurtz, 2020b). Schools had always offered a variety
of community supports during regular school hours, but now that need was exacerbated by the
19
pandemic, and schools had to evolve their roles beyond the immediate student body (Bubb &
Jones, 2020; Lieberman, 2020). Malkus et al. (2020a, 2020b, 2020c) conducted several surveys
with school leaders in the United States throughout the pandemic shutdown, showing that
leadership was becoming more flexible and prioritized immediate student needs (Malkus et al.,
2020a, 2020b). School communities had often relied on schools to foster cohesion in the
community and provide learning beyond academics, such as civics, social-emotional learning
and vocational training (Bushweiler, 2020; Garbe et al., 2020; Lieberman, 2020; Ondrasek,
2020). Once schools closed due to COVID-19, many of these supports had to be reimagined in
an effort to keep some form of cohesion and normalcy (Bubb & Jones, 2020; Bushweiler, 2020;
Garbe et al., 2020; Kurtz, 2020b; Lieberman, 2020). Principals conducted parent meetings and
IEPs online; counselors offered Zoom meetings to support social-emotional needs; and speech
therapy and vocational programs were transferred to online platforms (Bubb & Jones, 2020;
Bushweiler, 2020; Garbe et al., 2020; Ondrasek, 2020). This, too, was done with haste but was a
reaction by these educators to secure the needs of their students in inventive ways (Bubb &
Jones, 2020; Kuhfeld et al., 2020; Ondrasek, 2020).
Parent Engagement
With students doing schoolwork off campus, a new disruption in the division of labor
emerged, as parents became teachers in addition to the other duties they already had at home
(EdSource Staff, 2020a). This highlights the changing role of parents who were charged with
balancing their own work while monitoring student work, providing a productive place for their
student to work, encouraging and motivating students and troubleshooting technology issues
(EdSource Staff, 2020a; Garbe, 2020). Schools’ communication with families needed to increase
20
but also be streamlined so that the division of labor between family and teacher could be clearly
delineated (EdSource Staff, 2020a; Ondrasek, 2020). In a study conducted with parents of
students involved in distance learning during the COVID-19 pandemic, Garbe et al. (2020) found
that parents dealt with a variety of challenges and successes but school-parent communication
proved to be a core element in helping parents feel supported at home (Garbe et al., 2020). This
two-way responsibility centers around the needs of the student but definitely represents a shift in
how parent roles are defined through distance learning (Bhamani et al., 2020; Ondrasek, 2020).
Role of the Student
Up to this point, the role of the educator, school, district office, parents and families have
changed dramatically as a result of the COVID-19 school closures. The role of the student as the
learner has largely remained the same. The long-term impact of school closures and the
COVID-19 pandemic is something that will need to be studied and understood over time from a
mental health, physical health and intellectual viewpoint (Ghosh et al., 2020). This gap in the
literature is significant because many other traditional school roles (administrator, teacher, staff
member and parent) have changed during the pandemic, centered around the student as a learner.
Educational Leadership During COVID-19
Throughout the COVID-19 pandemic, a top-down leadership strategy emerged, with
various state and federal government agencies providing guidance to maximize public safety
measures, such as social distancing and wearing masks when in public (Anderson, J., 2020;
Blume, 2021b, 2021c; Cowan, 2021; Garbe et al., 2020; Herold, 2020b; Malkus et al., 2020b,
2020c). This guidance, evolving as new information and research provided new insights into
COVID-19, changed frequently, forcing educational leaders to make decisions for their district or
21
schools based on fluctuating information (Blume, 2021a, 2021c; Cowan, 2021; EdSource Staff,
2020b; Kuhfeld et al., 2020; Kurtz, 2020a; Will et al., 2020). The top leadership, such as the
California governor’s office of Gavin Newsom, California Department of Public Health,
California Department of Education and county health and education offices, provided the
guidance that superintendents were expected to comply with (Cowan, 2021). The superintendents
then ensured their organizational leaders, such as principals, directors of programs and assistant
superintendents, enacted the efforts to assure the guidance was followed; from there, these
various district leaders communicated to the staff, families, students and communities the
guidance and how they expected to meet these guidelines (Anderson et al., 2020; Blume, 2021a,
2021c; Canle, 2020; Cipriano & Brackett, 2020; Cowan, 2021; Darling-Hammond, 2020).
Because of the rapidly evolving information during the pandemic, this process occurred many
times in districts across California (Blume, 2021a, 2021c; Cowan, 2021). District leaders had to
be more deliberate and collaborative in their approach to gathering and delivering information to
their stakeholders, especially as time passed and schools began to return for in-person learning.
“Limited, top-down thinking almost always fails. Changes that are more employee driven and
comprehensive have a better chance” (Bolman & Deal, 2017, p. 368).
The dynamics of power in educational organizations and how this affects the overall
student population must be managed in a manner that best supports student learning (Bolman &
Deal, 2017). Experienced leaders understand that others’ perceptions can be reframed and still
aligned to the overall goals of the organization (Bolman & Deal, 2017). Organizational reframing
experts Bolman and Deal (2017) identify the four frames of leadership as structural, human
resources, political, and symbolic and, within these frames, lie opportunities for leaders to lead
22
organizations during a pandemic. The structural frame analyzes how the institution is organized;
for instance, during the COVID-19 pandemic, a top-down style of leadership was enacted
(Bolman & Deal, 2017). Human resources reframes the people within the organization as the
ones who hold the power to propel the organization, while the political frame allows bargaining
of power between various individuals within the organization (Bolman & Deal, 2017). In both of
these cases, transparency from the organizations providing the information as well as including
the diversity of voices of those who are affected by the solutions, are valuable tools for leaders
(Canle, 2020; Fernandez & Shaw, 2020). The symbolic frame creates a representation for power
within the organization (Bolman & Deal, 2017), which could be the fear of COVID-19 itself or it
could be the perception of the organizations giving the guidance. Leaders should leverage the
four frames during difficult challenges, such as the COVID-19 pandemic.
Goleman et al. (2013) explained the role of emotional intelligence in leaders and how it
can be leveraged to produce positive results in people.
Quite simply, in any human group the leader has maximal power to sway everyone’s
emotions. If people’s emotions are pushed toward the range of enthusiasm, performance
can soar; if people are driven toward rancor and anxiety, they will be thrown off stride.
(p. 5)
Social awareness, such as empathy, and self-awareness, such as personal beliefs, are key
elements in leaders with emotional intelligence (Goleman et al., 2013) and can be critical in
crisis situations, such as leading during the COVID-19 pandemic. This adds emphasis to the
importance of transparency, inclusion and two-way communication in order to support the
23
greater goal of student learning (Achor, 2018; Canle 2020; Fernandez & Shaw, 2020; Westover,
2020).
Shawn Achor (2018) explained that big potential can be reached by allowing others in the
organization to “lead from every seat” (p. 91). Westover (2020) labeled this action of leadership
as “leading from the middle” (p. 26), which is a process of capacity building and collective
inquiry. During the pandemic, educational leaders had to inspire those around them to understand
this guidance clearly and keep all stakeholders moving towards the organization’s larger goals
(Anderson et al., 2020; Canle 2020; Darling-Hammond, 2020; Fernandez & Shaw, 2020). The
cumulative effect of the leadership dynamics explained above would develop a culture with a
trusting, supportive environment that can adjust teaching and learning to fit individual needs of
students at all levels (Fullan & Quinn, 2016), even as a pandemic rages on.
During COVID-19, district leaders could utilize emotional intelligence and these four
frames to their advantage, crafting more flexible solutions to support their students and
communities, even as guidance was fluctuating (Anderson et al., 2020; Cipriano & Brackett,
2020; Fernandez & Shaw, 2020). Canle (2020) recommends that leaders provide succinct
information and lead with their emotional intelligence tools, such as hearing all staff voices and
sending messages of positivity. Fernandez and Shaw (2020) echo this strategy, but also extend it
to “distributing leadership” (p. 42) so that voices are empowered; similarly, fostering human
connections are vital during a crisis of this magnitude (Cipriano & Brackett, 2020; Fernandez &
Shaw, 2020). Erin Anderson et al. (2020) conducted a study of school principals and labeled
these leaders as the “caregiver of all” (p. 3), providing immediate, direct and emotional support
to all students, families and their staff. School district leaders in Southern California witnessed
24
their roles changing to a more collaborative, shared leadership model that is inclusive of all
voices.
Disparities and Inequities in the United States and California
Historically, schools have served not just as sources of education or community hubs but
also as places of exclusion for certain groups of students. These marginalized communities have
been given marginalized education consistently, illuminating their second-class citizenship
(Anderson, J.D., 1988). For these marginalized groups, schools became the tools for
deculturization and assimilation, which could eventually lead to cultural genocide (Spring,
2016). Instead of a place for learning, schools and teachers were believed to be the ones using
their power to instruct societies under a White, male, Protestant ethic (Anderson, J.D., 1988;
Spring, 2016). From United States public school openings in the 1830s to modern day hybrid
education, indoctrination into American culture, rather than learning about a variety of ideas, has
become the norm (Anderson, J.D., 1988; Spring, 2016). Spring (2016) discusses the 2001 No
Child Left Behind (NCLB) Act, a sweeping educational reform policy in the United States, as
rejecting other cultures’ viewpoints and focusing only on a dominant culture and holding
accountability towards that singular position. In 2020, these inequities in communities of color
and low-socioeconomic communities were brought to light again by the onset of the COVID-19
pandemic, school closures and the race to hybrid/in-person learning (Havranek et al., 2015;
Kantameni, 2020; World Health Organization Coronavirus Dashboard, 2021).
Effects of COVID-19 Health Care on Marginalized Communities
The COVID-19 pandemic has exposed many negative effects on students of color and
from vulnerable marginalized populations in the United States (Glass, 2020; Kantameni, 2020).
25
Kantameni (2020) defines these most vulnerable populations in the United States as “racial/
ethnic minorities, individuals from low-socioeconomic backgrounds and women” (p. 1). In fact,
according to the World Health Organization (2021), these marginalized populations are more
susceptible to COVID-19 health complications because of the very nature of being marginalized;
indeed, structural racism and social determinants have played a significant role in the negative
health impacts on marginalized students and their families. These social determinants include
socioeconomic status, support systems, race/ethnicity, medical access, residence and culture
(Glass, 2020; Havranek et al., 2015; Kantameni, 2020; Kurtz, 2020b). When needed resources
are limited, such as medical access during the COVID-19 pandemic, these factors can determine
who lives and dies (Havranek et al., 2015; Kantameni, 2020; Kurtz, 2020b). Havranek et al.
noted in 2015 that health differences between various races and ethnicities put an unnecessary
burden on marginalized populations and have exposed systemic racism within the medical
community. A study from 2006 entitled Eight Americas: Investigating mortality disparities
across races, counties and race-counties in the United States, divided participants into eight
specific racial/geographic groups and measured various health factors. Vivid health discrepancies
were observed along racial lines with Whites and Asians having more favorable health outcomes
while blacks and native Americans were consistently and significantly less favorable (Murray et
al., 2006). Murray et al. (2006) calls for a change in policy to improve health outcomes for
marginalized populations in America, and this has played out negatively in the wake of
COVID-19, as the disparities persist (Kantameni, 2020).
The United States healthcare system has been exposed for its role in perpetuating
systemic racism (Havranek et al., 2015; Murray, 2006). Societal factors, such as socioeconomic
26
status, race, gender identity, should not be a hindrance to quality healthcare and treatment
(Havranek et al., 2015; Murray, 2006). Yet, that is what was observed in health organizations
across the country during the COVID-19 pandemic, affecting students from marginalized
populations and their families (Glass, 2020; Havranek et al., 2015; Kantameni, 2020; Kurtz,
2020b).
Specifically, African Americans have been the racial group in America considerably
affected by COVID-19, contracting and dying from the disease at the highest rates of any group
and overrepresented in the number of hospitalizations (Yancy, 2020). This could be due to the
presence of other health factors prevalent in the African American community, such as
cardiovascular disease and diabetes, which are exacerbated by COVID-19 (Yancy, 2020).
According to the most recent United States Census data, African Americans are more likely to
live in densely populated areas where COVID-19 safety protocols, such as social distancing, can
be challenging (Baptiste et al., 2020). Another report from the Center on Poverty and Social
Policy at Columbia University (2020) found that African Americans and children were among
the groups at highest risk for becoming impoverished during the pandemic (Glass, 2020). As
COVID-19 fear and panic raged in California, Southern California K–12 school leaders had to
advocate for their most marginalized groups of students. “Times of crisis often reinforce and
exacerbate disparities because resources are limited and people are fearful” (Kantamneni, 2020,
paragraph 2). The COVID-19 virus has a vaccine, but there is no cure for systemic racism in
America.
Effects of COVID-19 Employment on Marginalized Communities
27
During the pandemic of 2020, the inevitable economic downturn occurred, which put
millions of workers out of jobs and companies out of business (Vavra, 2020). Kantamneni (2020)
studied the inequities that exist in employment for people of color, stating that most workers
from vulnerable populations do not have the benefits of decent work where employees can work
from home safely, receive sick leave and earn a living wage (Kantamneni, 2020; Mongey et al.,
2021). Blustein et al. (2019) argue that decent work is a human right, affords safe working
conditions and provides adequate compensation and benefits yet is not equitably accessible
across society. During the COVID-19 pandemic, these types of disparities between the haves and
have-nots became abundantly clear. “The COVID-19 pandemic has highlighted the lack of
decent work for ‘essential’ employees in the United States” (Kantamneni, 2020, p. 2). Vulnerable
groups were greatly affected by this in two ways. First, the types of jobs that many from
marginalized communities have are high-risk, as they involve working with others in close
quarters (Kantamneni, 2020). Second, those jobs were eliminated altogether, causing
unemployment (Dorn et al., 2020; Dubey et al., 2020; Glass, 2020; Mongey et al., 2021; Van
Lancker & Parolin, 2020; Vavra, 2020). The choice for people of color from marginalized
communities is to risk your real life by working or risk your financial life by not working
(Kantamneni, 2020).
Effects of COVID-19 Food Access on Marginalized Communities
In addition, food insecurity is a very real concern for students from vulnerable
populations, and districts had to develop new programs, such as grab-and-go lunch or weekly
grocery pickups (Dunn et al., 2020). The United States Department of Agriculture (USDA)
(2020) reported that 14% of homes where children resided had food insecurity issues in 2018 and
28
13.6% in 2019. Because schools provide food to millions of children across the United States, a
pandemic and nationwide shutdown of schools would only serve to exacerbate this difficult
situation (Dunn et al., 2020; Rundle et al., 2020; Van Lancker & Parolin, 2020). Dunn et al.
(2020) discuss the long-term effects of food insecurity, including developmental and
psychological damage, and how it disproportionately affects low-income and other marginalized
populations.
In response, the California Department of Education (2020) has kept meal service a
priority and offered latitude in how schools distribute these meals to students (Dunn et al., 2020;
Kinsey et al., 2020; Malkus et al., 2020a, 2020b; McLoughlin et al., 2020). The $2 trillion
federal Families First Coronavirus Response Act allowed school districts flexibility in how they
distribute meals, and districts responded with flexible solutions that best supported families, from
meal delivery to meal pick up sites in school parking lots to offering grocery bags filled with a
week’s worth of stable goods (Kinsey et al., 2020; McLoughlin et al., 2020). These meals
provide children with the nutritional sustenance they need and can be a deterrent for childhood
diabetes or obesity (McLoughlin et al., 2020). The Center for Disease Control and Prevention
(2021) also offers safety guidance for school professionals who are preparing and distributing the
meals, such as personal hygiene, social distancing, wearing a mask and disinfecting surfaces. In
many cases throughout California and the United States, the role of schools and districts evolved
as a vital source of support for their communities during the COVID-19 pandemic
Schools as Lifelines for Marginalized Communities
Schools represent another American institution that has affected students from
marginalized populations during the COVID-19 pandemic (Herold, 2020a). Ghosh et al. (2020)
29
describes pre-pandemic schools as lifelines for many students, specifically students of color,
because they offered a home away from home and provided necessary resources, such as meal
services, counseling, healthcare and healthy routines, beyond academics. When the pandemic
struck, the world stopped and many students who were reliant on schools for food security and
other health needs no longer had access to those resources (Herold, 2020a). The achievement
gap, eloquently described as an educational debt owed to marginalized students by Mrs. Gloria
Ladson-Billings (2006), continued to widen during the pandemic, as schools had to find new
ways to deliver instruction and necessary supports to the students who needed them the most.
As instruction shifted online, there was a need for greater access to technology devices
and internet services (Herold, 2020a). Dr. Walters (2020) reported that seven million students in
the United States did not have internet access at home yet were expected to attend their classes
online; early on, two large hurdles were getting devices into the hands of students and then
connecting those devices to the internet so that students could regularly attend online classes
(Herold, 2020a; Walters, 2020). Even before the pandemic, African American and Latino
students were disproportionately lacking high-speed internet access when compared with other
similar households (Anderson & Perrin, 2018; Glass, 2020), creating an ever-widening
homework gap.
Schools foster a diverse set of needs for marginalized students, and the counseling and
other health services, such as nurses, speech therapy, counseling and physical therapy, provided
by schools cannot be interrupted (Ghosh et al., 2020). Further, the psychological effects of being
quarantined for extended periods of time creates an even greater urgency for social-emotional
counseling services to support the needs of marginalized students (Condon et al., 2020; Ghosh et
30
al., 2020). Dubey et al. (2020) describe the most vulnerable populations as being at the greatest
risk due to these mental effects, including isolation, depression and PTSD. For children from
marginalized groups, these risks can lead to lifetime effects on behavior where cognitive and
social-emotional development is impaired (Dubey et al., 2020). As the shutdown continued,
many of these services had to be provided online or were removed completely (Ghosh et al.,
2020). Consequently, those vulnerable students with special needs and individualized education
plans suffered even further setbacks due to COVID-19 pandemic (Dorn et al., 2020; Ghosh et al.,
2020; Van Lancker & Parolin, 2020). The diverse needs of these students make it difficult to
quantify the challenges, but educators tasked with monitoring IEPs had to identify new ways to
reach their students (Ghosh et al., 2020).
Schools have also provided the most vulnerable families with a continuous, stable place
for childcare beyond school hours, and the COVID-19 shutdown forced these students to stay
home, causing new stresses, including domestic abuse and challenges related to adults becoming
the teacher in the home (Ghosh et al., 2020). Domestic abuse among families and, especially,
children have seen a dramatic increase worldwide and in the United States specifically (Ghosh et
al., 2020; Taub, 2020; UNICEF, 2020; Usher et al., 2020), which can only serve to increase the
need for counseling and support in the future. The situation has become so dire that UNICEF
released guidelines aimed to protect children from this type of abuse and exploitation during the
COVID-19 pandemic (UNICEF, 2020). The guidelines call for improved training of healthcare
providers, first responders and educators, increased mental health services for children and offer
financial support to families (UNICEF, 2020).
31
This risky choice for impoverished communities of color has only added to the stress
levels of students in a society rife with systemic racism (Condon et al., 2020; Dorn et al., 2020;
Klein, 2020). Dr. Eileen Condon et al. (2020) found that these toxic stressors have long-lasting
effects on mental and physical health. Klein (2020) reported on what students felt during the
pandemic, and stress levels-from dealing with technology issues to the daily cycle of school-eat-
sleep-repeat to the interruption of regular routines-were mostly elevated among students. The
pandemic has forced isolation, canceled milestone events (prom, graduation, sports) and
increased anxiety on all students, disproportionately affecting those from marginalized
communities (Dorn et al., 2020).
COVID-19 Learning Loss on Marginalized Communities
The disparities continue into the virtual classrooms where marginalized populations are
expected to learn as they did during in-person school but are falling behind in even greater
numbers. Dorn et al. (2020) looked at estimates of learning loss for marginalized populations of
students and found that low-income students could lose 12.4 months of learning and black
students 10.3 months compared to in-person learning, which will widen the achievement gap
(educational debt) by 15–20%.
Kuhfeld et al. (2020) conducted a study to generate a model of student learning loss,
based on data acquired from previous long-term school closures, such as summer vacation,
chronic absenteeism and extreme weather conditions. Specifically, the research team analyzed 5
million Measures of Academic Progress (MAP) Growth assessment results from more than
18,000 United States schools (Grades 3–8) in reading and math to make projections on expected
student learning loss due to schools being closed (Kuhfeld et al., 2021). In total, three scenarios,
32
along with a baseline to represent typical learning in a school year, emerged that showed all
students could expect some form of learning loss in the 2019–2020 school year in math and
language arts (Kuhfeld et al., 2021). The worst-case scenario was students only acquired 30% of
their learning for the year (missing out on 70%) while the best-case scenario plots students at
87% of their learning acquired (Kuhfeld et al., 2021). There are many factors that affect the
variability between individual student’s learning loss (access to technology, anxiety from the
pandemic, family support, financial trouble and more), so these predictions can differ from
student to student (Kuhfeld et al., 2021). Underserved populations, such as low-socioeconomic
and minority students, are expected to be on the lower end of these estimates when compared to
White and Asian counterparts (Kuhfeld et al., 2021). Further, the model only analyzed the
learning loss from the shutdown during the 2019–2020 school year, but it stated that if schools
did not reopen in the fall, that the trajectory of downward learning loss would continue (Kuhfeld
et al., 2021). Most schools in California did not reopen until spring of the 2020–2021 school
year, which could be expected to create an ever-widening loss of learning. “Although some of
the projections are dire, our models suggest that students who lose the most while out of school
would gain the most the following year (at least under typical summer loss conditions)” (Kuhfeld
et al., 2021, p. 560).
Conclusion
In knowing that stress levels are (legitimately) high and students will feel the effects of
this pandemic for years to come, educational leaders have made a call to action. By putting
resources where they are needed most, whether it be school lunch, mental health, systemic
racism or addressing learning loss, schools can support the needs of students and their families
33
(Dorn et al., 2020; Dubey et al., 2020; Dunn et al., 2020; Ghosh, 2020; Havranek et al., 2020;
Human Rights Watch, 2020; Rundle et al., 2020; Van Lancker & Parolin, 2020; Yancy, 2020).
The Los Angeles County Office of Education’s Superintendent Debra Durado calls on educators,
families and communities to nurture student growth and openly discuss the trauma the pandemic
has caused (Durado, 2020). This means addressing individual student mental health in new ways
since “none of these challenges to Americans’ health and welfare will magically disappear”
(Durado, 2020, paragraph 13). In another study, Ghosh et al. (2020) explains how actively
identifying individualized interventions that can support students as well as partnering with
parents to implement these interventions at home will be critical for marginalized students. The
topic of decent work that Baptiste et al., (2020) discussed is a societal change that needs to
happen to create more opportunities for marginalized populations (Blustein et al., 2020; Vavra,
2020), and schools can provide that platform for change. As far as English Language Learners
(and their non-English speaking family members), greater efforts must be made to translate,
communicate and include voices from these marginalized groups in decision-making (Dubey et
al., 2020; Ondrasek, 2020; Walters, 2020).
Schools have served as lifelines for students in marginalized communities, and the
COVID-19 pandemic and ensuing school shutdown of 2020–2021 shifted the traditional roles of
schools, districts, teachers, parents and communities. In many ways, lessons were learned and
challenges overcome, but a rush to normalcy may have harmed more than it helped. Nonetheless,
the fact that racial inequities were magnified during the pandemic only serves to show that
educators can support the needs of marginalized students with the support of all stakeholders.
34
But there is still more that is needed in schools that serve a majority of students from
marginalized populations and school leaders’ roles are evolving beyond established norms.
35
Chapter Three: Methodology
The preceding chapters provided an overview of the study, the research questions guiding
the study, and a review of the literature that is relevant to the topic under discussion. This chapter
begins by reviewing the statement of the problem, the purpose of the study, and the research
questions. It outlines the design of the research study, provides an overview of the methodology,
identifies the participants, and explains the instruments used to conduct the research. It concludes
with an explanation of how data will be collected and analyzed, including a summary of this
chapter.
Statement of the Problem
The COVID-19 Pandemic presented a disruption in Southern California K–12 public
school districts, causing unforeseen consequences within the education system and highlighting
financial implications, the impact of agencies, negotiations with unions, and the impact on
students and the community. COVID-19 shifted the roles and scope of schools and school
leaders beyond instructional leaders 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
Southern California K–12 public school districts and understand what district and site
administrators have learned from their experiences and their decision-making responsibilities in
managing the crisis. This study brings to light the impact of the pandemic on students, families,
leaders, schools, and districts. Most importantly, this study examines how district and school
leadership influences administrative practices, student achievement, financial responsibility,
union leadership, and community/parent support as they respond to the COVID-19 crisis.
36
Research Questions
The study was guided by four research questions:
1. What, if any, are the financial implications that the COVID-19 pandemic has had on
K–12 public school districts in Southern California, and how have district
superintendents, assistant superintendents, and principals addressed these
implications?
2. What, if any, has been the impact of federal, state, and local health agencies on K–12
public school districts in Southern California, and what strategies have district
superintendents, assistant superintendents, and principals followed to address the
suggested guidelines?
3. How, if at all, have union negotiations played a role in K–12 Southern California
public school districts’ response to the COVID-19 pandemic?
4. How, if at all, have K–12 Southern California public school districts leadership teams
comprised of superintendents, assistant superintendents, and principals addressed the
concerns of the parent community regarding safety, nutrition, distance learning, lack
of technology, academic standing, and how and when to re-open schools due to the
COVID-19 pandemic?
Research Team
Dr. Rudy Castruita led the research team from the University of Southern California
(USC) Rossier School of Education. The dissertation group was composed of twenty-two
students, with Dr. Castruita as the project’s principal researcher and supervisor. The dissertation
group, which began meeting in spring 2021, contributed to the literature review bibliography,
37
statement of the problem, the purpose of the study, research questions, conceptual framework,
and data collection instruments. Our research team is made up of three researchers. Due to the
many group aspects of the thematic process, there may be some similarities in the dissertations.
Research Design
This study was designed as a mixed-methods study, utilizing qualitative and quantitative
methods to collect and analyze the data. A mixed-methods approach was selected to establish
triangulation so that findings can be confirmed through multiple methods, thereby creating a
more holistic approach (Maxwell, 2013). Lochmiller & Lester (2017) state that triangulation
establishes evidence across multiple data points to support the claims made in the study.
Collecting data through interviews and surveys enables triangulation across the results, which is
crucial for cross-checking the data collected and supporting the study’s findings (Merriam &
Tisdell, 2016). In the qualitative portion of the study, semi-structured interviews were conducted
to collect open-ended responses. In the quantitative portion of the study, closed-ended surveys
were used to collect data. The participants for both methodologies included school
superintendents, assistant superintendents, and principals of Southern California K–12 public
school districts.
Qualitative Methods
Qualitative research aims to interpret how individuals make sense of a process and
describe how they interpret what they experience (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). In qualitative
research, the researcher is the primary data collection and analysis instrument. Qualitative
researchers collect descriptive data in their natural settings and are often interested in
comprehending how people interpret their experiences and what meaning they attribute to their
38
experiences (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). They use an inductive process to understand from the
perspective of the study participants (Lochmiller & Lester, 2017; Maxwell, 2013; Merriam &
Tisdell, 2016). Qualitative methods allowed researchers in this study to uncover how district and
school leaders made decisions and addressed challenges during the COVID-19 pandemic. The
researchers conducted 23 interviews for this qualitative portion of the study. The semi-structured
interview protocol developed by the research team consisted of 14 questions, not including
follow-up and probing questions. Separate interview protocols with some vocabulary changes
but similar questions were created for superintendents, assistant superintendents, and principals
to accommodate their different roles and experiences. The interview protocols can be found in
Appendices G, H, and I. The researchers conducted the interviews via Zoom and took an average
of 35 minutes to complete. The interview protocol was followed consistently throughout the
interviews, and additional questions were asked when necessary. Via the interviews, the
researchers gathered data that reflected the participants’ opinions, decisions, and knowledge.
Quantitative Methods
Quantitative research describes patterns, trends, and relationships using numerical data.
Quantitative research usually collects data using instruments such as assessments, surveys, and
existing datasets. The most commonly used protocol for gathering quantitative data is a survey
(Lochmiller & Lester, 2017). Surveys allow the researcher to obtain information from the
participants and then easily convert the responses to quantitative data values to be analyzed
(Lochmiller & Lester, 2017). For this study, quantitative data were collected using a self-
administered 26-item survey via Qualtrics (https://www.qualtrics.com; see Appendices D, E, and
F). The survey questions were developed based on the four research questions. The survey was
39
designed to gather data that reflected the school leaders’ experiences, views, decisions, and
knowledge about the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on Southern California K–12 public
school districts. Separate surveys with some vocabulary changes but similar questions were
created for superintendents, assistant superintendents, and principals to address their different
roles. The continuing survey items utilized a 5-point Likert scale (1 = strongly disagree to 5 =
strongly agree). The surveys took, on average, 15 minutes to complete. The survey link was
emailed to all 23 Southern California K–12 public school district leaders: nine superintendents,
seven assistant superintendents, and seven principals. The survey included a cover letter (see
Appendices D, E, and F), the survey items, and closing instructions. Participants completed the
survey using Qualtrics (https://www.qualtrics.com), which tabulated the number of responses
returned.
Sample and Population
The target population for the study was leaders of Southern California K–12 public school
districts; superintendents, assistant superintendents, and principals. Convenience sampling and
purposeful sampling were utilized in selecting the school districts and the superintendents,
assistant superintendents, and principals who participated in this study. Convenience sampling
happens when the researcher selects individuals based on their proximity and accessibility rather
than specific criteria (Lochmiller & Lester, 2017). Purposeful sampling occurs when the
participants are selected based on specific criteria (Lochmiller & Lester, 2017; Merriam &
Tisdell, 2016). This research study included purposeful selection to ensure that all participants
worked in public Southern California K–12, K–8 elementary and high school districts in the
40
superintendent, assistant superintendent, or principal roles. The selection criteria to participate in
the study included the following:
• Participants must be currently employed at a traditional public Southern California
K–12, K–8, Elementary, or High School district
• Participants must currently hold the title of the superintendent, assistant
superintendent, or principal
• Participants must have worked in their current role for at least 1 year
• Participants must have served in their current positions during the 2020–2021 school
year
• The student population of the district where participants work is at least one thousand
• The minimum sample size for the interviews was set at nine participants, and the
minimum sample size for the survey responses was set at nine participants.
Superintendents, assistant superintendents, and principals selected for this study
played a role in supporting school districts and school sites during the COVID-19
pandemic. The results from the interviews and surveys collected will be compared to
the results collected by other research team members.
Setting and Researcher Roles
Data for this study was collected from nine Southern California School Districts.
Researcher one collected data from districts A, B, and C. Researcher two collected data from
districts D, E, and F. Researcher three collected data from districts G, H, and I.
School District A serves about 6,000 students in grades kindergarten through sixth grade
(EdData, 2021). The district has an average daily attendance of approximately 5,500 (EdData,
41
2021). According to EdData (2021), nearly 35% of the student population are English Language
Learners, and 80% receive free or reduced-price meals.
School District B serves about 9,700 students in grades kindergarten through sixth grade
(EdData, 2021). The district has an average daily attendance of approximately 9,500 (EdData,
2021). According to EdData (2021), nearly 10% of the student population are English Language
Learners, and 22% receive free or reduced-price meals.
School District C serves about 5,300 students in grades kindergarten through sixth grade
(EdData, 2021). The district has an average daily attendance of approximately 5,000 (EdData,
2021, 2021). According to EdData (2021), nearly 17% of the student population are English
Language Learners, and 50% receive free or reduced-price meals.
School District D serves about 25,000 students in grades kindergarten through twelfth
grade (EdData, 2021). The district has an average daily attendance of approximately 24,000
(EdData, 2021). According to EdData (2021), 13% of the student population are English
language learners, and 40% receive free or reduced-price meals.
School District E serves about 26,000 students in grades kindergarten through twelfth
grade (EdData, 2021). The district has an average daily attendance of approximately 25,000
(EdData, 2021). According to EdData (2021), nearly 18% of the student population are English
language learners, and 34% receive free or reduced-price meals.
School District F serves about 23,500 students in grades kindergarten through twelfth
grade. The average daily attendance for School District F is approximately 22,600 (EdData,
2021). According to EdData (2021), 16% of the student population are English language
learners, and 46% receive free or reduced-price meals.
42
School District G serves about 8,000 students from kindergarten through twelfth grade
(EdData, 2021). The district has an average daily attendance of approximately 7,000 (EdData,
2021). According to EdData (2021), nearly 26% of the student population are English Language
Learners, and 85% receive free or reduced-price meals.
School District H serves about 17,600 grades in ninth through twelfth grade (EdData,
2021). The district has an average daily attendance of approximately 15,600 (EdData, 2021).
According to EdData (2021), nearly 12% of the student population are English Language
Learners, and 64% receive free or reduced-price meals.
School District I serves about 16,500 students in grades kindergarten through twelfth
grade (EdData, 2021). The district has an average daily attendance of approximately 15,700
(EdData, 2021). According to EdData (2021), nearly 11% of the student population are English
Language Learners, and 33% receive free or reduced-price meals.
Both the survey and interview protocols included an explanation of the purpose of the
study (see Appendices D, E, F, G, H, and I). The participants were informed that the process was
voluntary and that confidentiality would be maintained throughout the entire process. The names
of the school districts, schools, or participants were not utilized to protect the confidentiality of
those involved in the study.
Instrumentation and Conceptual Framework
After analyzing the current literature and identifying gaps in research, an interview
protocol and a survey were designed to address the research questions guiding this research
study. The researchers first surveyed and then interviewed the participants. The interview and
43
survey questions were field-tested beforehand to ensure they were concise and that the results
addressed the four research questions.
Interviews took place virtually because of the safety protocols in place due to the
COVID-19 pandemic and out of consideration of the time constraints of the participants who
were still leading the school through a pandemic. All the interviews were recorded with the
participants’ permission. The researchers also took notes during the interviews. Appendices G, H,
and I contain the interview protocol that all the researchers used for different participants.
The survey instruments were administered to 23 Southern California K–12 public school
superintendents, assistant superintendents, and principals. Email addresses were collected from
participants, and then the link to the survey questions was emailed to the 23 participants that
were interviewed. Reminders were sent out to take the survey. Appendices D, E, and F contain
the survey sent to each participant.
The conceptual framework (see Figure 1) utilized for this research study was based on
three theoretical frameworks. The three frameworks assist in developing an understanding of the
theories that impact school leadership and how they can be adapted to the current situation of
managing the COVID-19 pandemic crisis. The four frames, political, structural, human
resources, and symbolic, described by Bolman and Deal (2017), provide school leaders (at both
site and district levels) the roadmap to navigate the different aspects of leadership and how
leaders’ actions and habits can impact the organization. Fullan’s (2014) The Principal: Three
Keys to Maximizing Impact goes deeper into the specific role of principals as enacting change at
the site level through being a lead learner, district and system player, and a change agent.
Westover’s (2020) framework provides the guiding principles that districts can enact to create an
44
organization that can move together through change and create systems for continuous
improvement. These three frameworks together provide K–12 school districts with steps to
persist, at all levels of leadership, even in a crisis like the COVID-19 pandemic.
45
Figure 1
Conceptual Framework
Data Collection
The data collection process through surveys and interviews began during the spring 2022
semester after obtaining approval from the University of Southern California Institutional
Review Board (IRB). District superintendents were contacted via email in a formal written
request, followed by a phone conversation to obtain permission for the study and gain access to
assistant superintendents and principals. Once permission was granted, participants were
46
contacted for participation in the study via email. The email included a summary of the research
study, a request to participate, and a link to the survey (see Appendices A, B, and C). In addition,
participants were contacted by phone to encourage responses to the surveys and to request
interviews.
The surveys were conducted through an online format, Qualtrics (https://
www.qualtrics.com), so that participants could complete them at their own time and discretion.
Participants spent, on average, 15 minutes completing the online survey. The semi-structured
interviews took place via Zoom and took 35 minutes to complete on average. All interviews were
recorded with the participants’ permission. A professional transcriber transcribed the recordings
from the interviews.
Data Analysis
This mixed-methods study used qualitative data from interviews and quantitative data
from surveys. After the data was collected, the qualitative and quantitative data were analyzed
separately based on the four research questions delineated in the study. The qualitative data
collected from the interviews were organized and analyzed to identify common themes. The
researcher read through each interview transcript and coded the text by themes. Common themes
and patterns were identified to understand the impact of the pandemic on schools, students, and
leaders and how school leaders managed the crisis.
The quantitative data collected by the survey instrument was compiled and analyzed
using Qualtrics (https://www.qualtrics.com). Each participant’s responses were separated and
organized using the Likert-scale values 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5. The average score from each question
47
was calculated for each participant and included one overall average score across all questions
for each participant. Responses were evaluated to determine commonalities and differences.
Ethical Considerations
The research process demands that researchers think cautiously about the interaction with
others and the consequences of those interactions. Likewise, ethically responsible agents place
the voice of the oppressed at the center of inquiry and use that inquiry to reveal the change and
activism needed to help people. An important aspect of ethical research is the focus on respect
for the individuals and the community (Denzin, 2016; Glesne, 2011; Lochmiller & Lester, 2017;
Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). Throughout the design and implementation of this research study, all
ethical considerations were followed. All guidelines and procedures for the University of
Southern California Institutional Review Board (IRB) were reviewed and implemented
throughout the entire research study. To ensure the study was conducted ethically, all participants
were informed of the purpose of the study, and it was clearly stated that their participation in the
study was voluntary. Participants were also informed that their identities and responses would be
kept secure and confidential, and the data would be handled carefully, safely, and anonymously.
During the interviews, explicit permission was requested to record the sessions. The participants
were made aware of how the findings would be published as a doctoral dissertation in the
University of Southern California program.
Summary
Chapter Three restated the statement of the problem, the purpose of the study, and the
research questions. The research design, which included details of the research methods,
including the sample and population, instrumentation, data collection, and data analysis, was also
48
presented. Emphasis was made that the data collection began after the researcher obtained
approval for IRB. This study used appropriate tools and followed all ethical guidelines to ensure
the validity and reliability of the study. The research findings of this study and in-depth analysis
will be presented in the following chapter.
49
Chapter Four: Findings
Chapter Four includes an analysis of data collected from a mixed-methods study. The
purpose of the study is to analyze the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on Southern California
K–12 public school districts and understand what district and site administrators 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.
Above all, 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. Using a 5-point Likert scale to rank
statements, an online survey was administered to collect quantitative data, and semi-structured
virtual interviews were conducted to collect qualitative data. The survey and interview questions
fell under four main topics: financial implications, health and safety guidelines, union
negotiations, and community concerns. This mixed-methods approach established triangulation
for more accurate findings (Maxwell, 2013). The conceptual framework utilized for this research
study was based on three theoretical frameworks: four frames, three keys to maximizing impact,
and coherent systems. The three frameworks assist in developing an understanding of the
theories that impact school leadership and how they can be adapted to the current situation of
managing the COVID-19 pandemic crisis. The findings in Chapter Four are the results of the
online survey and interviews. The following four research questions guided the study:
1. What, if any, are the financial implications that the COVID-19 pandemic has had on
K–12 public school districts in Southern California, and how have district
50
superintendents, assistant superintendents, and principals addressed these
implications?
2. What, if any, has been the impact of federal, state, and local health agencies on K–12
public school districts in Southern California, and what strategies have district
superintendents, assistant superintendents, and principals followed to address the
suggested guidelines?
3. How, if at all, have union negotiations played a role in K–12 Southern California
public school districts’ response to the COVID-19 pandemic?
4. How, if at all, have K–12 Southern California public school districts’ leadership teams
comprised of superintendents, assistant superintendents, and principals addressed the
concerns of the parent community regarding safety, nutrition, distance learning, lack
of technology, academic standing, and how and when to re-open schools due to the
COVID-19 pandemic?
Participants
For this study, researchers selected participants who were superintendents, assistant
superintendents, and principals from nine Southern California K–12 public school districts. All
nine school districts serve demographically diverse students in grades K–12. Nine
superintendents, seven assistant superintendents, and seven principals completed the survey and
participated in the virtual interviews (see Table 1). The participants met the selection criteria,
which included the following:
•
Participants must be currently employed at a traditional public Southern California
K–12, K–8, Elementary, or High School district
51
•
Participants must currently hold the title of the superintendent, assistant
superintendent, or principal
•
Participants must have worked in their current role for at least 1 year
•
Participants must have served in their current positions during the 2020–2021 school
year
•
The student population of the district where participants work is at least one thousand
All the participants met the criteria, responded to the survey, and participated in the
virtual interview. The school districts were renamed to protect the identities of school leaders
involved and ensure anonymity.
Demographic Data
The experiences of district superintendents, assistant superintendents, and school
principals during the COVID-19 pandemic were critical for this research study. The selected
participants had to work in their current role for at least one year, serving in the position of
superintendent, assistant superintendent, or principal during the 2020–2021 school year and
having a student population of at least one thousand. The 23 participants from Districts A, B, C,
D, E, F, G, H, and I were asked two demographic questions: how many years have they served in
the leadership role, and how many years have they served in the leadership role in their current
district. As shown in Table 2, all 23 participants served as a Southern California K–12 public
school district superintendent, assistant superintendent, or principal during the COVID-19
pandemic. Three of the 23 participants have served in their current roles for over 10 years. Six
have served in their current roles for 6 to 10 years. Seven have served in their current role for 3
52
to 5 years. Five have served in their current role for 1 to 2 years, and two have served less than 1
year (see Table 2).
53
Table 1
School District Demographic Information
District Grade span Student
population
Average
daily
attendance
English
language
learners
Free and
reduced-
price meals
District A
District B
District C
District D
District E
District F
District G
District H
District I
K–6
K–6
K–6
K–12
K–12
K–12
K–12
9–12
K–12
6,000
9,700
5,300
25,000
26,000
23,500
8,000
17,600
16,500
5,500
9,500
5,000
24,000
25,000
22,600
7,000
15,600
15,700
35%
10%
17%
13%
18%
16%
26%
12%
11%
80%
22%
50%
40%
34%
46%
85%
64%
33%
54
Table 2
Participant Demographic Information
Participant Southern California
district leader in
2020–2021
Years in position Years in position in
current district
Superintendent A Yes 6 to 10 6 to 10
Superintendent B Yes 3 to 5 3 to 5
Superintendent C Yes 6 to 10 6 to 10
Superintendent D Yes 6 to 10 1 to 2
Superintendent E Yes 6 to 10 6 to 10
Superintendent F Yes Over 10 Over 10
Superintendent G Yes Over 10 Over 10
Superintendent H Yes 1 to 2 1 to 2
Superintendent I Yes 6 to 10 6 to 10
Assistant
Superintendent A Yes 1 to 2 Less than 1
Assistant
Superintendent B Yes 1 to 2 1 to 2
Assistant
Superintendent C Yes 6 to 10 6 to 10
Assistant
Superintendent D Yes 1 to 2 1 to 2
Assistant
Superintendent F Yes 3 to 5 3 to 5
Assistant
Superintendent G
Yes 3 to 5 Over 10
Assistant
Superintendent I
Yes 6 to 10 6 to 10
Principal A Yes 3 to 5 Less than 1
55
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?
Before the COVID-19 pandemic, school districts already faced challenges with rising
costs, declining revenues, and more significant student needs. The COVID-19 pandemic
aggravated the financial situation of school districts and imposed tremendous additional costs on
school districts (Gordon & Reber, 2020; Zhou et al., 2021). The first research question was
designed to assess the financial impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on school districts and to
learn how school districts used the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security (CARES)
funds.
The CARES Act has distributed billions of dollars to schools to help school districts close
gaps in expenses and focus efforts on in-person learning (Gordon & Reber, 2020; Zhou et al.,
2021). Five survey statements were designed to address how the CARES Act funds met the
Principal B Yes 1 to 2 1 to 2
Principal C Yes 3 to 5 3 to 5
Principal F Yes 3 to 5 3 to 5
Principal G Yes 3 to 5 3 to 5
Principal H Yes 6 to 10 3 to 5
Principal I Yes 3 to 5 3 to 5
56
funding needs of school districts and schools in the areas of personnel, personal protective
equipment (PPE), technology, professional learning and/or training, and facility upgrades. All
participating superintendents, assistant superintendents, and principals rated their level of
agreement about the survey statements using a Likert scale (1 = strongly disagree to 5 = strongly
agree). Statements in the survey related to financial implications include:
•
The CARES Act met my district’s funding needs in the area of personnel.
•
The CARES Act met my district’s funding needs in the area of personal protective
equipment (PPE).
•
The CARES Act met my district’s funding needs in the area of technology.
•
The CARES Act met my district’s funding needs in the area of professional learning
and/or training.
•
The CARES Act met my district’s funding needs in the area of facility upgrades.
Table 3 shows the cumulative statement responses from the participating superintendents,
assistant superintendents, and principals. Of the twenty-three participants surveyed, 8.69%
strongly agreed, and 69.56% agreed that the CARES Act met their district’s funding needs in the
area of personnel, while 8.69% disagreed (13.04% neither agreed nor disagreed). When asked if
the CARES Act met their district’s funding needs in the area of PPE, 39.13% strongly agreed,
52.17% agreed, and none disagreed (8.69% neither agreed nor disagreed). In addressing the third
statement, 21.73% strongly agreed, and 60.86% agreed that the CARES Act met their district’s
funding needs in the area of technology, while 4.34% disagreed (13.04% neither agreed nor
disagreed). When participants were asked if the CARES Act met their district’s needs in the area
of professional learning and/or training, 8.69% strongly agreed, and 65.21% agreed, while 4.34%
57
disagreed (21.73% neither agreed nor disagreed). In addressing the last statement, 8.69%
strongly agreed and 52.17% agreed that the CARES Act met their district’s funding needs in the
area of facility upgrades, while 13.04% disagreed (26.08% neither agreed nor disagreed).
Table 3
Survey: Financial Implications of the COVID-19 Pandemic
Element Strongly
disagree
Disagree Neither
agree nor
disagree
Agree Strongly
agree
The CARES Act
met my district’s/
school’s funding
needs in the area
of personnel.
0.00% 8.69% 13.04% 69.56% 8.69%
The CARES Act
met my district’s/
school’s funding
needs in the areas
of personal
protective
equipment (PPE).
0.00% 0.00% 8.69% 52.17% 39.13
The CARES Act
met my district’s/
school’s funding
needs in the area
of technology.
0.00% 4.34% 13.04% 60.86% 21.73%
58
Note. Cumulative responses from participating Southern California K–12 public school
district superintendents, assistant superintendents, and principals.
Four interview questions addressed Research Question 1 and provided participating
Southern California K–12 public school district superintendents, assistant superintendents, and
principals with the opportunity to discuss the financial implication of the COVID-19 pandemic
on school districts and how superintendents, assistant superintendents, and principals addressed
the implications. Responses to the four questions provided the researchers with significant
information to better understand each district and school’s financial situation and decision-
making process throughout the COVID-19 pandemic crisis.
Additional Staffing
The CARES Act
met my district’s/
school’s funding
needs in the area
of professional
learning and/or
training.
0.00% 4.34% 21.73% 65.21% 8.69%
The CARES Act
met my district’s/
school’s funding
needs in the area
of facility
upgrades.
0.00% 13.04% 26.08% 52.17% 8.69%
Element Strongly
disagree
Disagree Neither
agree nor
disagree
Agree Strongly
agree
59
Southern California K–12 public school districts were able to purchase PPE, technology,
student materials, and personnel using the additional allocation funds. When surveyed, 69.56%
of the participating superintendents, assistant superintendents, and principals agreed, and 8.69%
strongly agreed that the CARES Act met their district’s/school’s funding needs in the area of
personnel. Additional personnel were funded to support extracurricular activities, reduce class
size, add social workers, run intervention programs, add counselors, teach full-day online school,
and perform custodial duties. Participating superintendents, assistant superintendents, and
principals shared that due to a labor shortage, filling personnel positions were challenging for
some school districts but not for others.
Superintendent A shared the challenges faced by their district while trying to fill
additional positions by saying, “The substitute shortage might factor in there. The fact that we
can’t find substitutes, and we have a labor shortage.”
Superintendent B spoke about their experience with the labor shortage. The
superintendent shared, “We could use it to provide additional staff for additional programs. But
finding staff, nobody can find staff anywhere.”
Superintendent C stated that they planned to use the additional funds to expand learning
opportunities but struggled to fill those positions. The superintendent shared, “We put money
into the program, we can’t find staff to even run the program. So that has really, really hampered
us.”
Superintendent G also dealt with labor shortages and difficulty filling positions included
in the original pandemic plan. The superintendent said,
60
We’ve actually done a lot to address learning loss and social-emotional needs of our
students. We have added learning loss mitigation teachers and a learning loss mitigation
team. The problem is finding staff at this point in time, but the allocation is two
additional full-time, fully credentialed teachers per site, one to focus on language arts and
one to focus on math, pulling small groups of students to provide additional supports to
address learning loss.
Principal A stated similar concerns related to staffing additional positions during the labor
shortage. The principal went on to say, “We’re working on trying to add more extracurricular
activities. The only problem is that personnel, it’s hard to get people with COVID.”
Principal C echoed similar concerns related to filling additional positions. The principal
shared,
We can get more aides; we can get behavior support; we can get all these things because
of this funding. But there was no people for all of it. So, the hopes of it was like, here’s
all this money, so we can help with, you know, getting everything together. But if it
required people power, there were no people willing to come during the pandemic, even
still now, to come and work for some of these positions, and the reasons vary.
Superintendent E stated they used the additional funds to hire intervention teachers for
elementary and secondary. The superintendent shared, “Supports for secondary finding an
additional intervention teacher, an intervention teacher in elementary and proportionally for our
high schools.”
Assistant Superintendent F echoed that their district was able to hire additional teachers
and counselors. The assistant superintendent stated, “We’ve done a variety of things from
61
lowering class sizes at the secondary level to hiring intervention teacher leads and MTSS leads,
counselors at every school and increased our mental health providers.”
Superintendent I felt the pandemic funding was adequate from both state and federal
funding resources and scrambled to create positions that could support student needs. Because
the funding is short-term, however, they worry about the long-term prospects of these newly-
created positions. The superintendent said,
The harsh reality of when these funds go away, and some of the things that we’ve gotten
used to, is going to be challenging. One of the things that the legislature could look at
doing is extending some of these funds to keep these nursing positions, social-emotional
health professionals, and school social workers that are so important right now.
Technology Support
When asked about how funding was used to meet students’ needs, a common theme
emerged among participating Southern California K–12 public school district superintendents,
assistant superintendents, and principals: technology support and upgrades. Districts were
grateful for the additional funds to support students instructionally and with technology. When
surveyed, 60.86% of the participants agreed, and 21.739% strongly agreed that the CARES Act
met their district’s/school’s funding needs in the area of technology. District superintendents,
assistant superintendents, and principals spoke about the availability of devices and internet
connectivity for the families and the technology enhancements made on campuses.
Assistant Superintendent A expressed that the additional funding helped the school district
meet the technological needs of students. The assistant superintendent shared, “They are able to
access more digital resources. The funding really allowed for digital platforms, digital resources,
62
devices, all of that. So that was wonderful. Being able to increase the infrastructure of
connectivity.”
Assistant Superintendent C shared how the school district was able to provide families
with technology when the pandemic first hit. The superintendent shared,
We purchased enough devices to go one-to-one. And then, we purchased hundreds of
hotspots to be able to support internet at home. We would not have been able to keep all
the students learning at home if we didn’t have those funds to get Chromebooks and
iPads, and hotspots. I mean, that was critical and had to be something that we were able
to do right away. And luckily, there were funds to do that.
Principal A stated that they were already a one-to-one (one device for every student)
school prior to the COVID-19 pandemic, but that they were able to upgrade laptops and
smartboards. The principal said, “The district was able to come in and say we want you to have
all new fresh technologies. We are going to go ahead and refresh the whole school.”
Principal G explained the decision their district made to give two devices to TK–2
students once in-person learning began, along with many technology enhancements for all
students. The principal shared,
We’ve been able to purchase technology. So, our devices are two-to-one in TK through
second grade and one-to-one in the upper grades. The reason why we did two-to-one in
the lower grades was so younger students wouldn’t have to worry about bringing their
device back and forth to school. We’ve been able to purchase technology platforms and
products that help the kids better interact with our teachers and learn at home. So, we
really have put our dollars into student learning and student achievement.
63
School Safety
The COVID-19 pandemic imposed additional costs on school districts as they were trying
to reopen schools with improved safety protocols and measures. Participating Southern
California K–12 public school district superintendents, assistant superintendents, and principals
expressed that they received a lot of support in terms of funding, and therefore they were able to
purchase the necessary equipment and materials to implement and maintain a safe learning
environment for students and staff. When surveyed, 52.17% of the participants agreed, and
39.13% strongly agreed that the CARES Act met their district’s/school’s funding needs in the
areas of PPE. Personal protective equipment and filtration systems were purchased using the
additional funds provided. Districts also used the funds to implement COVID testing.
Superintendent F stated that the most significant financial issue was getting the initial
PPE. The superintendent stated,
We installed thermometers in every classroom. We bought everybody those alcohol
sanitizers. We installed an air purifier unit in every classroom and workspace. We bought
bottled water until we could install those filling stations everywhere. All told, I think in
that first few months, we spent about five million dollars on stuff that we wouldn’t have
bought if it weren’t for the pandemic.
Superintendent A stated that they used part of the additional funds to install air purifiers
on all campuses. The superintendent went on to say, “Air purifiers were installed in every office,
every classroom. Every single classroom has air purifiers and the best air conditioning filtration
systems we can get. They’re called MERV 13 or HEPA certified.”
64
Superintendent B echoed how the funding was used to purchase PPE and implement
COVID testing. The superintendent shared,
The implementation of testing has been a costly piece. Our school district implements
COVID testing for our employees. We have been implementing COVID testing for our
students during the surge. Extra things, from barriers to sani-guns to masks, all of those
were costs as well.
Principal C shared how the additional funds provided allowed them to purchase all the
necessary PPE to reopen their school safely. The principal said, “We were able to get all of the
PPE necessary in order to protect our kids and then our staff here on campus as well.”
Principal H believes the funds helped their school purchase safety materials they could
not have bought years prior. Because of these increased safety measures, Principal H believes
more students were willing to return to in-person school. The principal stated,
When students could return to school for hybrid learning, our ability to provide the tents
and other safety features, I think, encouraged a lot of kids to return. The fact that we
could demonstrate how we were specifically providing increased safety measures, which
we did with the air scrubbers, masks, PPE, the hand sanitizer, and the frequent testing, I
think encouraged kids to return to school which we think was necessary for many kids.
Some kids thrived on distance learning, but many of our kids needed that in-person
approach. So, I think that encouraged people. And I think once kids did return; it also
allowed us to keep kids safe to a large degree.
The findings on Research Question 1 regarding the financial implication of the pandemic
on Southern California K–12 public school districts revealed three distinct themes: additional
65
staffing, technology support, and school safety. COVID-19 imposed tremendous additional costs
on school districts as they had to unexpectedly invest in additional staff, technology, and PPE
(Gordon & Reber, 2020; Zhou et al., 2021). According to the findings, the additional funding
allocation provided by the CARES Act supported all three areas: staffing, technology, and safety.
The survey results show that the majority of Southern California K–12 public school district
superintendents, assistant superintendents, and principals agreed or strongly agreed that the
CARES Act met their district’s funding needs in the areas of personnel, PPE, technology,
learning, and training, and facility upgrades.
Research Question 2
Research Question 2 asked the following: What, if any, has been the impact of federal,
state, and local health agencies on K–12 public school districts in Southern California, and what
strategies have district superintendents, assistant superintendents, and principals followed to
address the suggested guidelines?
Superintendents, assistant superintendents, and principals worked closely with various
government agencies in various ways. Federal and state government departments provided
financial support to school districts to address the challenges of distance learning and safety
(EdSource Staff, 2020a). Federal, state, and local government agencies, such as the Center for
Disease Control (CDC), the California Department of Public Health (CDPH), and county public
health offices, also provided rules, guidance, and protocols to help schools operate under rapidly-
changing COVID-19 pandemic health data. While these health and safety protocols were
sometimes helpful, they could also be contradictory, quickly changing, and challenging to
interpret.
66
Early on in the pandemic, it was shown that school shutdowns could support social
distancing and stay-at-home mandates, which have been proven to slow the spread of COVID-19
(Bhamani et al., 2020; Kurtz, 2020a). So, schools closed to in-person learning and worked
closely with Federal, state, and local health agencies to monitor COVID-19 infection rates and
safety advancements (EdSource Staff, 2020b; Garbe et al., 2020). However, due to the evolution
of COVID-19 and its unpredictable trajectory for the 2020–2021 school year, many districts in
California had to create multiple plans for returning to school, including a full-time return,
hybrid schedule, or entirely online program, either through a live video conference or learning
management system (LMS), such as Blackboard (Herold, 2020b; Kurtz, 2020a; Lieberman,
2020). By spring 2021, COVID-19 vaccinations and lower infection rates prompted many
Federal, state, and local agencies to allow California schools and districts to return to in-person
learning (Blume, 2021a).
Three survey statements were designed to address how guidance from Federal, state, and
local health agencies affected the school district’s return to school plans for the 2020–2021
school year. All participating superintendents, assistant superintendents, and principals rated their
level of agreement about the survey statements using a Likert scale (1 = strongly disagree to 5 =
strongly agree). Statements in the survey related to federal, state, and local health and safety
guidelines include:
•
The federal, state, and local health guidelines were clear in providing information to
support the safe reopening of schools.
•
I understood how to safely bring back staff during the fall of 2020 to work sites based
on the public health guidelines.
67
•
The health guidelines impacted our district’s return to school plan in the spring of
2021.
Table 4 shows the cumulative statement responses from the participating superintendents,
assistant superintendents, and principals. The survey results demonstrate that 39.13% of the
participants agreed, and 8.69% strongly agreed that the federal, state and local health guidelines
were clear in providing information to support the safe reopening of schools, while 21.73%
disagreed and 17.39% strongly disagreed (13.04% neither agreed nor disagreed). Regarding staff
returning to campuses, 52.17% agreed, and 13.04% strongly agreed that they understood how to
bring back staff members safely for the 2020–2021 school year based on the public health
guidelines, while 30.43% disagreed (4.34% neither agreed nor disagreed). When questioned
about how the guidelines impacted the district’s return to school plan in spring 2021, 52.17% of
the participants agreed, 34.78% strongly agreed there was an impact, and 4.34% disagreed
(8.69% neither agreed nor disagreed).
68
Table 4
Survey: Federal, State and Local Health and Safety Guidelines of the COVID-19 Pandemic
Note. Cumulative responses from participating Southern California K–12 public school district
superintendents, assistant superintendents, and principals.
Element Strongly
disagree
Disagree Neither
agree nor
disagree
Agree Strongly
agree
The federal, state
and local health
guidelines were
clear in providing
information to
support the safe
reopening of
schools.
17.39% 21.73% 13.04% 39.13% 8.69%
I understood how
to safely bring
back staff during
the fall of 2020 to
work sites based
on the public
health guidelines.
0.00% 30.43% 4.34% 52.17% 13.04%
The health
guidelines
impacted our
district’s return to
school plan in the
spring of 2021.
0.00% 4.34% 8.69% 52.17% 34.78%
69
Four interview questions addressed Research Question 2 and provided the participating
Southern California K–12 public school district superintendents, assistant superintendents, and
principals with the opportunity to discuss the impact of federal, state, and local health agencies
on K–12 public school districts in Southern California and the strategies district superintendents,
assistant superintendents, and principals followed to address the suggested guidelines. Responses
to the four questions provided the researchers with significant information to better understand
the impact of agencies on each district and school throughout the COVID-19 pandemic crisis.
The interview responses of school district superintendents, assistant superintendents, and
principals expanded on the themes found in the literature.
Guidance Given to Schools by the County
As the pandemic ensued, the details of interpreting and collaborating around the most
current health and safety guidelines for schools and districts were provided at the county level,
either by the county health office or the county office of education. The county received its
support for the guidance based on the data provided at the state and federal levels, but, for the
most part, direct state and federal input came only as additional relief funds. Much of this county
guidance was provided to district leaders during a weekly call with the county health office,
which provided the most recent COVID health and safety information and also allowed
superintendents, assistant superintendents, and principals to ask specific questions and give input
on decisions. Most superintendents, assistant superintendents, and principals felt this
communication was beneficial in keeping them up-to-date on rapidly-changing COVID-19
developments.
70
Superintendent H explained their routine for gathering COVID-19 information from
Federal, state, and local sources. The superintendent shared,
The Federal and state governments don’t offer collaboration to local school districts. So
that one was easy. We met almost every week as a superintendent group in my county,
and most of the time, there was either the public health officer or his deputy there, as
well. We were having regular conversations with the county public health office, so I feel
like, locally, we had an opportunity to express to the public health folks what schools
need and what they didn’t need.
Assistant Superintendent A stated that constant meetings and collaboration helped the
district manage the constantly changing protocols and guidelines. The assistant superintendent
said, “Those meetings were so frequent because there were so many updates and changes. And
then, the county offices were constantly meeting with outside agencies. So, I felt there was a lot
of collaboration.”
Superintendent D echoed the sentiments of constant meetings and collaboration. The
superintendent said, “We had superintendents’ weekly meetings with the county department of
education and the county health care agency. They would be on our Zoom meetings every week,
helping us with the latest COVID numbers, trends and guidelines.”
Guidance Caused Frustration and Confusion
While the county-provided guidance was beneficial to school district leaders, there were
some components of this process that caused frustration and confusion. First, federal and state
guidance were often announced on a national scale, which meant that county and school district
leaders had little time to interpret the guidance before they had to create the correct guidance for
71
their particular location. The guidance announced in the news was not always the guidance that
applied to school settings since certain types of organizations (like schools) follow a different set
of guidelines. This confusion caused frustration amongst superintendents, assistant
superintendents, principals, teachers, staff members, students, parents, and community members
who relied on this information to keep their students safe. Equally frustrating was when county
guidance was provided after a similar state or federal guidance had been given weeks earlier.
Timeliness can be a delicate balance when dealing with student welfare; taking a wait-and-see
approach might be the wrong move on some guidance, while making immediate shifts could be
in the best interests of students and staff. Finally, the most frustrating part shared by
superintendents, assistant superintendents, and principals was that the guidance changed so
frequently because the COVID-19 data was also changing rapidly.
In some cases, guidance was mandated, then changed drastically and re-mandated
multiple times, giving opposite guidance in some cases. While district leaders were empathetic to
the evolving nature of the COVID-19 pandemic, a great source of frustration was the confusion
caused by these competing guidelines and the fallout when responding to it with concerned
faculty members, students, parents, and community members. One superintendent mentioned
how they were used to making decisions and dealing with whatever response came from the
community and staff. However, during this time of COVID-19 and ever-changing guidance, a
superintendent could make a decision and then have it reversed by a higher authority, effectively
taking away their ability to make crucial decisions as a superintendent. According to the survey
results, 47.82% of superintendents, assistant superintendents, and principals agree that the
federal, state and local health guidelines were clear in providing information to support the safe
72
reopening of schools, while 39.12% disagree. Regarding staff returning to campuses, 65.21%
agree that they understood how to bring back staff members safely for the 2020–2021 school
year based on the public health guidelines, while 30.43% disagree.
Superintendent A mentioned the frustration regarding the constant changing and
conflicting guidelines. The superintendent shared, “State and federal support has been
frustrating, constantly changing conflicting guidelines. And the federal and state guidelines are
often in conflict with each other. And they also often conflict with Cal OSHA.”
Superintendent C echoed the frustration regarding the continuous changes in protocols
and guidance. The superintendent shared,
It’s been an extremely frustrating process working with the Department of Public Health
in the sense of them constantly changing their protocols. When we just came back in
January, we had a good plan. And then, literally the next week, they change it.
Assistant Superintendent F noted that weekly meetings with the county department of
health have been helpful. The assistant superintendent said,
It is kind of the blind leading the blind. They don’t have a whole bunch of answers, and
they’re not school system people. So, they don’t necessarily get the challenges from the
medical field or from even the government as to some of their decisions and how they
influence and lack of clarity. That’s been a challenge.
Assistant Superintendent I reflected on why the process would take so long, which caused
a lot of frustration. The assistant superintendent said,
When the CDC would come out with whatever their guidelines are, there appeared quite
73
often to be a delay, on California’s part, to adopt certain guidelines. And I do understand
why they probably didn’t jump on certain CDC guidelines right away. Obviously, they’re
taking a look at their own state’s COVID data, and they’re looking at what’s best for their
own state; I see that. And then, when CDPH would update their guidelines, then we
would wait on the county public health to update their guidelines. So, as you can see,
from the Federal to the state to the local, none of it was ever really immediate.
Superintendent H explained the process for obtaining COVID-19 information and then
making decisions on returning to in-person learning based on that information. The
superintendent shared,
I think the county health office has been very conservative, so to speak, and that they’ve
actually typically been a little more restrictive than the state’s guidance. One of the things
is you can be more restrictive, just not less restrictive, so, I think the public health
department in our county took a very conservative approach. I feel like that actually
worked to our advantage because when we did come back to school, at least until we had
this latest variant, we had an extremely low rate of cases for staff and students for a
district of our size-until we got to this January with the Omicron. So, I feel like their
guidance was reasonable, and it was something we could achieve.
Principal G expressed the difficulties of working with the county office to secure
information and then having to deal with the frustration of two-way communication and lack of
support. The principal said,
The health agencies, in particular, have been disastrous and generally have provided little
to no help. They have burdened us with regulations that are ridiculous. Recently, we were
74
calling in contact tracing, which we’re required to do, and they told us, “We don’t have
the people to do it,” and hung up the phone. So, they loaded us with all these
requirements, and they can’t even support themselves.
Guidance Affected Reopening Plans
The health and safety guidance provided by the state of California did affect school
district timelines for in-person reopening in April of 2021, but the financial incentives for
returning to in-person learning in April 2021 were not a significant factor. The communication
from federal and state to the specific district or site had to adhere strictly to the guidelines and
could not be lenient on particular aspects; profound interpretation and collaborative input from
the staff and community became critical elements in finding ways to reopen schools for in-
person learning safely. All along the way, the guidance affected whether schools were open for
in-person learning, and when schools finally did start to reopen in spring 2021, the health and
safety guidance did affect the health and safety protocols that were put in place. When
questioned about how the guidelines impacted the district’s return to school plan in spring 2021,
86.95% agreed there was an impact, and 4.34% disagreed.
Superintendent A shared that they were already planning to reopen after the winter break,
so the financial incentive for reopening did not influence their decision. The superintendent said,
We were already planning to reopen right after winter break 2021. So, we were right in
line with that incentive funding, the reopening incentive funding. So, we were all ready to
go, already had worked with our labor organizations, our teachers.
Assistant Superintendent G believes having a plan ahead of time was the driving force
behind their reopening, not state funding. The assistant superintendent shared, “Our opening was
75
determined before there was any contingency for funding on the reopening. Our timeline was our
timeline. We were going to reopen when we felt that it was safe for our students and staff.”
Superintendent H utilized communication with the community and the county’s guidance
to develop a plan for reopening school campuses across multiple cities within their district. The
superintendent said,
Our parents expect us to be the experts, and they expect us to do the right thing on behalf
of their children. Furthermore, we cannot let our community down. We had a lot more
interest in certain areas to come back to school earlier. This is a talk I had with
superintendents because we didn’t want to bring some areas of our district back and have
other areas stay at home. So, for us, it’s important that, across a large district, everybody
gets the same opportunities. We were tracking the virus rates by zip code, and it was only
when all the zip codes came down to a reasonable rate that we said, “Okay, I think we’re
ready to try and come back.” I feel very fortunate that our community was really with us
in the best interests of kids. And that’s not the case everywhere.
Assistant Superintendent I relied on the guidance from the local health agencies and used
those guidelines to implement re-openings and various safety protocols. The assistant
superintendent shared,
Our district has been very consistent, to the best of our ability, with doing exactly what is
required of school districts. In other words, we weren’t doing more, such as requiring
students to vaccinate, and we weren’t doing less, as in mask choice. We were doing
exactly what the guidelines required. And I feel that allowed our trustees and our district
leadership to just remain consistent and not step into anything one way or another. Just
76
make sure you’re doing exactly what the guidelines require. Don’t do more, don’t do less.
And that has been our approach.
Principal C believes the incentive helped them with their reopening plan. The principal
shared,
We were able to tap into the extra funding to open up early back when we were first able
to open. And our kids with the highest needs were the first ones that we brought back.
Because of the financial resources that were there, we were able to get all of the PPE
necessary in order to protect, one, our kids and then our staff here on campus, as well.
The findings on the impact of federal, state, and local health agencies on K–12 public
school districts in Southern California and the strategies district superintendents, assistant
superintendents, and principals followed to address the suggested guidelines revealed three
distinct themes: guidance was beneficial, guidance caused frustration and confusion, and
guidance affected reopening plans. According to the findings, the county provided most of the
COVID-19-related health and safety information based on information provided by the state and
Federal governments. Superintendents held weekly meetings with the county office of public
health to obtain these updates and used this information to inform their decisions on reopening
plans. Some of the guidance caused frustration and confusion because the COVID-19 data
changed frequently.
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?
77
As seen throughout Research Questions 1 and 2, the COVID-19 pandemic brought on
new challenges that local education agencies (LEAs) and their superintendents, assistant
superintendents, and principals had to face. Among those challenges were the unions’
negotiations, both classified and certificated. Classified unions advocate for supporting staff
members in classifications such as paraprofessionals, bus drivers, office workers, custodians, and
maintenance workers. Certificated unions are organizations established to protect and advance
the collective interests of teachers and other education workers.
Governor Newsom announced agreements between teachers, classified employees, and
school system management to support student instruction during the COVID-19 outbreak. This
announcement paved the way for all stakeholders to work together and provided guidelines on
how local unions could proceed. All parties’ primary concern is the well-being of the students
(Office of Governor Gavin Newsom, 2020). Three survey statements addressed how union
negotiations impacted school district decisions. All participating superintendents, assistant
superintendents, and principals rated their level of agreement about the survey statements using a
Likert scale (1 = strongly disagree to 5 = strongly agree). Statements in the survey related to
union negotiations include:
•
Negotiations with certificated unions influenced the way my district effectively
responded to the COVID-19 pandemic for students and families.
•
Negotiations with classified unions influenced the way of my district effectively
responding to the COVID-19 pandemic for students and families.
•
Negotiations with the teacher’s union impacted the quality of instruction offered to
students during distance learning.
78
Table 5 shows the cumulative statement responses from the participating superintendents,
assistant superintendents, and principals. Of the twenty-three participants surveyed, 13.04%
strongly agreed, and 43.47% agreed that negotiations with certificated unions influenced the way
my district effectively responded to the COVID-19 pandemic for students and families, while
21.73% disagreed, 4.34% strongly disagreed with the statement (17.39% neither agree nor
disagree). When asked if negotiations with classified unions influenced the way of my district
effectively responding to the COVID-19 pandemic for students and families, 4.34% strongly
agreed, and 47.82% agreed. Although an overwhelming majority agreed with the statement, it
should be noted that 26.08% disagreed and 4.34% strongly disagreed (17.39% neither agree nor
disagree). Lastly, 17.39% strongly agreed, and 43.47% agreed that negotiations with the
teacher’s union impacted the quality of instruction offered to students during distance learning.
While 17.39% disagreed and 4.34% strongly disagreed with the statement (17.39% neither agree
nor disagree).
Table 5
Survey: Union Negotiations of the COVID-19 Pandemic
Element Strongly
disagree
Disagree Neither
agree nor
disagree
Agree Strongly
agree
79
Note. Cumulative responses from participating Southern California K–12 public school district
superintendents, assistant superintendents, and principals.
Four interview questions addressed Research Question 3 and provided the participating
Southern California K–12 public school district superintendents, assistant superintendents, and
principals with the opportunity to discuss negotiations with classified and certificated unions
during the COVID-19 pandemic. Responses to the four questions provided the researchers with
significant information to better understand the union negotiations and decision-making process
within each district and school throughout the COVID-19 pandemic crisis. The interview
Negotiations with
certificated unions
influenced the way my
district effectively
responded to the
COVID-19 pandemic
for students and
families.
4.34% 21.73% 17.39% 43.47% 13.04%
Negotiations with
classified unions
influenced the way of
my district effectively
responding to the
COVID-19 pandemic
for students and
families.
4.34% 26.08% 17.39% 47.82% 4.34%
Negotiations with the
teacher's union
impacted the quality of
instruction offered to
students during
distance learning.
4.34% 17.39% 17.39% 43.47% 17.39%
80
responses of school district superintendents, assistant superintendents, and principals expanded
on the themes found in the literature.
Memorandums of Understanding
Due to the school closures and constant changes in protocols during the COVID-19
pandemic, school districts and labor unions had to continuously develop memorandums of
understanding (MOU). They became a significant player in the reopening of schools during the
COVID-19 pandemic.
Superintendent C shared that several memorandums of understanding have been
established throughout the pandemic. The superintendent said,
We do have a lot of MOU in place with our teachers to support what we're doing. For
example, we have an online program right now. And we just did an MOU to help where
one teacher needs to do three grade levels instead of two because it's like a class of 12.
Superintendent E noted that they did not negotiate contracts with the unions but rather
signed MOUs that would ensure all were treated fairly during this unprecedented time. The
superintendent said,
For example, when everyone was at home from March to June, we would have our
custodial staff still on campus. And then finally, we're like, this seems unfair. We're
having to come to work, no one else is, and so, then we would work with them and say,
‘Okay, we'll tell you what you can come to you can come three days a week and you can
have two days at home.’ We have to make allowances and be very flexible.
81
Superintendent I stated that their reopening plans had to be negotiated with the unions,
and specific agreements had to be made before teaching staff returned to campuses. The
superintendent shared,
We wrote an agreement with our teachers' union, which was amazing. The teachers
agreed to be able to flip back and forth between virtual learning and in-person learning;
they agreed to support students at home. While maybe 50% of their class was in person,
they were zooming to students at home as well so that students who were quarantined
could still see and hear the presentation and be a participant in some level in the class.
Our teachers made that agreement. That was huge because students that were quarantined
were not absent from their teacher for two weeks, so that was big. And we still actually
have that agreement in place now.
Assistant Superintendent C mentioned that their district spent more time bargaining with
unions during COVID than ever before, and they developed many memorandums of
understanding.
So, I will tell you that I spend more time with the unions during COVID. So many
MOUs, memorandums of understanding that we did with both units. Through COVID,
there became teachers that only worked with kids that are at home. And so, we had to do
an MOU for our scholars at home program and kind of set up the parameters because we
never had that before.
Job Description Changes
Classified jobs are essential to running all school systems and school sites. There would
not be custodians, secretaries, bus drivers, and food and health workers without the classified
82
positions filled. While some of these positions rose to importance during the COVID-19
pandemic, others needed to find new ways to support the various Southern California K–12
public school districts. This change required classified employees to work beyond their job
descriptions.
Assistant Superintendent A shared that the district repurposed staff to avoid layoff and
provide additional support for students. The assistant superintendent said, "They right away
repurposed staff. They didn't lay off people. So, for CSEA, that was a big deal that their staff felt
valued. For example, bus drivers that weren't needed were repurposed to help support students."
Principal B shared that the job descriptions for classified staff had to be reworked
and negotiated. The principal said, "Their job description solidified. They had to rework their job
description. And they had to negotiate. Our campus supervisor changed. They had a different
category."
Assistant Superintendent D noted that working collaboratively around job descriptions is
what made potential issues nonexistent. The assistant superintendent stated, "Agreeing on
flexibility and assisting where needed was a whole team collaborative effort. There were little to
no issues due to multiple people having a seat at the table where they could be heard constantly.
Collaboration was key."
Relationships
Relationships helped hold so many negotiations, communities, and faculties together
during these more than trying times. Without relationships, educational leaders had no base to
build trust upon. During this time, superintendents, assistant superintendents, and principals from
83
Southern California K–12 public school districts relied upon the trust they had built up in the
community and within their staff to help them get through these difficult times.
Superintendent A shared that negotiations with the union were a positive and
collaborative process built into their bargaining process before the COVID-19 pandemic. The
superintendent said,
We have such a great relationship. What I did is I formed a collaborative with both union
leadership teams and the cabinet here at the district office. And we just worked out
problems monthly. One thing we did with negotiations is pre-COVID. We went to
interest-based bargaining. It's this positive approach. And we follow it.
Superintendent B echoed a collaborative approach already in place in their district. The
superintendent shared, "Again, really collaborative structure that we have started prior to COVID
and then continued with that."
Superintendent C shared that union negotiations are effective because they already had a
positive relationship with their teachers' union and classified union. The superintendent stated,
"So, I just have to start by saying I have a good relationship with our teachers and our classified,
so that helps."
Superintendent F noted that the teachers coming together and their input helped develop
instructional practices that worked. It was the relationships between everyone that made it work.
The superintendent shared, "By bringing teacher leaders in and we make instructional decisions
together with teacher leaders."
84
Superintendent G believed it was their long-standing tenure in the district and ability to
forge relationships at all levels that proved helpful when it came time to have union employees
back on campus for in-person learning. The superintendent stated,
We have a great relationship with both of our unions. So, I have to say we did not have
some of the contention that other districts had. We truly came together, and I think it
helps that I've been here for a long time. I know everybody; I walked in their shoes for a
lot of years.
Assistant Superintendent C echoed the positive relationships between the district and the
labor unions. The assistant superintendent shared, “Number one, the relationship between the
unions and the district are really positive. I'm not saying it was perfect, but there was a lot of
collaboration.”
Principal A mentioned the positive relationship and communication between the labor
unions and the superintendent. The principal said, “We have a pretty good relationship with our
teachers' union and the superintendent. So, they work things out really critically; from what I
hear, there's a lot of communication happening at that level.”
The findings of Research Question 3 regarding implications of the certificated and
classified unions during the COVID-19 pandemic on K–12 Southern California public school
districts revealed three distinct themes: MOUs, job description changes, and relationships. Using
the already established relationships, the superintendents, assistant superintendents, and
principals asked those around them to work together outside of their job descriptions, to
creatively find new ways to teach and reach students through the COVID-19 pandemic, and to
ensure safety for all. The results demonstrate how Southern California K–12 public school
85
district superintendents, assistant superintendents, and principals' decisions were influenced by
the COVID-19 pandemic and union negotiations.
Research Question 4
Research Question 4 asked the following: 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?
The COVID-19 pandemic induced disruptions to schools as a source of community
resilience and has impacted the partnership between families and schools as schools struggled to
provide the support and services usually available. Many families relied on schools for meals,
childcare, and intervention or therapeutic services (Fay et al., 2020). The implementation of
school closures as a response to the pandemic forced schools to quickly figure out how to
educate millions of children at home and provide meals to families. District leadership teams had
to find alternative ways to communicate with the parent community and provide information
about grab-and-go meals, safety protocols, technology support, distance learning, academic
progress, and the reopening of schools.
Seven survey statements were designed to address how participating school district
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. All participating
superintendents, assistant superintendents, and principals rated their level of agreement about the
86
survey statements using a Likert scale (1 = strongly disagree to 5 = strongly agree). Statements
in the survey related to the communication with the community and addressing their concerns
include:
•
My district maintained good communication with families during the pandemic.
•
My district met the needs of students and families in the area of nutrition.
•
My district met the needs of students and families in the area of technology
(computers/devices).
•
My district met the needs of students and families in the area of technology (internet
service).
•
My district met the needs of students and families in the area of social, emotional, and
well-being.
•
My district met the needs of students and families in the area of health and safety.
•
My district met the academic needs of students.
Table 6 shows the cumulative statement responses from participating superintendents,
assistant superintendents, and principals. Of the twenty-three participants surveyed, 39.13%
strongly agreed, and 60.86% agreed that the district maintained good communication with
families during the pandemic, while none disagreed (0% neither agreed nor disagreed). When
asked if the district met the needs of students and families in the area of nutrition, 69.56%
strongly agreed, 30.43% agreed, and none disagreed (0% neither agreed nor disagreed). In
addressing the third statement, 69.56% strongly agreed, and 30.43% agreed that the district met
the needs of students and families in the area of technology (computers/devices), while none
disagreed (0% neither agreed nor disagreed). When participants of this study were asked if the
87
district met the needs of students and families in the area of technology (internet service),
43.47% strongly agreed, and 47.82% agreed, while none disagreed (8.69% neither agreed nor
disagreed). When asked if the district met the needs of students and families in the area of social-
emotional and well-being, 4.34% strongly agreed, and 73.91% agreed, while 4.34% disagreed
(17.39% neither agreed nor disagreed). In addressing the sixth statement, 26.08% strongly
agreed, and 69.56% agreed that the district met the needs of students and families in the area of
health and safety, while none disagreed (4.34% neither agreed nor disagreed). In addressing the
last statement, 0% strongly agreed, and 65.21% agreed that the district met the academic needs
of students, while 8.69% disagreed (26.08% neither agreed nor disagreed).
Table 6
Survey: Addressing the Concerns of the Parent Community
Element Strongly
disagree
Disagree Neither
agree nor
disagree
Agree Strongly
agree
My district/school
maintained good
communication
with families
during the
pandemic.
0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 60.86% 39.13%
My district/school
met the needs of
students and
families in the area
of nutrition.
0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 30.43% 69.56%
88
Note. Cumulative responses from Southern California K–12 public school district
superintendents, assistant superintendents, and principals.
My district/school
met the needs of
students and
families in the area
of technology
(computers/
devices).
0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 30.43% 69.56%
My district/school
met the needs of
students and
families in the area
of technology
(internet service).
0.00% 0.00% 8.69% 47.82% 43.47%
My district/school
met the needs of
students and
families in the area
of social emotional
well-being.
0.00% 4.34% 17.39% 73.91% 4.34%
My district/school
met the needs of
students and
families in the area
of health & safety.
0.00% 0.00% 4.34% 69.56% 26.08%
My district/school
met the academic
needs of students.
0.00% 8.69% 26.08% 65.21% 0.00%
Element Strongly
disagree
Disagree Neither
agree nor
disagree
Agree Strongly
agree
89
Two interview questions addressed research question four and provided participating
Southern California K–12 public school district superintendents, assistant superintendents, and
principals with the opportunity to discuss how the district gathered input from the community,
how they communicated with families, and how they addressed the concerns of the parent
community regarding safety, nutrition, distance learning, lack of technology, academic standing,
and the reopening of schools during the COVID-19 crisis. Responses to the two questions from
superintendents, assistant superintendents, and principals provided the researchers with relevant
information to better understand the communication process within each district and school. The
interview responses of school district superintendents, assistant superintendents, and principals
expanded on the themes found in the literature.
Frequent Communication
Participating Southern California K–12 public school district superintendents, assistant
superintendents, and principals shared that they had to continuously communicate with families
and provide updates on the current safety guidelines and district protocols. When surveyed,
60.86% of the participants agreed, and 39.13% strongly agreed that their district/school
maintained good communication with families during the pandemic. Some school districts used
their advisory committees to gather input from parents and provide families with regular updates.
Other school districts depended on their parent involvement liaison to gather input from the
parent community and provide regular updates to the families. In some cases, school districts
used different communications tools such as Parent Square, virtual meetings, or newsletters to
keep the community informed. The continuous communication with families helped alleviate the
confusion caused by the constant change in health and safety protocols.
90
Superintendent A stated that the district provided the parent community with regular
updates and gathered parent input through the parent involvement liaison. The superintendent
shared,
We have a parent involvement liaison at every school site. They are like a backbone of
our district. So, they really get that parent input and that parent communication piece.
And then updates, regular, frequent updates. We did parent surveys.
Superintendent B commented that the district gathered a lot of input from the parent
community through different kinds of meetings and a communication tool called Parent Square.
The superintendent stated, “We use Parent Square. I’m sure you have heard of that tool. And so,
it is kind of like school district Facebook. We had different kinds of meetings like coffee with the
superintendent and coffee with the principal.”
Superintendent C shared that constantly communicating with families really helped their
district. The superintendent said,
I communicate with our families every Friday. So, every Friday, I put a message out to
our families. I’ve been doing that since the pandemic started to keep them updated on the
protocols, so they know what is going on. And I think that has really helped the success
of our parents knowing in advance.
Principal H showcased a specific communication tool that allowed him to share his
message with a variety of students at the height of the stay-at-home orders. The principal stated,
YouTube Live was a really great way for us to connect. I probably had 3500 live viewers
on the English feed and about 1000 on the Spanish broadcast. We’d have a moderator in
the comments who would tell me there was an interesting question. I could answer the
91
question live. We had the public health folks come on a couple times to provide updates
over last year. YouTube Live was a really a great untapped resource for us that we use
pretty successfully.
Principal A said that their district tried to communicate with families as much as possible
using distinct communication digital and written tools. The principal shared,
The district tries to pump out as much communication to our families as much as
possible. You know, every now and then, people might be confused as to what the latest
protocols are. We try to update our families as much as we can with our technology
communication programs that we have to deliver information. A lot of stuff we have
posted online. We now have something called Parent Square that we push out information
as much as we can. We send flyers home with students as best we can. We have a parent
involvement liaison at every single site. And our involvement parent volunteers and tries
to call our families just to check in and seeing what their needs are.
Principal B mentioned the use of an email platform, monthly meetings, and a newsletter
to inform parents of any changes in protocols. The principal shared,
So, we used Parent Square, which is just the email platform. So, anytime there was a
change in the protocols, which is like every other day, we sent emails to parents or used
our platform Parent Square to really communicate there and back. And we held a monthly
meeting with the principal. So, parents are welcome to jump in and ask about any of the
protocols. And then I have a newsletter every Sunday.
Principal C shared that they kept the community up to date on the protocols and changes
and provided families with a platform for parents to provide feedback. The principal said,
92
The biggest community outreach for us on the local level was always with our parents.
Keeping them up to date with any changes that would ever happen in a protocol. We had
monthly meetings in terms of communicating everything that was going on for the school
when it came to all the programs and everything that we were doing. We had high
attendance.
Superintendent G took the two-way feedback from the community and opened an
independent study school for those who were not ready to return to in-person school. They
conducted all of their face-to-face time on Zoom, and students completed work independently.
The school is still in operation, even months after other students have returned to school for in-
person learning. The superintendent stated,
We have a very large independent study program because some parents aren’t ready to
send their kids back. We started out with 800 students in our independent study, which
would be equal to an independent study school with a principal and assistant principal.
And I think we started with like 25 teachers to address the independent study needs
because we have a lot of parents that weren’t ready to send their kids back. And we didn’t
want to just say your kids are going to be on their own. So, we are providing face-to-face
instruction. All-day, every day. They are in a classroom that is a virtual classroom for
independent study students. So, that has been a huge financial commitment and personnel
commitment. But I think it’s an important commitment.
Technology, Safety, and Nutrition Concerns
Participating Southern California K–12 public school district superintendents, assistant
superintendents, and principals shared that the most common concerns expressed by the parent
93
community dealt with technology, safety, and nutrition. Challenges with access to devices and
connectivity were issues raised by the parent community. Technology support for parents was
also a concern in some communities. The safety protocols being enforced by the school districts
and nutrition were also topics of concern expressed by the parent community. School district
superintendents, assistant superintendents, and principals shared that they met the needs of
students and families in the areas of technology, safety, and nutrition. When surveyed, 30.43% of
the participants agreed, and 69.56% strongly agreed that their district met the needs of students
and families in the area of technology (computers/devices). When asked about meeting the needs
of students and families in the area of technology (internet service), 47.82% of the participants
agreed, and 43.47% strongly agreed that their district met the needs. Regarding meeting the
needs of students and families in the areas of health & safety, 69.56% of the participants agreed,
and 26.08% strongly agreed that their district/school met the needs. When asked about meeting
the needs of students and families in the area of nutrition, 30.43% of the participants agreed, and
69.56% strongly agreed that their district met the needs of students and families.
Superintendent B shared that access to the internet was a significant concern because of
the geographic location of the community they serve. The superintendent said,
Access to the internet was the biggest challenge. We are in a very hilly area, so access to
the internet is not about not being able to afford it. It’s more about not being able to
access it because of the geography of your location. For those that could not afford it, we
came up with hubs. We gave out and things like that.
94
Assistant Superintendent B stated that internet connectivity was a concern because not all
families had access, so the district was able to support those families with hotspots. The assistant
superintendent said,
We did a lot of work with the community and a couple of cell phone providers to provide
internet hotspots and connectivity to families. We have some areas that don’t have quite
the same resources as some of our families. So, we were able to support some of those
areas.
Assistant Superintendent C echoed similar concerns related to connectivity access and
added that parents also required support with technology. The assistant superintendent shared,
We diversified our hotspots. So, instead of getting them all from AT&T, we got some
Verizon ones, some AT&T ones because certain canyons work better on one network than
the other. So, we really tried to kind of have availability for that. The other one would be
the technological prowess of the parents. Some of them really struggled because they
don’t typically use technology in their day.
Superintendent B stated that complying with the safety protocols has been challenging
and the perspectives of the parent community are opposed. The superintendent shared, “For us,
what it’s been is the complete utter division between those that want masks and those that don’t.
Those that want vaccines and those that don’t. Those that want testing and those that don’t.”
Assistant Superintendent C shared how the district had to work through the parent
community concerns regarding masking and social distancing. The assistant superintendent said,
“So, we had to work through the concerns of wearing masks all day. We also had to work
95
through the concerns of, you know, the whole social distancing thing and the psychological piece
to that.”
Principal B shared that the parent community expressed concerns about masking and
social distancing. The principal said, “In our community, it continues to be masking and social
distancing. Those are the biggest concerns. We have a huge anti-masking community.”
Assistant Superintendent G saw nutrition as a major concern in their district and was
proud that they provided more than one million meals to students and families. Those are meals
that those students may not have received otherwise. The assistant superintendent said,
We felt strongly that meal service needed to continue. It required a massive effort for our
nutrition services staff to serve meals nonstop; they usually provided two or three days of
supplies. Parents would come and pick up four large grocery bags and put them in their
trunk for three days for the family. We broke the million-meal mark, I don’t know what
the final count was that was served, but we’re still doing the pickup for independent study
families right now. Our nutrition services workers worked every day of that pandemic out
on the frontline serving meals, and we just felt that was a critical need for our
community.
Principal H felt that their site was able to support the nutrition concerns of the community
by providing free meals to all. The principal shared,
We continued with our lunch program during the pandemic, and it was community-wide.
So, it wasn’t just for our parents and students, but anybody in the community could come
and receive food. It was big boxes of food. We did it twice a week, and we tried to vary
the hours because sometimes it wasn’t easy for our families to get here during the day.
96
So, we did a lot of evening things, as well. I think our district did a good job of providing
boxes of food to people who could get here.
Mental Health Support
Participating Southern California K–12 public school district superintendents, assistant
superintendents, and principals shared that the input provided by the parent community conveyed
the need for mental health support. Parent survey questions regarding the impact of COVID-19
provided districts with information regarding families frightened by the pandemic and dealing
with loss. School district superintendents, assistant superintendents, and principals shared that
they met the needs of students and families in the area of social-emotional well-being. When
surveyed, 73.91% of the participants agreed, and 4.34% strongly agreed their district met the
needs of students and families.
Superintendent A stated that families were dealing with loss, and therefore the district
responded to the needs by increasing the mental health support and social-emotional learning.
The superintendent stated,
We have parents who are petrified over COVID. We’ve had tragedy, you know, left and
right. We have children that were through virtual learning would tell their teacher, oh, my
dad died; this weekend, my grandma died. So, that’s why we really ramped up the mental
health support and the social-emotional learning.
Principal A shared how they funded mental health support for their students and families.
The principal mentioned,
One of the things we put money into is our mental health programs. So, we’ve increased
the support for mental health. Every parent has access to something called Care Sola,
97
which is a free mental health support. Which gets our parents connected to case carriers
to get them with the help that they need with any kind of mental health support.
Principal C said their school used a behavior support specialist to help with the emotional
needs and to help children adjust to returning to the campus. The principal shared,
We have one behavior support specialist on our site to go around and help with kinders
adjusting to the new grade levels or just all the emotional needs that we would see from
kids being out for so long.
Principal I sees a strong push for more mental health resources in schools and has taken
the initiative to make supporting SEL at their site a priority for meeting student needs. The
principal said,
We’re likely in the same place as all schools across the country; the benefits of spending
are going to come from addressing the kids’ needs and primarily the social and emotional
needs of the students so that they can begin to focus on the academics, following
Maslow’s hierarchy of needs.
Assistant Superintendent I explained the decision to have their district support SEL with
the additional COVID funds. The assistant superintendent stated,
We’ve been able to hire additional counselors. So, when you talk about student needs
around social-emotional learning, let’s look at the ratio of counselors to students. By
hiring additional counselors, you’re obviously now providing a great deal more support
to students, and we weren’t able to, prior to the pandemic, without that money. Without
that emergency relief money, you wouldn’t be able to bring on additional counselors at
the elementary and secondary levels. And we’ve been able to do that.
98
Superintendent G also believed the additional COVID-19 supports should be used to
focus on student social-emotional needs. The superintendent shared, “We’ve increased our
counseling staff. To address some of the social-emotional needs, we have contracted with some
organizations to focus on social-emotional.”
The findings on how Southern California K–12 public school districts gathered input
from the community, how they communicated with families, and how they addressed the
concerns of the parent community during the COVID-19 crisis revealed three distinct themes:
frequent communication, technology, safety, and nutrition concerns, and mental health support.
As school districts scrambled to move to online instruction, school district leadership
continuously maintained contact with families through frequent communication and addressed
technology, safety, nutrition, and mental health concerns with support services. The survey
results show that the majority of Southern California K–12 public school district superintendents,
assistant superintendents, and principals agreed or strongly agreed that their districts maintained
good communication with families during the pandemic, met the needs of students and families
in the areas of nutrition, technology, social-emotional and well-being, health and safety, and
academics.
Summary
Chapter Four presented the analyzed data and findings from surveys and interviews
designed to answer four research questions. Several themes emerged that were supported by the
literature, and the findings add to the body of existing literature surrounding the impact of the
COVID-19 pandemic on nine Southern California K–12 public school districts and the role of
leadership in managing the crisis.
99
Research Question 1 examined the financial implications that the COVID-19 pandemic
had on nine K–12 public school districts in Southern California and how nine district
superintendents, seven assistant superintendents, and seven principals addressed these
implications. The findings indicated that school districts received substantial funds that allowed
school districts to purchase additional teaching and support positions, but due to the current labor
shortage, filling those positions has been a great challenge for some school districts. The findings
also reveal that school districts could meet the technology and safety needs of students and
families thanks to the additional funding received through the CARES Act. Research Question 2
addressed federal, state, and local health and safety guidelines. The findings revealed that the
county health office and county office of education worked together to guide the local
communities based on Federal and state data. This guidance was confusing and frustrating for
superintendents, assistant superintendents, and principals but was also extremely helpful,
especially when students began to return to campus for in-person learning. Research Question 3
examined the impacts that the certificated and classified unions had on the nine K–12 public
school districts in Southern California during the COVID-19 pandemic and how nine district
superintendents, seven assistant superintendents, and seven principals addressed these
implications. The findings showed majority support for how the superintendents, assistant
superintendents, and principals handled and managed both the certificated and the classified
unions. However, it should be noted that nearly 20% or more for each survey question did
disagree or strongly disagree. The findings express that there is still room for improvement in
dealing with the certificated and classified unions, but steps and actions were made in the correct
direction. The final research question addressed how school districts communicated with families
100
and how they addressed the concerns of the parent community. Findings indicate that districts
conducted frequent updates using various tools to keep the families informed of the constantly
changing policies and protocols. The findings also show that families required technological and
mental health support. Families expressed concerns about implementing the safety protocols
such as masking and social distancing and their nutritional needs.
Chapter Five will further discuss the implications of these findings, limitations of the
research, and recommendations for further research around the topic of the impact of the
COVID-19 pandemic on Southern California K–12 public school districts and the role of
superintendents, assistant superintendents, and principals in managing the crisis.
101
Chapter Five: Discussion
The COVID-19 pandemic imposed great demands and decision-making dilemmas on
Southern California K–12 public school district superintendents, assistant superintendents, and
principals. As reported in Chapter Four, school districts were provided additional funds to
support school safety and health protocols, and superintendents, assistant superintendents, and
principals had to make rapid financial decisions in short time frames to meet the needs of
students and families. They also had to implement diverse strategies to address the suggested
guidelines from the federal, state, and local health agencies, consider union voices, and
relationships, as they made safety and academic decisions. Southern California K–12
superintendents, assistant superintendents, and principals addressed the concerns of the parent
community regarding safety, nutrition, distance learning, lack of technology, academic standing,
and school re-openings. Throughout all their decision-making, they had to keep in mind the
needs of at-risk groups such as marginalized populations, English Language Learners, and
special education students. This chapter summarizes the study and then discusses implications
for practice and recommendations for further study.
Statement of the Problem
The COVID-19 pandemic disrupted Southern California K–12 public school districts,
causing unforeseen consequences within the education system and highlighting financial
implications, the impact of agencies, negotiations with unions, and the impact on students and
the community. COVID-19 shifted the roles and scope of schools and school leaders, beyond
instructional leaders and transforming them into crisis managers.
102
Purpose of the Study
The purpose of this study is to analyze the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on
Southern California K–12 public school districts and understand what district and site
administrators have learned from their experiences and their decision-making responsibilities in
managing the crisis. This study brings to light the impact of the pandemic on students, families,
leaders, schools, and districts. Most importantly, this study examines how district and school
leadership influences administrative practices, student achievement, financial responsibility,
union leadership, and community/parent support as they responded to the COVID-19 crisis.
Research Questions
The following four research questions guided the study:
1. What, if any, are the financial implications that the COVID-19 pandemic has had on
K–12 public school districts in Southern California, and how have district
superintendents, assistant superintendents, and principals addressed these
implications?
2. What, if any, has been the impact of federal, state, and local health agencies on K–12
public school districts in Southern California, and what strategies have district
superintendents, assistant superintendents, and principals followed to address the
suggested guidelines?
3. How, if at all, have union negotiations played a role in K–12 Southern California
public school districts’ response to the COVID-19 pandemic?
4. How, if at all, have K–12 Southern California public school districts leadership teams
comprised of superintendents, assistant superintendents, and principals addressed the
103
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?
Methodology
This study was designed as a mixed-methods study, utilizing qualitative and quantitative
methods to collect and analyze the data. In the qualitative portion of the study, semi-structured
interviews were conducted to collect open-ended responses. In the quantitative portion of the
study, closed-ended surveys were used to collect data. The participants for both methodologies
included school superintendents, assistant superintendents, and principals of Southern California
K–12 public school districts.
Sample and Population
The target population for the study was leaders of Southern California K–12 public
school districts; superintendents, assistant superintendents, and principals. The selection criteria
to participate in the study included the following:
•
Participants must be currently employed at a traditional public Southern California
K–12, K–8, Elementary, or High School district
•
Participants must currently hold the title of superintendent, assistant superintendent,
or principal
•
Participants must have worked in their current role for at least one year
•
Participants must have served in their current positions during the 2020–2021 school
year
•
The student population of the district where participants work is at least one thousand.
104
•
The minimum sample size for the interviews was set at nine participants, and the
minimum sample size for the survey responses was set at nine participants.
Superintendents, assistant superintendents, and principals selected for this study played a
role in supporting school districts and school sites during the COVID-19 pandemic. The results
from the interviews and surveys collected were compared to the results collected by other
research team members.
Data Collection
The data collection process through surveys and interviews began during the spring 2022
semester after obtaining approval from the University of Southern California Institutional
Review Board (IRB). District superintendents were contacted via email in a formal written
request, followed by a phone conversation to obtain permission for the study and gain access to
assistant superintendents and principals. Once permission was granted, participants were
contacted for participation in the study via email. The email included a summary of the research
study, a request to participate, and a link to the survey. In addition, participants were contacted
by phone to encourage responses to the surveys and to request interviews.
Discussion of Findings
The findings in this study were based on the data collected and analyzed by the three
researchers. This section will interpret the combined qualitative and quantitative data results and
link the findings back to the literature. Key findings based on data analysis from Chapter Four
are presented below in order by research question. The research questions looked at the impact of
the COVID-19 pandemic on students, families, leaders, schools, and districts in Southern
California.
105
Research Question 1 asked, “What, if any, are the financial implications that the
COVID-19 pandemic has had on K–12 public school districts in Southern California and how
have district superintendents, assistant superintendents and principals addressed these
implications?” It was evident from the survey and interview questions that the participating
Southern California K–12 public school district superintendents, assistant superintendents, and
principals believed the following:
1. The CARES Act funding met their districts’ needs in personnel, PPE, technology,
learning and/or training, and facility upgrades.
2. The additional funding allocations came with many restrictions and timelines with
minimal support for designating expiring funds.
3. The additional funding is a short-term remedy for issues and resources that need long-
term funding.
The findings indicated that Southern California K–12 public school district
superintendents, assistant superintendents, and principals believe the additional funding
allocation provided by the CARES Act supported the need to fund additional staff, purchase and
upgrade technology, and the need to purchase safety equipment. The findings demonstrated that
additional personnel was funded to support extracurricular activities, reduce class size, add social
workers, teach full-day online school, and perform custodial duties. Due to a labor shortage,
filling personnel positions was challenging for many school districts. According to Herold
(2020a), schools faced multiple barriers as they attempted to use technology to keep the
education system running since many schools did not have enough devices available for their
students. The findings demonstrated that technology needs were a universal sentiment. Districts
106
that were not a one-to-one device school district could provide at least one device to all students
because of the additional funds provided through the CARES Act. Districts that had already
implemented a one-to-one program could upgrade their technology because of the additional
funding allocation.
School districts had additional costs as they complied with health and safety measures.
Schools unexpectedly had to invest in PPE, such as masks, hand sanitizer, shields, and
equipment (Gordon & Reber, 2020). The findings show that school districts felt the CARES Act
met their needs in the area of PPE. The findings also demonstrate that districts felt they could
protect their students and staff because of the health and safety measures that were put in place.
Participating K–12 Southern California superintendents, assistant superintendents, and principals
shared that the expiring funds came with many restrictions and timelines that forced them to
make hasty decisions. They believed that this additional funding was a short-term remedy for
issues that will continue to be necessary until funding runs out.
Research Question 2 asked, “What, if any, has been the impact of federal, state and local
health agencies on K–12 public school districts in Southern California, and what strategies have
district superintendents, assistant superintendents, and principals followed to address the
suggested guidelines?” The COVID-19 pandemic effects are widespread (Colizzi et al., 2020;
Herold, 2020b; World Health Organization Coronavirus Dashboard, 2021). The health and safety
guidance given by California (as guided by the CDC, a federal agency) created the pathway to
California’s stay-at-home order and mandated social distancing policies. Because the restrictions
in these orders would not allow for in-person schooling, schools and districts found creative new
ways to reach their students and conduct online opportunities for learning (Herold, 2020b). The
107
changing role of educators is highlighted here, as school staff had to bring their entire school
online in a short period of time while still following state-mandated social distancing protocols.
In an attempt to return to normalcy, the rush to online, hybrid, and in-person learning may have
been implemented before educators were ready, highlighting the changing role of educators
during this time (Bubb & Jones, 2020; Ferlazzo, 2020; Kurtz, 2020a; Lieberman, 2020). Parents
were also tasked with evolving roles as they had to be more involved with their children’s
schoolwork and learning, which took place at home (EdSource Staff, 2020a; Garbe et al., 2020).
All of these changing roles, from school districts to schools to classrooms to online learning
environments to staff and student homes, allowed learning to continue within the confines of a
restrictive, state-wide stay-at-home order (Herold, 2020b). The analysis of the study data
revealed the following findings:
1. The guidance provided by federal, state, and local health agencies regarding the safe
reopening of schools was confusing and conflicting but also beneficial.
2. Educational leaders’ roles changed to crisis managers as they were responsible for
implementing state and health guidelines.
3. The health guidelines impacted districts’ reopening plans. Nearly one-third disagreed
that they knew how to bring back staff safely in the fall of 2020, based on state and
county guidance, but they did it anyway.
The findings on the impact of federal, state, and local health agencies on K–12 public
school districts in Southern California and the strategies district superintendents, assistant
superintendents, and principals used to address the suggested guidelines demonstrated three
distinct themes: the federal, state and local guidance caused frustration and confusion but was a
108
vital source of evolving COVID-19 information; educational leaders’ traditional roles shifted to
crisis managers; and the federal, state and local guidance affected school districts’ reopening
plans. According to the findings, the county provided most of the COVID-19-related health and
safety information based on information provided by the state and Federal governments.
Superintendents held weekly meetings with the county office of public health to obtain these
updates and used this information to inform their decisions on reopening plans. Some of the
guidance caused frustration and confusion because the COVID-19 data changed frequently and
developments and responses were often conflicting. Ultimately, school districts utilized this
COVID-19 data to inform their reopening plans and make health and safety decisions, even
when they did not fully understand the guidance.
Research Question 3 asked, “How, if at all, have union negotiations played a role in K–12
Southern California public school districts’ response to the COVID-19 pandemic?” The results
from the survey and interview questions indicated that the participating Southern California K–
12 public school district superintendents, assistant superintendents, and principals believed:
1. The keys to effective bargaining are two-way communication and relationship
building.
2. A collaborative approach to union negotiations played a prominent role in the way
districts effectively responded to the COVID-19 pandemic for students and families.
3. Classified unions were open to changes in job descriptions so members could
continue employment during the pandemic while meeting the needs of students.
4. Negotiations with the teachers’ union impacted the quality of instruction offered to
students during distance learning.
109
The findings gathered for Research Question 3 showed three distinct themes:
memorandums of understanding (MOUs), job description changes, and relationships. Using
relationships already established, the superintendents, assistant superintendents, and principals
asked those around them to work together, outside of their job descriptions, to creatively find
new ways to teach and reach students through the COVID-19 pandemic and to ensure safety for
all. Although classes were held remotely, facilities were still operating in many school districts,
and classified employees had to show up to work. Custodians had to clean, disinfect and seal
classrooms, food service staff had to prepare hundreds of grab-and-go meals daily, bus drivers
ran meal sites and made breakfast deliveries, tech workers were busy setting up devices and
assisting with internet issues, and teacher aides were supporting students and teachers with
remote education (Mahnken, 2020; Weingarten, 2020a, 2020b). The results demonstrate how
Southern California K–12 public school district superintendents, assistant superintendents, and
principals’ decisions were influenced by the COVID-19 pandemic and union negotiations.
Research Question 4 asked, “How, if at all, have K–12 Southern California public school
districts leadership teams comprised of superintendents, assistant superintendents, and principals
addressed the concerns of the parent community regarding safety, nutrition, distance learning,
lack of technology, academic standing, and how and when to reopen schools due to the
COVID-19 pandemic?” The findings from the survey and interview questions indicated that the
participating Southern California K–12 public school district superintendents, assistant
superintendents, and principals believed:
1. School districts maintained good communication with families during the pandemic.
110
2. Safety and technology were the main concerns expressed by the parent community
during the pandemic.
3. Schools acted as lifelines for communities as they provided support in the areas of
nutrition, health, social-emotional well-being, and academics.
Overall, how Southern California K–12 public school district superintendents, assistant
superintendents, and principals communicated with families, gathered input from the community,
and addressed the concerns of the parent community during the COVID-19 crisis revealed three
distinct themes: there was adequate communication; technology and safety were significant
community concerns; and schools became lifelines for many students and families, addressing
immediate nutrition concerns, academic learning supports and mental health needs. Research
shows that partnerships between the home and school are a vital element of student success in
traditional school settings (Garbe et al., 2020). The lack of communication can undermine
partnerships between families and school staff. As such, educators emphasize the need for robust
education systems that deliver information and updates to families and engage them in two-way
communication (Garbe et al., 2020; Ondrasek, 2020).
As school districts scrambled to move to online instruction, school district leadership
continuously kept families informed through frequent communication and addressed technology,
safety, nutrition, and mental health concerns with support services. The COVID-19 pandemic has
impacted the partnership between families and schools, as schools have struggled to provide the
support and services that were usually available (Fay et al., 2020). The survey results show that
the majority of participating Southern California K–12 public school district superintendents,
assistant superintendents, and principals agreed or strongly agreed that their districts maintained
111
good communication with families during the pandemic and met the needs of students and
families in the areas of nutrition, technology, social-emotional well-being, health and safety, and
academics.
Limitations
Limitations of this study include the following: the ongoing disruptions caused by the
COVID-19 pandemic on public education; the participants are only from Southern California
public schools; surveys are self-reported; interview questions may contain researcher bias;
interviews were conducted virtually, and the sample may not accurately represent all school
districts in California. The following steps would include a similar process to include a more
extensive representation from different districts throughout California or the United States.
Implications for Practice
The findings of this study imply that state and federal financial support can allow for
necessary additional services to support student needs, especially in the areas of nutrition, social-
emotional, diverse academic learning opportunities, technology, and health and safety. Additional
funds were given to districts to increase safety measures and equipment, as well as provide
mental health and student learning supports outside regular, in-person school hours, such as
tutoring (Blume, 2021b, 2021c; Cowan, 2021; EdSource Staff, 2021; Fay & Ghadimi, 2020;
Hemphill & Marianno, 2020). Research Question 1 analyzed the use of CARES funding, and the
vast majority of participating Southern California K–12 public school district superintendents,
assistant superintendents, and principals agreed that CARES funds were helpful in the
purchasing and distribution of technology, hiring additional personnel to address social-
emotional and academic needs, introducing safety equipment and cleaning protocols and
112
addressing other immediate needs related to COVID-19. Conversely, many participating
Southern California K–12 public school district superintendents, assistant superintendents, and
principals did not know how to fund these positions after the state, and federal COVID-19 funds
expire over the next few years though the need will still be there. The findings imply that
lawmakers should recognize these funds are essential and continue to support social-emotional
needs, nutrition services, paraeducators, librarians, and other essential services, not go backward
and remove the funds when there is still a great need.
The findings from Research Question 2 imply how the roles of educators changed to
crisis managers, utilizing the guidance from federal, state, and local health agencies. During the
COVID-19 pandemic, the data could fluctuate rapidly or from region to region. As such, the data
provided to Southern California K–12 public school district superintendents, assistant
superintendents, and principals fluctuated rapidly, which caused frustration and confusion among
the district leaders tasked with interpreting and implementing the guidance in their schools.
Participating K–12 superintendents, assistant superintendents, and principals agreed that this
same guidance impacted their decisions when considering when to reopen schools for in-person
learning. While this shows hope that health and safety guidance could be utilized even though it
was confusing, one survey finding indicated that more than 30% of participating Southern
California K–12 superintendents, assistant superintendents, and principals did not understand the
guidance provided by the state of California even when preparing for reopening for in-person
learning in fall 2020. These crisis managers had to trust the guidance and rapidly respond to
issues as they arose. However, the levels of uncertainty and unease with the ever-changing
113
guidance made the COVID-19 pandemic an even more challenging crisis to manage for Southern
California K–12 public school district superintendents, assistant superintendents, and principals.
The findings from Research Question 3 imply that collaboration amongst the most
relevant stakeholders influenced the reopening of schools. California unions made their stance on
returning to schools clear in a seven-page handbook titled Classroom Learning and Safe Schools
for Employees and Students (CLASSES, 2021; Fensterwald, 2021). This handbook provided a
pathway to returning to schools safely and was used by local certificated and classified unions
when conducting negotiations to create instructional thresholds based on tiers, priority access to
vaccinations, a phased-in approach to returning to schools, and a variety of added health and
safety standards (Fay & Ghadimi, 2020; Fensterwald, 2021; Hemphill & Marianno, 2020). Staff
members in both classified and certificated unions were ready to return to work but needed to
have these health and safety protocols in place to assure the safety of all. These agreements led to
MOUs that were drafted between employers and unions. The survey results show that more than
60% of participating Southern California K–12 superintendents, assistant superintendents, and
principals believed that these negotiations with unions impacted the quality of instruction offered
to students during distance learning. Collaboration was the necessary component when working
to have schools reopen for in-person learning.
Research Question 4 implies that superintendents, assistant superintendents, and
principals collaborated closely with parents and community members during the pandemic,
notably when planning to return to on-campus, face-to-face learning. These district leaders had to
find creative ways to reach all parents and listen to and address community concerns about how
to return to in-person learning safely. In a study conducted with parents of students involved in
114
distance learning during the COVID-19 pandemic, Garbe et al. (2020) found that parents dealt
with a variety of challenges and successes, but school-parent communication proved to be a core
element in helping parents feel supported at home (Garbe et al., 2020). In many interviews in this
study, participating Southern California K–12 superintendents, assistant superintendents, and
principals discussed the diametrically opposed viewpoints of various community members who
either wanted in-person learning or did not want in-person learning. The theme of
communication and collaboration seemed to be how many participating Southern California K–
12 superintendents, assistant superintendents, and principals were able to respond to significant
concerns from stakeholders. One participating Southern California K–12 district heard parent
concerns about social-emotional learning and brought in additional counselors at all school sites.
In contrast, another district had many parents who were not ready to have their children return to
in-person learning, so the district created an entirely online school. The survey results of this
study also indicate that an overwhelming majority of participating Southern California K–12
superintendents, assistant superintendents, and principals had good communication with families
during the pandemic and met the nutrition, technology, social-emotional, health and safety, and
academic needs of their students and families during the pandemic.
The findings imply that COVID-19 guidance followed a top-down leadership strategy.
The collaboration did not occur between districts and federal, state, and county health agencies.
State and federal government agencies mandated guidance to maximize public safety measures,
such as social distancing and wearing masks when in public (Anderson, 2020; Blume, 2021b,
2021c; Cowan, 2021; Garbe et al., 2020; Herold, 2020b; Malkus et al., 2020b, 2020c). These
mandates evolved as new information and research provided new insights into COVID-19, and it
115
frequently changed, forcing educational leaders to make decisions for their district or schools
based on fluctuating information (Blume, 2021b, 2021c; Cowan, 2021; EdSource Staff, 2020b;
Kuhfeld et al., 2020; Kurtz, 2020a; Will et al., 2020). The data often changed and caused
frustration and confusion amongst Southern California K–12 districts attempting to follow the
most recent guidance.
The findings imply collaboration could have been a valuable tool to support schools
rather than leaving them frustrated and confused with frequently changing data and mandates.
The top leadership, such as the California governor’s office of Gavin Newsom, California
Department of Public Health, California Department of Education, and county health and
education offices, provided the guidance that superintendents were expected to comply with
(Cowan, 2021). The superintendents then ensured their organizational leaders, such as principals,
directors of programs, and assistant superintendents, enacted the efforts to assure the guidance
was followed; from there, these various district leaders communicated to the staff, families,
students, and communities the guidance and how they expected to meet these guidelines
(Anderson et al., 2020; Blume, 2021b, 2021c; Canlé, 2020; Cipriano & Brackett, 2020; Cowan,
2021; Darling-Hammond & Hyler, 2020). Because of the rapidly evolving information during
the pandemic, this process occurred many times in districts across California (Blume, 2021a,
2021c; Cowan, 2021). According to interviews with superintendents, most of these county health
office meetings involved one-way communication with an opportunity to ask questions at the
end of the presentations.
116
Recommendations for Future Research
Due to the scarcity of available research and the limited findings in this study, further
empirical studies about the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on marginalized groups and
school funding are recommended:
1. The impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on the health, nutrition, social-emotional
well-being, and unfinished learning of marginalized groups.
2. The impact on student services when the CARES Act allocation used to fund
additional support personnel is no longer available.
Conclusion
On Friday, March 13, 2020, the educational landscape changed forever. This study adds
to the scarce body of literature regarding the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on K–12 public
school districts in Southern California. The literature and data revealed the unprecedented impact
the COVID-19 pandemic had on students, faculties, and communities, as well as an unknown
lasting impact that will only reveal itself with time. Additionally, K–12 Southern California
superintendents, assistant superintendents, and principals were forced to become crisis managers
overnight and invent creative ways to align with ever-changing guidance. The data finds that
while the CARES funding met the current needs of the participants in the study, there is a grave
concern for when the additional allocation runs out. Moreover, this study is intended to guide
future educational leaders in similar crises who must make quick financial decisions, interact
with federal, state, and health agencies at one time, and focus on their relationships with the
unions while also balancing the needs of students and families. Ultimately, this study revealed
117
that collaboration with staff, families, and agencies must be helpful, consistent, beneficial,
accessible, and include the voices of all stakeholders.
118
References
Achor, S. (2018). Big Potential: How Transforming the Pursuit of Success Raises Our
Achievement, Happiness, and Well-Being. Currency.
Al Alew, M., Cano, R. & D!Agostino, J. (April 15, 2021). Disaster Days: California Public
School Closure Database 2002–2019. Cal Matters. https://disasterdays.calmatters.org/
california-school-closures
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
Anderson, J. (2020, April 16). Harvard EdCast: School leadership during crisis [Panel
discussion]. Leading Systems for Excellence, Equity, and Impact, Cambridge, MA.
https://www.gse.harvard.edu/news/20/04/harvard-edcast-school-leadership-during-crisis
Anderson, J.D. (1988). The Education of Blacks in the South, 1860–1935. The University of
North Carolina Press.
Anderson, M. & Perrin, M. (2018). Nearly one-in-five teens can!t always finish their homework
because of the digital divide. Pew Research Center, October 26, 2018.
Baptiste, D., Commodore-Mensah, Y ., Alexander, K. A., Jacques, K., Wilson, P. R., Akomah, J.,
Sharps, P., & Cooper, L. A. (2020, May 29). COVID-19: Shedding light on racial and
HEALTH inequities in the USA. Journal of Clinical Nursing, 29(15-16), 2734-2736.
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32472591/
119
Bhamani, S., Makhdoom, A. Z., Bharuchi, V ., Ali, N., Kaleem, S., & Ahmed, D. (2020). Home
Learning in Times of COVID: Experiences of Parents. Journal of Education and
Educational Development, 7(1), 9–26. https://doi.org/10.22555/joeed.v7i1.3260
Blume, H. (2021a, April 8). Less distancing, no COVID tests: LAUSD parents seek court order
to force wider reopening. Los Angeles Times. https://www.latimes.com/california/story/
2021-04-08/parents-sue-lausd-push-wider-reopeningno-covid-tests
Blume, H. (2021b, April 6). Newsom pushes for K–12 full reopening in the fall; New state
guidance indicates that schools should be offering classes five days a week and in person,
Newsom says, while avoiding mandate. Los Angeles Times.
Blume, H. (2021c, March 21). California adopts 3-foot-spacing rule for classrooms, changing
reopening equation. Los Angeles Times.
Blustein, D., Kenny, M., DiFabio, A. & Guichard, J. (2019). Expanding the Impact of the
Psychology of Working: Engaging Psychology in the Struggle for Decent Work and
Human Rights. Journal of Career Assessment, 27(1), 3–28. https://doi.org/
10.1177/1069072718774002.
Bolman, L. G., & Deal, L. G. (2017). Reframing organizations: Artistry, choice and leadership
(6th ed.). Jossey-Bass.
Braunack-Mayer, A., Tooher, R., Collins, J.E., Street, J. M., & Marshall, H. (2013).
Understanding the school community!s response to school closures during the H1N1
2009 influenza pandemic. BMC Public Health, 13(1), 344–344. https://doi.org/
10.1186/1471-2458-13-344
120
Bubb, S. & Jones, M. (2020). Learning from the COVID-19 home-schooling experience:
Listening to pupils, parents/carers and teachers. Improving Schools, 23(3) 209–222.
Bushweller, K. (2020, November 4). How Personalized Learning Is Weathering Tough Times:
"Iterate and Learn!. Education Week. https://www.edweek.org/leadership/how-
personalized-learning-is-weathering-tough-times-iterate-and-learn/2020/11
CA Safe Schools for All (2021). Definitions. CA Safe Schools for All. https://
schools.covid19.ca.gov/pages/definitions
California School Employees Association (CSEA; 2021). About us. CSEA. https://
www.csea.com/about-us.
California Department of Education. (CDE; n.d.). Coronavirus Response and School Reopening
Guidance. CDE. https://www.cde.ca.gov/ls/he/hn/coronavirus.asp
California Department of Education (CDE; 2020). COVID-19 Guidance in the Child Nutrition
Programs. CDE. Nutrition Services. https://www.cde.ca.gov/ls/nu/
cnpcovid19guidance.asp
California Department of Public Health. (CDPH; 2021). About. CDPH. https://www.cdph.ca.gov/
Pages/About.aspx
Canlé, A. (2020). Keeping lines of communication open during distance learning. Edutopia, June
17, 2020.
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC; 2021, April 30). Guidance for What School
Nutrition Professionals and Volunteers at Schools Need to Know about COVID-19. CDC
Work and School. www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/community/organizations/
school-nutrition-professionals.html
121
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC; 2019). 2009 H1N1 Pandemic (H1N1pdm09
virus). CDC. https://www.cdc.gov/flu/pandemic-resources/2009-h1n1-pandemic.html
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. (CDC; 2004, January 13). CDC Fact Sheet. CDC.
https://www.cdc.gov/sars/about/fs-SARS.pdf
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC; n.d.). Mission, Role and Pledge. CDC.
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. Yale Center for Emotional Intelligence. https://
greatergood.berkeley.edu/article/item/
how_to_support_teachers_emotional_needs_right_now
CLASSES (2021). Classroom Learning and Safe Schools for Employees and Students
(CLASSES). Published by California School Employees Association (CSEA), California
Federation of Teachers (CFT), California Teachers Association (CTA), Service
Employees International Union (SEIU), and American Federation of State, County and
Municipal Employees (AFSCME). https://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/20471648/
reopening-plan-unions-020321.pdf
Colizzi, M., Bortoletto, R., Silvestri, M., Mondini, F., Puttini, E., Cainelli, C., Guadino, R.,
Ruggeri, M. & Zoccante, L. (2020, May). Medically unexplained symptoms in the times
of COVID-19 pandemic: A case report. Brain Behavior Immunity Health, 5. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.bbih.2020.100073
122
Combe, L. G. (2020, September). Converging pandemics impact on students, schools, and
communities COVID-19 and Racism. NASN School Nurse. https://journals.sagepub.com/
doi/pdf/10.1177/1942602X20945324
Condon, E., Dettmer, A., Gee, D., Hagan, C., Lee, K., Mayes, L., Stover, C. & Tseng, W. (2020,
June 3). COVID-19 exposes enduring inequities for children and families. ResearchGate.
https://doi.org/10.31234/osf.io/28vsj
Cornell, M. (2018, November 13). How catastrophic fires have raged through California.
National Geographic. https://www.nationalgeographic.com/environment/article/how-
california-fire-catastrophe-unfolded?loggedin=true
Cowan, J. (2021, March 8). What to Know About California!s Plan to Reopen Schools. New York
Times.
D!Angelo, A. (2018, January 7). Schools resume following loss of instructional time from the
Thomas Fire. Ventura County Star. www.vcstar.com/story/news/education/2018/01/07/
schools-resume-following-loss-instructional-time-thomas-fire/996220001/
Darling-Hammond, L. & Hyler, M. (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
Denzin, N. K. (2016). Critical qualitative inquiry. Qualitative Inquiry, 23(1), 8–16. https://
doi.org/10.1177/1077800416681864
Dorn, E., Hancock, B., Sarakatsannis, J., & Viruleg, E. (2020, June 1). COVID-19 and student
learning in the United States: The Hurt could last a lifetime. McKinsey & Company.
https://www.mckinsey.com/industries/public-and-social-sector/our-insights/covid-19-and-
123
student-learning-in-the-united-states-the-hurt-could-last-a-lifetime
Dubey, S., Biswas, P., Ghosh, R., Chatterjee, S., Dubey, M., Chatterjee, Subham, Lahiri, D. and
Lavie, C. (2020, May). Psychosocial impact of COVID-19. Diabetes & Metabolic
Syndrome: Clinical Research & Reviews, 14(5), 779–788. https://doi.org/
10.1016j.dsx.2020.05.035
Dunn, C. Kenney, E., Fleischhacker, S. and Bleich, S. (2020, March 30). Feeding Low-Income
Children during the Covid-19 Pandemic. New England Journal of Medicine, 382(18).
https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMp2005638
Durado, D. (2020, June 8). Educators must address the trauma students have endured these past
weeks. EdSource. https://edsource.org/2020/educators-must-address-the-trauma-
studentshave-endured-these-past-weeks/633137
EdData (2021). Fiscal, Demographic, and Performance Data on California!s K–12 Schools.
EdData database. https://www.ed-data.org
EdData: Education Data Partnership (2021). Negotiating teachers!#contracts in California.
EdData. www.ed-data.org/article/Negotiating- Teachers%27-Contracts-in-California.
Edglossary.org (2013, August 29). Cohort. The Glossary of Education Reform. https://
www.edglossary.org/cohort/
Edglossary.org (2013, August 29). Learning Loss. The Glossary of Education Reform. https://
www.edglossary.org/learning-loss/
Edglossary.org (2014, September 25). Stakeholder. The Glossary of Education Reform. https://
www.edglossary.org/stakeholder/
124
EdSource Staff (2021, April 22). As California schools reopen to in-person instruction, students
and families decide if it's right for them. EdSource. https://edsource.org/2021/
ascalifornia-schools-reopen-to-in-person-instruction-students-andfamilies-decide-if-its-
right-for-them/652944
EdSource Staff (2020a, September 17). Families face the demands of online and hybrid
learning: Stories from sixteen families across the state. EdSource. https://edsource.org/
2020/families-face-the-demands-of-online-and-hybrid-learning/639224
EdSource Staff (2020b, September 10). The next big hurdle: California schools grapple with
how, when or if to reopen campuses. EdSource. https://edsource.org/2020/the-next-big-
hurdle -california-schools-grapple-with-how-when-or-if-to-reopen-campuses/639797
Exceptional Lives (2019, September 14). Special Education: A Glossary of Terms and Acronyms.
Exceptional Lives. www.exceptionallives.org/blog/special-education-a- glossary-of-
terms-and-acronyms
Fay, D. & Ghadimi, A. (2020). Collective Bargaining during Times of Crisis: Recommendations
from the COVID-19 Pandemic. Public Administration Review, 80(5), 815–819. https://
doi.org/10.1111/puar.13233.
Fay, J., Levinson, M., Stevens, A., Brighouse, H., & Geron, T. (2020). Schools during the
COVID-19 P ANDEMIC: Sites and sources of Community Resilience. Harvard University
Edgar J. Safra: Center for Ethics. https://ethics.harvard.edu/schools-during-covid-19
Fensterwald, J. (2020, March 14). Gov. Newsom assures school districts they'll be funded during
coronavirus closures. EdSource. https://edsource.org/2020/newsom-assures-districts-
theyll-be-funded-during-coronavirus-closures/625750
125
Fensterwald, J. (2021, February 4). Dispute widens between Gov. Newsom, school employee
unions over reopening campuses. EdSource. https://edsource.org/2021/dispute-widens-
between governor-and-school-employee-unions-over-reopening-california-campuses/
648153
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.
Ferlazzo, L. (2020, December 8). Strategies for engaging students in 'meaningful' online
learning experiences (opinion). Education Week. https://www.edweek.org/teaching-
learning/opinion-strategies-for-engaging-students-in-meaningful-online-learning-
experiences/2020/08
Fernandez, A. & Shaw, G. (2020). Academic leadership in a time of crisis: The Coronavirus and
COVID-19. Journal of Leadership Studies, 14(1). https://doi.org/10.1002/jls.21684
Fullan, M. (2014). The Principal: Three Keys to Maximizing Impact. Jossey-Bass.
Fullan, M. & Quinn, J. (2016). Coherence. Corwin.
Gainey, B. (2009, July-August). Crisis Management's New Role in Educational Settings.
Clearing House: A Journal of Educational Strategies, Issues and Ideas, 82(6); 267-274.
https://www.jstor.org/stable/20697878
Garbe, A., Ogurlu, U., Logan, N., & Cook, P. (2020). COVID-19 and Remote Learning:
Experiences of Parents with Children during the Pandemic. American Journal of
126
Qualitative Research, 4(3), 45–65. https://www.ajqr.org/download/parents-experiences-
with-remote-education-during-covid-19-school-closures-8471.pdf
Ghosh, R., Dubey, M. J., Chatterjee, S., & Dubey, S. (2020, June). Impact of Covid-19 on
Children: Special focus on the psychosocial aspect. Minerva Pediatrica, 72(3); 226-235.
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32613821/
Glass, Kelly (2020, June 29). Black Families Were Hit Hard by the Pandemic. The Effects on
Children May Be Lasting. New York Times. https://search-proquest-
com.libproxy2.usc.edu/docview/2417977531?accountid=14749&pq-origsite=primo
Glesne, C. (2011). Becoming qualitative researchers: An introduction. Pearson.
Goleman, D., Boyatzis, R. & McKee, A. (2013). Primal Leadership. Harvard Business Review
Press.
Gordon, N. E., & Reber, S. J. (2020). Federal Aid to School Districts During the COVID-19
Recession. National Bureau of Economic Research. https://www.nber.org/system/files/
working_papers/w27550.pdf.
Havranek, E., Mujahid, M., Barr, D., Blair, I., Cohen, M., Cruz-Flores, S., Davey-Smith, G.,
Dennison-Himmelfarb, C., Lauer, M., Lockwood, D., Rosal, M. & Yancy, C. (2015).
Social Determinants of Risk and Outcomes for Cardiovascular Disease. Circulation, 132,
873–898. https://doi.org/10.1161/CIR.0000000000000228
Hebebci, M. T., Bertiz, Y ., & Alan, S. (2020). Investigation of views of students and teachers on
distance education practices during the Coronavirus (COVID-19) Pandemic.
International Journal of Technology in Education and Science (IJTES), 4(4), 267–282.
Hemphill, A. A., & Marianno, B. D. (2020). Teachers’#unions, collective bargaining, and the
127
response to COVID-19. Education Finance and Policy, 16(1), 1–13.
Herold, B. (2020a, April 1). The disparities in remote learning under coronavirus (in charts).
Education Week. https://www.edweek.org/ew/articles/2020/04/10/the-disparities-in-
remote-learning-under-coronavirus.html
Herold, B. (2020b). The Scramble to Move America's Schools Online: Already in crisis mode,
K–12 schools must now figure out how to educate tens of millions of children stuck at
home due to the coronavirus pandemic. Education Week, 39(28), 14. http://
libproxy.usc.edu/login?url=https://www-proquest-com.libproxy2.usc.edu/trade-journals/
scramble-move-americas-schools-online/docview/2385856595/se-2?accountid=14749
Human Rights Watch (2020, April 9). COVID-19!s devastating impact on children. https://
www.hrw.org/news/2020/04/09/covid-19s-devastating-impact-children#
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, 103439.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7205696/
Kinsey, E., Hecht, A., Dunn, C., Levi, R, Read, M., Smith, C., Niesen, P. Seligman, H, & Hager,
E. (2020). School Closures During COVID-19: Opportunities for Innovation in Meal
Service. American Journal of Public Health, November 2020, 110(11), 1635–1643.
https://doi.org/10.2105/AJPH.2020.305875
128
Klein, Alyson (2020, November 4). Why personalized learning is struggling during COVID-19.
Education Week. https://www.edweek.org/leadership/why-personalized-learning-is-
struggling-during-covid-19/2020/11
Kuhfeld, M., Soland, J., Tarasawa, B., Johnson, A., Ruzek, E., & Liu, J. (2020). Projecting the
Potential Impact of COVID-19 School Closures on Academic Achievement. Educational
Researcher, 49(8), 549–565. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X20965918
Kurtz, H. (2020a, October 15). In-Person Learning Expands, Student Absences Up, Teachers
Work Longer, Survey Shows. Education Week. https://www.edweek.org/leadership/in-
person-learning-expands-student-absences-up-teachers-work-longer-survey-shows/
2020/10
Kurtz, H. (2020b, April 10). National survey tracks impact of coronavirus on schools: 10 key
findings. Education Week. https://www.edweek.org/teaching-learning/national-survey-
tracks-impact-of-coronavirus-on-schools-10-key-findings/2020/04
Ladson-Billings, G. (2006). From the Achievement Gap to the Education Debt: Understanding
Achievement in U.S. Schools. Educational Researcher, 35(7), 3–12.
Lardieri, A. (2019, October 31). Another Victim of the California Wildfires: Education. U.S.
News & World Report. www.usnews.com/news/education-news/articles/2019-10-31/
another-victim-of-the-california-wildfires-education
Lieberman, M (2020, November 11). How Hybrid Learning Is (and Is Not) Working During
COVID-19: 6 Case Studies. Education Week. https://www.edweek.org/leadership/how-
hybrid-learning-is-and-is-not-working-during-covid-19-6-case-studies/2020/11
129
Lochmiler, C. R. & Lester, J. N. (2017). An introduction to educational research: Connecting
methods to practice. Sage Publications.
Mahnken, K. (2020, July 22). New study does not find stark differences in how district, charter
and private schools responded to COVID-19 crisis. L.A. School Report. https://
laschoolreport.com/new-study-does-not-find-stark-differences-in-how-district-charter-
and-private-schools-responded-to-covid-19-crisis/
Malkus, N., Christensen, C., & West, L. (2020a). School district responses to the COVID-19
pandemic: Round 1, districts!#initial responses. Washington: American Enterprise
Institute for Public Policy Research. https://www.aei.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/
School-district-responses-to-the-COVID-19-pandemic-round-1.pdf?x91208
Malkus, N., Christensen, C., & West, L. (2020b). School district responses to the COVID-19
pandemic: Round 2, districts are up and running. Washington: American Enterprise
Institute for Public Policy Research. https://www.aei.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/
School-district-responses-to-the-COVID-19-pandemic-round-2.pdf?x91208
Malkus, N., Christensen, C., & Shurz, J. (2020c). School district responses to the COVID-19
pandemic: Round 6, ending the year of closures. Washington: American Enterprise
Institute for Public Policy Research. https://www.aei.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/06/
School-district-responses-to-the-COVID-19-Pandemic-Round-6.pdf
Maxwell, J. A. (2013). Qualitative research design: An interactive approach (3rd ed.). SAGE.
Merriam, S. B., & Tisdell, E. J. (2016). Qualitative research: A guide to design and
implementation (4th ed.). Jossey-Bass.
130
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
Mongey, S., Pilossoph, L. & Weinberg, A. (2021). Which workers bear the burden of social
distancing? National Bureau of Economic Research. http://www.nber.org/papers/w27085
Murray, C., Kulkarni, S., Michaud, C., Tomijima, N., Bulzacchelli, M., Iandiorio, T. & Ezzati, M.
(2006, September). Eight Americas: Investigating Mortality Disparities across Races,
Counties, and Race-Counties in the United States. PLOS Medicine, 3(9), 1513–1524.
National Conference for State Legislatures (NCSL; 2021, January). COVID-19: Essential
workers in the States. NCSL. 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.
NBC News (2009, October 28). Swine flu closes more than 600 schools in the U.S. Associated
Press. https://www.nbcnews.com/id/wbna33520744
Office of Governor Gavin Newsom. (2020, April 1). Governor Newsom announces agreement
between teachers, classified employees and school system management to support student
instruction during COVID-19 outbreak [Press release]. https://www.gov.ca.gov/
2020/04/01/governor-newsom-announces-agreement-between-teachers-classified-
employees-and-school-system-management-to-support-student-instruction during-
covid-19-outbreak/
131
Ondrasek, N. (2020, September 28). Learning in the Time of Covid-19. Learning Policy
Institute. https://learningpolicyinstitute.org/blog/covid-home-school-partnerships-key-
supporting-students-disabilities
Pulham, E., & Graham, C.R. (2018). Comparing K–12 online and blended teaching
competencies: a literature review, Distance Education, 39(3), 411–432. https://doi.org/
10.1080/01587919.2018.1476840
Rundle, A., Park, Y ., Herbstman, J., Kinsey, E. and Wang, Y (2020, June). COVID-19–Related
School Closings and Risk of Weight Gain Among Children. Obesity, 28(6).
Singer, B.J., Thompson, R.N. & Bonsall, M.B. (2021). The effect of the definition of "pandemic!
on quantitative assessments of infectious disease outbreak risk. Sci Rep, 11, 2547. https://
doi.org/10.1038/s41598-021-81814-3
Spring, J. (2016). Deculturalization and the struggle for equality: A brief history of the education
of dominated cultures in the United States (8th ed.). Routledge.
Stern, C. (2009). Closing The Schools: Lessons From The 1918–19 U.S. Influenza Pandemic:
Ninety-one years later, the evidence shows that there are positive and negative ways to do
it. Health Affairs, 28(Supplement 1), w1066–w1078. https://doi.org/10.1377/
hlthaff.28.6.w1066
Taub, A. (2020, April 14). A New Covid-19 Crisis: Domestic Abuse Rises Worldwide. New York
Times.
U.S. Department of Education (2021, May). Elementary and Secondary School Emergency Relief
Fund. U.S. Department of Education. https://oese.ed.gov/offices/education-stabilization-
fund/elementary-secondary-school-emergency-relief-fund/
132
UNICEF (2020, March 20). COVID-19: Children at heightened risk of abuse, neglect,
exploitation and violence amidst intensifying containment measures. [press release].
https://www.unicef.org/press-releases/covid-19-children-heightened-risk-abuse-neglect-
exploitation-and-violence-amidst
United States Department of Labor (2021). Personal Protective Equipment—Overview.
Occupational Safety and Health Administration. https://www.osha.gov/personal-
protective-equipment
Usher, K., Bhullar, N., Durkin, J., Gyamfi, N. and Jackson, D. (2020). Family violence and
COVID-19: Increased vulnerability and reduced options for support. International
Journal of Mental Health Nursing (2020) 29, 549–552. https://doi.org/10.1111/inm.12735
Van Lancker, W. & Parolin, Z. (2020). COVID-19, school closures, and child poverty: a social
crisis in the making. The Lancet, 5(5), 243-244. https://doi.org/10.1016/
S2468-2667(20)30084-0
Vavra, J. (2020, March 27). Shutdown Sectors Represent Large Share of All U.S. Employment.
Becker Friedman Institute for Economics at the University of Chicago.
Viner, R. M., Russel, S. J., Croker, H., Packer, J., Ward, J., Stransfield, C., Mytton, O., Bonell,
C., & Booy, R. (2020, April 6). School closure and management practices during
coronavirus outbreaks including covid-19: A rapid systematic review. The Lancet Child &
Adolescent Health, 4(5), 397-404. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32272089/
Walters, A. (2020). Inequities in access to education: Lessons from the COVID-19 pandemic.
The Brown University Child and Adolescent Behavior Letter, 36(8), 8-8. https://
onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10/1002/cbl/30483.
133
Weingarten, S. (2020a, April 6). Custodians on the front lines of COVID-19 pandemic. California
Federation of Teachers. https://www.cft.org/article/custodians-front-lines-covid-19-
pandemic
Weingarten, S. (2020b, April 6). Food service workers whip up millions of Grab & Go meals.
California Federation of Teachers. https://www.cft.org/article/food-service-workers-
whip-millions-grab-go-meals
Westover, J. (2020). Districts on the Move: Leading a coherent system of continuous
improvement. Corwin.
Will, M., Gewertz, C. & Schwartz, S. (2020, November 17). Did COVID-19 Really Drive
Teachers to Quit? Education Week.
World Health Organization (2021). Who we are. World Health Organization. www.who.int/about/
who-we-are.
World Health Organization (2021). World Health Organization Coronavirus Dashboard. https://
covid19.who.int.
Xiong, J., Lipsitz, O., Nasri, F., Lui, L., Gill, H., Phan, L., Chen-Li, D., Iacobucci, M., Ho, R.,
Majeed, A. & McIntyre, R. (2020, December). Impact of COVID-19 pandemic on mental
health in the general population: A systematic review. Journal of Affective Disorders
(277), 55-64. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0165032720325891
Yancy, C. (2020, April 15). COVID-19 and African Americans. The Journal of American
Medical Association. 323 (19), 1891-1892. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2020.6548
134
Zhou, T., Molfino, T., & Travers, J. (2021, January 13). The cost of COVID: Understanding the
full financial impact of covid-19 on districts and schools. Education Resource Strategies.
https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED610771
135
Appendix A: Letter of Invitation
Date
Dear Superintendent _____________,
My name is [USC STUDENT!S NAME] and I am currently completing my doctoral
dissertation at the University of Southern California!s Rossier School of Education under the
guidance of Dr. Rudy Castruita. I am writing to invite you to participate in a 15-minute survey
and 35-minute virtual interview. In addition, I am also requesting your permission to administer a
survey and conduct an interview with an assistant superintendent and principal in your district.
Within the survey is a place for you to recommend an assistant superintendent and a principal
from your district to participate in this research. Collecting data from highly effective leaders
such as yourselves would be greatly appreciated and is essential for the success of this study.
The ultimate purpose of the study is to analyze the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on
K–12 school districts. We aim to understand what district and site administrators have learned
from their experiences and their decision-making responsibilities in managing the crisis.
This research study has been reviewed and approved by the University of Southern
California Institutional Review Board for Human Subjects Research (IRB). The IRB believes
that the research procedures safeguard your privacy, welfare, civil liberties, anonymity, and
rights. Please be assured that your participation and answers will be kept confidential and
anonymous. The results will be analyzed solely for this dissertation and no identifying
information will be used.
Please click on this survey link to participate.
136
If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me at -----------@----. Thank you
very much for your time and assistance.
Sincerely,
[researcher!s name]
Doctoral Candidate
Rossier School of Education
University of Southern California
137
Appendix B: Letter of Invitation
Date
Dear Assistant Superintendent ___________,
My name is [USC STUDENT!S NAME] and I am currently completing my doctoral
dissertation at the University of Southern California!s Rossier School of Education under the
guidance of Dr. Rudy Castruita. I am writing to invite you to participate in a 15-minute survey
and 35-minute virtual interview. Collecting data from highly effective leaders such as yourself
would be greatly appreciated and is essential for the success of this study.
The ultimate purpose of the study is to analyze the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on
K–12 school districts. We aim to understand what district and site administrators have learned
from their experiences and their decision-making responsibilities in managing the crisis.
This research study has been reviewed and approved by the University of Southern
California Institutional Review Board for Human Subjects Research (IRB). The IRB believes
that the research procedures safeguard your privacy, welfare, civil liberties, anonymity, and
rights. Please be assured that your participation and answers will be kept confidential and
anonymous. The results will be analyzed solely for this dissertation and no identifying
information will be used.
Please click on this survey link to participate. If you have any questions, please feel free
to contact me at -----------@----. Thank you very much for your time and assistance.
Sincerely,
138
[researcher!s name]
Doctoral Candidate
Rossier School of Education
University of Southern California
$
139
Appendix C: Letter of Invitation
Date
Dear Principal ___________,
My name is [USC STUDENT!S NAME] and I am currently completing my doctoral
dissertation at the University of Southern California!s Rossier School of Education under the
guidance of Dr. Rudy Castruita. I am writing to invite you to participate in a 15-minute survey
and 35-minute virtual interview. Collecting data from highly effective leaders such as yourself
would be greatly appreciated and is essential for the success of this study.
The ultimate purpose of the study is to analyze the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on
K–12 school districts. We aim to understand what district and site administrators have learned
from their experiences and their decision-making responsibilities in managing the crisis.
This research study has been reviewed and approved by the University of Southern
California Institutional Review Board for Human Subjects Research (IRB). The IRB believes
that the research procedures safeguard your privacy, welfare, civil liberties, anonymity, and
rights. Please be assured that your participation and answers will be kept confidential and
anonymous. The results will be analyzed solely for this dissertation and no identifying
information will be used.
Please click on this survey link to participate. If you have any questions, please feel free
to contact me at -----------@----. Thank you very much for your time and assistance.
Sincerely,
140
[researcher!s name]
Doctoral Candidate
Rossier School of Education
University of Southern California
$
141
Appendix D: Superintendent Survey
Thank you for participating in this research project. The goal is to understand how the
COVID-19 pandemic affected K–12 school districts, and in doing so, transformed the role of
district and school site leaders into crisis managers. You were chosen to participate in this survey
because you demonstrated leadership as a superintendent during the COVID-19 crisis.
Your participation in this study is entirely voluntary. Your identity, position, and any
identifying information about your district will be anonymized to secure confidentiality. Thank
you again for your participation. We also invite you to take part in a virtual 35-minute interview
to be scheduled at your convenience after the survey.
Survey Items
1. How many years have you served as a superintendent?
Less than 1 year
1 to 2 years
3 to 5 years
6 to 10 years
Over 10 years
1. How long have you been superintendent at your current district?
Less than 1 year
1 to 2 years
3 to 5 years
6 to 10 years
Over 10 years
142
The continuing survey items utilized a 5-point Likert scale (1 = strongly disagree to 5 =
strongly agree):
3. The CARES Act met my district's funding needs in the area of personnel.
4. The CARES Act met my district's funding needs in the area of personal protective
equipment (PPE).
5. The CARES Act met my district's funding needs in the area of technology.
6. The CARES Act met my district's funding needs in the area of professional learning
and/or training.
7. The CARES Act met my district's funding needs in the area of facility upgrades.
8. The federal, state, and local health guidelines were clear in providing information to
support the safe reopening of schools.
9. I understood how to safely bring back staff during the fall of 2020 to work sites based
on the public health guidelines.
10. The health guidelines impacted our district's return to school plan in the spring of
2021.
11. Negotiations with certificated unions influenced the way my district effectively
responded to the COVID-19 pandemic for students and families.
12. Negotiations with classified unions influenced the way of my district effectively
responding to the COVID-19 pandemic for students and families.
13. Negotiations with the teacher's union impacted the quality of instruction offered to
students during distance learning.
14. My district maintained good communication with families during the pandemic.
143
15. My district met the needs of students and families in the area of nutrition.
16. My district met the needs of students and families in the area of technology
(computers/devices).
17. My district met the needs of students and families in the area of technology (internet
service).
18. My district met the needs of students and families in the area of social emotional
well-being.
19. My district met the needs of students and families in the area of health & safety.
20. My district met the academic needs of students.
21. The board of education supported my district’s response to the COVID-19 pandemic.
22. District administrators supported my district’s response to the COVID-19 pandemic.
23. District facilities and operations teams supported my district’s response to the
COVID-19 pandemic.
24. Teachers supported my district’s response to the COVID-19 pandemic.
25. Classified staff supported my district’s response to the COVID-19 pandemic.
26. Families supported my district’s response to the COVID-19 pandemic.
Open Ended
27. I recommend the following assistant superintendent from my district to participate in
this study:
28. I recommend the following principal from my district to participate in this study:
144
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.
145
Appendix E: Assistant Superintendent Survey
Thank you for participating in this research project. The goal is to understand how the
COVID-19 pandemic affected K–12 school districts, and in doing so, transformed the role of
district and school site leaders into crisis managers. You were chosen to participate in this survey
because you demonstrated leadership as an assistant superintendent during the COVID-19 crisis.
Your participation in this study is entirely voluntary. Your identity, position, and any
identifying information about your district will be anonymized to secure confidentiality. Thank
you again for your participation. We also invite you to take part in a virtual 35-minute interview
to be scheduled at your convenience after the survey.
Survey Items
1. How many years have you served as an assistant superintendent?
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 assistant superintendent at your current district?
Less than 1 year
1 to 2 years
3 to 5 years
6 to 10 years
Over 10 years
146
The continuing survey items utilized a 5-point Likert scale (1 = strongly disagree to 5 =
strongly agree):
3. The CARES Act met my district's funding needs in the area of personnel.
4. The CARES Act met my district's funding needs in the area of personal protective
equipment (PPE).
5. The CARES Act met my district's funding needs in the area of technology.
6. The CARES Act met my district's funding needs in the area of professional learning
and/or training.
7. The CARES Act met my district's funding needs in the area of facility upgrades.
8. The federal, state, and local health guidelines were clear in providing information to
support the safe reopening of schools.
9. I understood how to safely bring back staff during the fall of 2020 to work sites based
on the public health guidelines.
10. The health guidelines impacted our district's return to school plan in the spring of
2021.
11. Negotiations with certificated unions influenced the way my district effectively
responded to the COVID-19 pandemic for students and families.
12. Negotiations with classified unions influenced the way of my district effectively
responding to the COVID-19 pandemic for students and families.
13. Negotiations with the teacher's union impacted the quality of instruction offered to
students during distance learning.
147
14. My district maintained good communication with families during the pandemic.
15. My district met the needs of students and families in the area of nutrition.
16. My district met the needs of students and families in the area of technology
(computers/devices).
17. My district met the needs of students and families in the area of technology (internet
service).
18. My district met the needs of students and families in the area of social emotional
well-being.
19. My district met the needs of students and families in the area of health & safety.
20. My district met the academic needs of students.
21. The board of education supported my district’s response to the COVID-19 pandemic.
22. District administrators supported my district’s response to the COVID-19 pandemic.
23. District facilities and operations teams supported my district’s response to the
COVID-19 pandemic.
24. Teachers supported my district’s response to the COVID-19 pandemic.
25. Classified staff supported my district’s response to the COVID-19 pandemic.
26. Families supported my district’s response to the COVID-19 pandemic.
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.
148
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.
149
Appendix F: Principal Survey
Thank you for participating in this research project. The goal is to understand how the
COVID-19 pandemic affected K–12 school districts, and in doing so, transformed the role of
district and school site leaders into crisis managers. You were chosen to participate in this survey
because you demonstrated leadership as a principal during the COVID-19 crisis.
Your participation in this study is entirely voluntary. Your identity, position, and any
identifying information about your school will be anonymized to secure confidentiality. Thank
you again for your participation. We also invite you to take part in a virtual 35-minute interview
to be scheduled at your convenience after the survey.
Survey Items
1. How many years have you served as a principal?
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 a principal at your current district?
Less than 1 year
1 to 2 years
3 to 5 years
6 to 10 years
Over 10 years
150
The continuing survey items utilized a 5-point Likert scale (1 = strongly disagree to 5 =
strongly agree):
3. The CARES Act met my district's funding needs in the area of personnel.
4. The CARES Act met my district's funding needs in the area of personal protective
equipment (PPE).
5. The CARES Act met my district's funding needs in the area of technology.
6. The CARES Act met my district's funding needs in the area of professional learning
and/or training.
7. The CARES Act met my district's funding needs in the area of facility upgrades.
8. The federal, state, and local health guidelines were clear in providing information to
support the safe reopening of schools.
9. I understood how to safely bring back staff during the fall of 2020 to work sites based
on the public health guidelines.
10. The health guidelines impacted our district's return to school plan in the spring of
2021.
11. Negotiations with certificated unions influenced the way my district effectively
responded to the COVID-19 pandemic for students and families.
12. Negotiations with classified unions influenced the way of my district effectively
responding to the COVID-19 pandemic for students and families.
13. Negotiations with the teacher's union impacted the quality of instruction offered to
students during distance learning.
14. My district maintained good communication with families during the pandemic.
151
15. My district met the needs of students and families in the area of nutrition.
16. My district met the needs of students and families in the area of technology
(computers/devices).
17. My district met the needs of students and families in the area of technology (internet
service).
18. My district met the needs of students and families in the area of social emotional
well-being.
19. My district met the needs of students and families in the area of health & safety.
20. My district met the academic needs of students.
21. The board of education supported my district’s response to the COVID-19 pandemic.
22. District administrators supported my district’s response to the COVID-19 pandemic.
23. District facilities and operations teams supported my district’s response to the
COVID-19 pandemic.
24. Teachers supported my district’s response to the COVID-19 pandemic.
25. Classified staff supported my district’s response to the COVID-19 pandemic.
26. Families supported my district’s response to the COVID-19 pandemic.
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.
152
Thank you for participating in this survey.
153
Appendix G: Superintendent Interview Protocol
Interviewer: _____________________________________ Date: _________________________
Interviewee: _____________________________________ Location: _____________________
Job Title: _______________________________________ Contact Information: ____________
Length of Time in Your Position: __________________________________________________
Introduction
[Introduce yourself and your affiliation.]
During this conversation, we hope to learn more about the COVID-19 pandemic and your
experience as a superintendent during this time. The ultimate goal of this study is to better
understand leadership during a crisis.
Your comments will remain confidential. We would like to record this interview to ensure
the accuracy of our conversation. The recording will be used only by our research team to review
responses and to provide an opportunity to code themes between the various respondents. The
information recorded will remain secure and anonymous. Do we have your consent to record?
This interview will last approximately 35 minutes. Do you have any questions before we
begin?
Section 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?
154
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?
Section B
What, if any, have been the impact of Federal, State and Local Health agencies on K–12
school districts, and what strategies have districts followed to address the suggested guidelines?
5. In what ways did your district collaborate with federal, state, and local government
agencies and community organizations to support your school district during
COVID?
a. PQ: What agencies or organizations?
6. To what degree, if any, did the various agencies align COVID-19 guidance for
schools?
7. What strategies have been effective for your district in implementing health
guidelines/policies?
8. Who in your district was primarily in charge of interpreting and implementing the
health guidelines/policies?
Section C
How, if at all, have union negotiations played a role in K–12 district’s response to the
COVID-19 Pandemic?
9. What were the most important issues negotiated with your teachers union and how
were they resolved?
155
10. What were the most important issues negotiated with your classified union and how
were they resolved?
11. In what ways, if any, were instructional programs influenced by union negotiations in
your district?
12. In what ways, if any, were safety protocols influenced by union negotiations in your
district?
Section D
How, if at all, has your district addressed the concerns of the parent community regarding
safety, nutrition, distance learning, lack of technology, academic standing, and how and when to
open schools due to the COVID-19 pandemic?
13. In what ways did your district gather input from and communicate to the community?
14. What were the biggest concerns from your district!s community and how were they
addressed?
a. PQ: Were there any safety concerns?
b. PQ: Were there any nutrition concerns?
c. PQ: Were there any academic concerns?
d. PQ: Were there any technology concerns?
e. PQ: Were there any re-opening concerns?
Conclusion
Thank you for your time and willingness to meet with me and for all the valuable
information you provided for this study. $
156
Appendix H: 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?
Section 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?
157
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?
Section B
What, if any, have been the impact of Federal, State and Local Health agencies on K–12
school districts, and what strategies have districts followed to address the suggested guidelines?
5. In what ways did your district collaborate with federal, state, and local government
agencies and community organizations to support your school district during
COVID?
a. PQ: What agencies or organizations?
6. To what degree, if any, did the various agencies align COVID-19 guidance for
schools?
7. What strategies have been effective for your district in implementing health
guidelines/policies?
8. Who in your district was primarily in charge of interpreting and implementing the
health guidelines/policies?
Section C
How, if at all, have union negotiations played a role in K–12 district’s response to the
COVID-19 Pandemic?
9. What were the most important issues negotiated with your teachers union and how
were they resolved?
158
10. What were the most important issues negotiated with your classified union and how
were they resolved?
11. In what ways, if any, were instructional programs influenced by union negotiations in
your district?
12. In what ways, if any, were safety protocols influenced by union negotiations in your
district?
Section D
How, if at all, has your district addressed the concerns of the parent community regarding
safety, nutrition, distance learning, lack of technology, academic standing, and how and when to
open schools due to the COVID-19 pandemic?
13. In what ways did your district gather input from and communicate to the community?
14. What were the biggest concerns from your district!s community and how were they
addressed?
a. PQ: Were there any safety concerns?
b. PQ: Were there any nutrition concerns?
c. PQ: Were there any academic concerns?
d. PQ: Were there any technology concerns?
e. PQ: Were there any re-opening concerns?
Conclusion
Thank you for your time and willingness to meet with me and for all the valuable
information you provided for this study. $
159
Appendix I: 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?
Section 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?
160
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?
Section B
What, if any, have been the impact of Federal, State and Local Health agencies on K–12
school districts, and what strategies have districts followed to address the suggested guidelines?
5. In what ways did your school collaborate with federal, state, and local government
agencies and community organizations to support your school during COVID?
a. PQ: What agencies or organizations?
6. To what degree, if any, did the various agencies align COVID-19 guidance for your
school?
7. What strategies have been effective for your school in implementing health
guidelines/policies?
8. Who at your school was primarily in charge of interpreting and implementing the
health guidelines/policies?
Section C
How, if at all, have union negotiations played a role in K–12 district’s response to the
COVID-19 Pandemic?
9. What were the most important issues negotiated with your teachers union and how
were they resolved?
161
10. What were the most important issues negotiated with your classified union and how
were they resolved?
11. In what ways, if any, were instructional programs influenced by union negotiations at
your school?
12. In what ways, if any, were safety protocols influenced by union negotiations at your
school?
Section D
How, if at all, has your district addressed the concerns of the parent community regarding
safety, nutrition, distance learning, lack of technology, academic standing, and how and when to
open schools due to the COVID-19 pandemic?
13. In what ways did your school gather input from and communicate to the community?
14. What were the biggest concerns from your school!s community and how were they
addressed?
a. PQ: Were there any safety concerns?
b. PQ: Were there any nutrition concerns?
c. PQ: Were there any academic concerns?
d. PQ: Were there any technology concerns?
e. PQ: Were there any re-opening concerns?
Conclusion
Thank you for your time and willingness to meet with me and for all the valuable
information you provided for this study.
Abstract (if available)
Linked assets
University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses
Conceptually similar
PDF
The impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on K–12 public school districts in southern California: responses of superintendents, assistant superintendents, and principals
PDF
The impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on K–12 public school districts in southern California: responses of superintendents, assistant superintendents, and principals
PDF
The impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on K–12 public school districts in southern California: responses of superintendents, assistant superintendents, and principals
PDF
The impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on K–12 public school districts in southern California: responses of superintendents, assistant superintendents, and principals
PDF
The impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on K-12 public school districts in southern California: responses of superintendents, assistant superintendents, and principals
PDF
The impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on K–12 public school districts in southern California: responses of superintendents, assistant superintendents, and principals
PDF
The impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on K-12 public school districts in southern California: responses of superintendents, assistant superintendents, and principals
PDF
The impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on K–12 public school districts in southern California: responses of superintendents, assistant superintendents, and principals
PDF
The impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on K–12 public school districts in southern California: responses of superintendents, assistant superintendents, and principals
PDF
Analyzing the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic On K-12 southern California public school districts and understanding what district and site administrators…
PDF
The impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on K-12 public school districts in southern California: responses of superintendents, assistant superintendents, and principals
PDF
The impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on K–12 public school districts in southern California: responses of superintendents, assistant superintendents, and principals
PDF
The impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on K–12 public school districts in southern California: responses of superintendents, assistant superintendents, and principals
PDF
The impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on K–12 public school districts in southern California: responses of superintendents, assistant superintendents, and principals
PDF
The impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on K–12 public school districts in southern California: responses of superintendents, assistant superintendents, and principals
PDF
The impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on K–12 public school districts in southern California: responses of superintendents, assistant superintendents, and principals
PDF
The impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on K-12 public school districts in southern California: responses of superintendents, assistant superintendents, and principals
PDF
The impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on K-12 public school districts in southern California: responses of superintendents, assistant superintendents, and principals
PDF
The impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on K-12 public school districts in southern California: responses of superintendents, assistant superintendents, and principals
PDF
The impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on K–12 public school districts in southern California: responses of superintendents, assistant superintendents, and principals
Asset Metadata
Creator
Pope, Brennan James
(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
05/04/2022
Defense Date
03/30/2022
Publisher
University of Southern California
(original),
University of Southern California. Libraries
(digital)
Tag
assistant superintendent,collaboration,COVID-19,crisis mangers,marginalized.,OAI-PMH Harvest,pandemic,Principal,Relationship,school district,superintendents
Format
application/pdf
(imt)
Language
English
Contributor
Electronically uploaded by the author
(provenance)
Advisor
Castruita, Rudy (
committee chair
), Elsasser, James (
committee member
), Franklin, Gregory (
committee member
)
Creator Email
bjpope@usc.edu,misterbpope@gmail.com
Permanent Link (DOI)
https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-oUC111259307
Unique identifier
UC111259307
Document Type
Dissertation
Format
application/pdf (imt)
Rights
Pope, Brennan James
Type
texts
Source
20220506-usctheses-batch-938
(batch),
University of Southern California
(contributing entity),
University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses
(collection)
Access Conditions
The author retains rights to his/her dissertation, thesis or other graduate work according to U.S. copyright law. Electronic access is being provided by the USC Libraries in agreement with the author, as the original true and official version of the work, but does not grant the reader permission to use the work if the desired use is covered by copyright. It is the author, as rights holder, who must provide use permission if such use is covered by copyright. The original signature page accompanying the original submission of the work to the USC Libraries is retained by the USC Libraries and a copy of it may be obtained by authorized requesters contacting the repository e-mail address given.
Repository Name
University of Southern California Digital Library
Repository Location
USC Digital Library, University of Southern California, University Park Campus MC 2810, 3434 South Grand Avenue, 2nd Floor, Los Angeles, California 90089-2810, USA
Repository Email
cisadmin@lib.usc.edu
Tags
assistant superintendent
collaboration
COVID-19
crisis mangers
marginalized.
pandemic
school district
superintendents