University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

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

(USC Thesis Other)

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

PDF

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content ii

The Impact of the COVID-19 Pandemic on K–12 Public School Districts in Southern
California: Responses of Superintendents, Assistant Superintendents, and Principals
By
Erica Kristen Vallin

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 Erica Kristen Vallin 2022
All Rights Reserved

The Committee for Erica Kristen Vallin certifies the approval of this Dissertation

David Cash
Gregory Franklin
Rudy Max Castruita, Committee Chair

Rossier School of Education
University of Southern California
2022

iv
Abstract
Thee purpose of this study was to analyze the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on Southern
California K–12 school districts and understand what district and site administrators learned
from their experiences and decision-making responsibilities in managing the crisis. This study
brings to light the impact of the pandemic on students, families, leaders, schools, and districts
and examines how district and school leadership influences administrative practices, student
achievement, financial responsibility, union leadership, and community/parent support as they
responded to the COVID-19 crisis. This study set out to determine: financial implications on K–
12 public school districts how participants addressed these implications, the impact of federal,
state and local health agencies and the strategies participants followed to address suggested
guidelines, the role of union negotiations in districts’ response to the pandemic, and how
participants addressed the concerns of the parent community regarding safety, nutrition, distance
learning, lack of technology, academic standing, and how and when to re-open schools due to the
COVID-19 pandemic. This study implemented a mixed-methods approach in which nine
respondents completed a survey and participated in a structured interview. The findings indicate
that participants relied on relationships to ground their decision making in their values in
prioritizing safety and needs for their staff, students, and parents. In addition, they acknowledged
that collaboration and sharing resources played a critical component in moving forward during
the COVID-19 pandemic crisis. These practices will help improve the school system and student
learning experiences to provide a more equitable landscape for students and staff. Ultimately,
this study provides guidance for district and site administrators’ decision-making responsibilities
in managing future crises.

v
Dedication
Dedication, hard work, plus patience. The sum of all my sacrifice, I’m done waitin’. I’m
done waitin’, told you that I wasn’t playin’. Now you hear what I been sayin’, dedication.
It’s dedication.
Nipsey Hussle, Dedication
To my amazing parents, Jose and Estela Vallin first and foremost. Your sacrifices and continued
support have made this dream come true. Thank you for your unconditional love and
encouragement to become the first doctor/doctora in our family. I am blessed to have such a
strong support system. And Lavelle, no matter how many years go by, I will always love you.
Despite what may be happening in our lives, you never fail to remind me to pick my head up,
believe in myself, and express my voice. I appreciate you for sticking by my side throughout my
doctoral journey and for being their every step of the way. Last, but not least, to my brothers and
sister, Joseph, Michael, and Nicole, thank you all for your encouraging words, moral support,
and shared laughs. Those little moments have carried me further than you can imagine!

vi
Acknowledgements
I would like to acknowledge and thank my colleagues and amigas Christian Mora and
Valerie Granados, who have chosen to complete this dissertation journey alongside me! I can’t
express how grateful I am to have been able to grow through this journey with these beautiful
souls! There were many moments where I felt like stopping but their countless acts of
encouragement, comradery, and uplifting words helped me persist through long nights of writing
while overcoming work and life hurdles.
It is with utmost appreciation to acknowledge my dissertation chair Dr. Rudy Castruita,
and Dissertation Committee Members, Dr. David Cash and Dr. Gregory Franklin. I am honored
to be a part Dr. Castruita’s final dissertation group and work under his guidance throughout such
a significant process, I appreciate all of his hard work, support, and advocacy! It was a privilege
to learn from Dr. Cash and Dr. Franklin! I left their classes feeling inspired to grow into a
fearless leader who advocates for equity and justice in the field of education and beyond. The
completion of this dissertation would not have been possible without the assistance, support,
guidance, and encouragement of these inspirational mentors.
Lastly, I am grateful for the anonymous superintendents, assistant superintendents, and
principals who graciously assisted in the data collection and interview process to make this
research possible.

vii
Table of Contents
Abstract .......................................................................................................................................... iv
Dedication ........................................................................................................................................v
Acknowledgements ........................................................................................................................ vi
List of Tables ................................................................................................................................. ix
List of Figures ..................................................................................................................................x
Preface ............................................................................................................................................ xi
Chapter One: Overview of the Study ...............................................................................................1
Background of the Problem .................................................................................................1
Statement of the Problem .....................................................................................................2
Purpose of the Study ............................................................................................................2
Research Questions ..............................................................................................................2
Significance of the Study .....................................................................................................3
Limitation and Delimitations ...............................................................................................4
Definition of Terms ..............................................................................................................4
Chapter Two: Review of the Literature .........................................................................................11
History of Health Crises Affecting Schools .......................................................................11
Guidance and Financial Support from Outside Agencies ..................................................15
Unions, District Leaders, and Negotiations .......................................................................16
Leadership, Decision-Making, and Preparation .................................................................18
Distance and Hybrid Learning ...........................................................................................22
Impacts on Historically Marginalized Groups ...................................................................23
Chapter Summary ..............................................................................................................27
Chapter Three: Methodology .........................................................................................................28
Statement of the Problem ...................................................................................................28

viii
Purpose of the Study ..........................................................................................................28
Research Questions ............................................................................................................28
Research Team ...................................................................................................................29
Research Design .................................................................................................................30
Instrumentation and Conceptual Framework .....................................................................35
Data Collection ..................................................................................................................37
Data Analysis .....................................................................................................................38
Ethical Considerations .......................................................................................................38
Summary ............................................................................................................................39
Chapter Four: Research Results and Findings ...............................................................................40
Participants .........................................................................................................................42
Research Question One ......................................................................................................47
Research Question Two .....................................................................................................51
Research Question Three ...................................................................................................57
Summary ............................................................................................................................75
Chapter Five: Summary, Conclusion and Implications .................................................................80
Purpose of the Study ..........................................................................................................80
Participants .........................................................................................................................81
Key Findings ......................................................................................................................81
Implications for Practice ....................................................................................................87
Recommendations for Future Study ..................................................................................89
Conclusion .........................................................................................................................90
References ......................................................................................................................................92
Appendix A: Letter For Permission to Participate in Study ........................................................103

ix
List of Tables
Table 1: Participant Selection Criteria 33
Table 2: School District Participants: Demographic Information 43
Table 3: Quantitative Survey: Participant Demographic Information 44
Table 4: Quantitative Survey: Participant Demographic Information 45
Table 5: Quantitative Survey: Participant Demographic Information 46
Table 6: Quantitative Survey: Superintendents’ Perception of Financial Implications of
COVID-19 48
Table 7: Quantitative Survey: Superintendents’ Perceptions of the Impact of Health and
Safety Guidelines 53
Table 8: Quantitative Survey: District and Site Leaders’ Perceptions of the Impact of Union
Negotiation 59
Table 9: Quantitative Survey: Superintendents’ Perceptions of Parent Concerns 68

x
List of Figures
Figure 1: Conceptual Framework 37
Appendix A: Interview Protocols 103
Appendix B: Survey Questions 109
Appendix C: Letter For Permission to Participate in Study 124

xi
Preface
Some of the chapters of this dissertation were co-authored and have been identified as
such. While jointly authored dissertations are not the norm of most doctoral programs, a
collaborative effort is reflective of real-world challenges. To meet their objective of analyzing
the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on K–12 public school districts in Southern California,
the USC Graduate School and the USC Rossier School of Education have permitted our inquiry
team to carry out this shared venture.
This dissertation is part of a collaborative project between three doctoral candidates:
Valerie Granados, Christian Mora, and Erica Vallin. We three doctoral students met with several
model and non-model continuation high schools with the aim of learning from the principals in
these phenomenological settings. However, the process for dissecting and acquiring a thorough
constructivist perspective from the selected participants was too large for a single dissertation.
As a result, the three dissertations produced by our inquiry team collectively examined the
effective practices of principals in continuation education.
1

Chapter One: Overview of the Study
The COVID-19 pandemic both evolved rapidly and lingered. This situation was unusual
for the types of crises schools typically face, which tend to be either immediate, like an active
shooter, or persistent, like underachievement (Gainey, 2009). The pandemic prompted schools to
close on very short notice under hold-harmless guidelines from state agencies overseeing
education, except for school closures lasting several weeks (Fensterwald, 2021). However, the
full or partial school closures caused by COVID-19 have continued to impact school districts. As
the pandemic lasted, the issues facing school leaders and their school communities became more
complex (Mayer et al., 2008).
Background of the Problem
Federal and state governments assisted school districts financially to help address the
challenges of distance learning and safety. Governmental agencies also provided rules, guidance,
and protocols to help schools operate in these new circumstances. While these were sometimes
very helpful, they could also be contradictory and difficult to enforce, which caused problems for
school districts. As these rules and regulations evolved, so did the roles and expectations of
district employees. Unions renegotiated basic aspects of working conditions during this time to
keep members safe and to express how the pandemic impacted their work. The pandemic also
heavily impacted parents, as students stayed home to learn. Parents rely on schools for education,
childcare, and food, as well as social, emotional, and medical care for their children. All these
stakeholder concerns changed the role of school leadership at the district and site levels. School
leaders were called on to see their organizations through the tumultuous time of the COVID-19
pandemic.

2

Statement of the Problem
The COVID-19 pandemic disrupted Southern California K–12 school districts, causing
unforeseen consequences within the education system and highlighting financial implications,
the impact of agencies, negotiations with unions, and the impact on students and the community.
COVID-19 shifted schools and school leaders’ roles and scope beyond instructional leaders and
transformed them into crisis managers.
Purpose of the Study
The purpose of this study was to analyze the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on
Southern California K–12 school districts and understand what district and site administrators
learned from their experiences and 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 examined how district and school leadership influences
administrative practices, student achievement, financial responsibility, union leadership, and
community/parent support as they responded to the COVID-19 crisis.
Research Questions
Four research questions guided the study:
1. What, if any, are the financial implications that the COVID-19 pandemic has had on
K–12 public school districts in Southern California, and how have district
superintendents, assistant superintendents, and principals addressed these
implications?
2. What, if any, have been the impact of federal, state, and local health agencies on K–
12 public school districts in Southern California, and what strategies have district
3

superintendents, assistant superintendents, and principals followed to address the
suggested guidelines?
3. How, if at all, have union negotiations played a role in K–12 Southern California
public school districts’ response to the COVID-19 pandemic?
4. How, if at all, have K–12 Southern California public school districts leadership teams
comprised of superintendents, assistant superintendents, and principals addressed the
concerns of the parent community regarding safety, nutrition, distance learning, lack
of technology, academic standing, and how and when to re-open schools due to the
COVID-19 pandemic?
Significance of the Study
This study is significant as it adds to the body of knowledge about the evolving roles and
responses of California public K–12 school superintendents, assistant superintendents, and
principals during the COVID-19 pandemic. 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 effective practices and shortcomings caused by this
crisis from the leaders on the frontlines, we hoped to gain insight into prevention and
implementation as future crises occur in education. If a pandemic arises again, this study will
support how school leaders, educators, boards of education, and community stakeholders will
address it through systems meant to reimagine and revolutionize an educational landscape
committed to building a culture of equity to repay the educational debt.
4

Limitation and Delimitations
Some study boundaries beyond the control of the research team may have affected
internal validity. Limitations of this study are the ongoing disruptions caused by the COVID-19
pandemic on public education, the participants are only from Southern California public schools,
survey responses were self-reported, interview questions may have contained researcher bias,
interviews were conducted virtually, and the sample may not have accurately represented all
California schools districts. The next steps would include using a similar process to include a
larger representation from different districts throughout California or the United States.
In addition, the study’s delimitations 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 are current leaders in large
urban public school districts in Southern California who were willing to participate in the study.
Definition of Terms
The following is a list of key terms and definitions used throughout this research study:
Assembly and Senate Bill 86: This bill provides $2 billion as an incentive for schools that
have not already done so to offer in-person instruction beginning April 1, 2021, starting with the
earliest grades. The legislation also allocates $4.6 billion for all school districts regardless of
whether they meet the timetable Governor Newsom called for in his Safe Schools for All Plan
(Jones & Freedburg, 2021).
Assembly and Senate Bill 129: a landmark state budget agreement that adds a year of
school for all 4-year-olds, significantly expands Cal Grants and middle-class scholarships for
college students, and provides record funding for pre- K–12 schools anxious to use billions in
one-time money to bounce back from a 15-month pandemic (Fensterwald, 2021).
5

Asynchronous learning: Asynchronous learning occurs without direct, simultaneous
interaction of participants such as videos featuring direct instruction of new content students
watch on their own time (California Department of Education [CDE], 2020a).
California Department of Education (CDE): Governmental body overseeing the state’s
diverse public school system and is responsible for the education of more than six million
children and young adults in more than 10,000 schools with 300,000 teachers. Specifically, they
are in charge of enforcing education laws and regulations and continuing to reform and improve
public school programs (CDE, 2020c).
California Department of Public Health (CDPH): a public agency that focuses on
infectious disease control and prevention, food safety, environmental health, laboratory services,
patient safety, emergency preparedness, chronic disease prevention and health promotion, family
health, health equity and vital records and statistics (CDPH, 2021).
California School Employees Association (CSEA): The California School Employees
Association is the largest classified school 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 and paraeducator services, library and media assistance, computer services, and more
(CSEA, 2021).
CARES Act: Congress passed the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act
(CARES Act) on March 27th, 2020. This bill allotted $2.2 trillion to provide fast and direct
economic aid to the American people negatively impacted by the COVID-19 pandemic. Of that
6

money, approximately $14 billion was given to the Office of Postsecondary Education as the
Higher Education Emergency Relief Fund (CSEA, 2021).
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC): Nation’s health agency that
“conducts critical science and provides health information” and responds to health crises (CDC,
2021)
Cohort: “refers to a group of individuals who have something in common,” such as the
same grade level or specific student groups such as English learners (Great Schools Partnership,
2013).
Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA): The primary activity of a union is to represent
the teachers in negotiating the terms of employment contracts, called collective bargaining.
Under the Rodda Act, passed in 1975, the school board and the union must review the terms of
the existing agreement at least once every three years. The result of this negotiation determines
the salaries and benefits, hours, calendar, and most aspects of teachers’ working conditions.
Negotiators can also discuss problems and address new issues that have arisen during the
contract period. This can be especially significant when the legislature and governor have passed
new laws about COVID-19 safety measures, school finance, or teacher training and evaluation.
A district can implement these laws only after the impact has been collectively bargained
(EdData, 2021).
COVID-19: A novel strain of coronaviruses that shares 79% genetic similarity with
SARS-CoV from the 2003 SARS outbreak, declared in March 2020 by the World Health
Organization (WHO) as a global pandemic (WHO, 2021; Xiong et al., 2020).
7

Distance learning: Instruction in which the pupil and instructor are in different locations
and pupils are under the general supervision of a certificated employee of the local educational
agency (CDE, 2020a).
Elementary and Secondary School Emergency Relief (ESSER): ESSER, established in the
CARES Act and further funded under the Coronavirus Response and Relief Supplemental
Appropriations Act and the American Rescue Plan Act, the U.S. Department of Education
awarded emergency relief funds to address the impact the COVID-19 pandemic has had, and
continues to have, on elementary and secondary schools across the Nation (U.S. Department of
Education, 2021).
Essential workers: Essential workers are those who conduct a range of operations and
services that are typically essential to continue critical infrastructure operations (National
Conference for State Legislatures, 2021).
Free and Appropriate Public Education: All students ages 3 to 22 receive a free public
education that meets their educational needs. They have a right to fully take part in school life,
including after-school activities. What is appropriate for each child will be different because each
has unique needs (Exceptional Lives, 2019).
Hybrid (blended) learning: Combination of in-person and distance learning (CDE,
2020c).
In-person: Students are receiving in-person instruction for at least part of the instructional
day for the full instructional week (CDE, 2021).
Learning loss: “refers to any specific or general loss of knowledge and skills or to
reversals in academic progress, most commonly due to extended gaps or discontinuities in a
student’s education” (Great Schools Partnership, 2021).
8

Pandemic: The International Epidemiology Association’s Dictionary of Epidemiology
defines a pandemic as “an epidemic occurring worldwide, or over a very wide area, crossing
international boundaries and usually affecting a large number of people (Singer et al., 2021).
Personal protective equipment (PPE): Personal protective equipment, commonly referred
to as PPE, is equipment worn to minimize exposure to hazards that cause serious workplace
injuries and illnesses. These injuries and illnesses may result from contact with chemical,
radiological, physical, electrical, mechanical, or other workplace hazards. This PPE may include
items such as gloves, safety glasses and shoes, earplugs or muffs, hard hats, respirators, or
coveralls, vests and full body suits (U.S. Department of Labor, 2021).
Social-Emotional Learning: reflects the critical role of positive relationships and
emotional connections in the learning process and helps students develop a range of skills they
need for school and life (CDE, 2020a).
Stakeholders: Refers to anyone invested in the welfare and success of a school and its
students, including administrators, teachers, staff members, students, parents, families,
community members, local business leaders, and elected officials such as school board members,
city councilors, and state representatives. Stakeholders may also be collective entities, such as
local businesses, organizations, advocacy groups, committees, media outlets, and cultural
institutions, in addition to organizations that represent specific groups, such as teachers’ unions,
parent-teacher organizations, and associations representing superintendents, principals, school
boards, or teachers in specific academic disciplines (e.g., the National Council of Teachers of
English or the Vermont Council of Teachers of Mathematics). In a word, stakeholders have a
stake in the school and its students, meaning that they have a personal, professional, civic, or
financial interest or concern (Great Schools Partnership, 2021).
9

Synchronous learning: Synchronous learning takes place in real-time, with delivery of
instruction and/or interaction with participants such as a live whole-class, small group, or
individual meeting via an online platform or in-person when possible (CDE, 2020a).
Williams Compliance act: The 2000 Eliezer Williams et al., vs. State of California, et al.
(Williams) case was a class action suit against the state of California and state education
agencies. The plaintiffs included nearly 100 San Francisco County students who claimed that
these agencies failed to provide public school students equal access to instructional materials,
safe and decent school facilities, and qualified teachers. The case was settled in 2004, resulting in
the state allocating $138 million in additional funding for standards-aligned instructional
materials for schools and another $50 million for implementation costs. Now known as the
Williams Compliance Act, the settlement was implemented through legislation adopted in
August 2004: Senate Bill (SB) 6, SB 550, Assembly Bill (AB) 1550, AB 2727, AB 3001. Up to
2.3 million California public school students may benefit from funding from the Williams case
settlement (CDE, 2020a).
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 (WHO, 2021).
Organization of the Study
This study is organized into five chapters. Chapter One introduces the study, the
statement of the problem, the purpose and significance of the study, the four research questions,
limitations, delimitations, and the definitions of key terms. Chapter Two reviews the literature
relevant to the problem. Chapter Three presents the methodology of the research design,
10

sampling and data collection procedures, instruments data collection, and data analysis
procedures. Chapter Four details the findings and major themes of the research and data analysis.
Chapter Five provides a summary of the study’s findings, a conclusion, and an examination of
possible implications for further research and recommendations for future research.

11

Chapter Two: Review of the Literature
Chapter two presents a review of literature that provides context about the COVID-19
pandemic’s impact on California school districts and the factors that influenced decisions school
and district leaders made to continue to provide students with access to learning. The literature
review begins with the history of health crises affecting schools, information about guidance and
financial support schools and districts received from outside agencies, and negotiations between
unions and district leaders. Leadership, decision-making, school preparation, distance and hybrid
learning, and impacts on historically marginalized groups are also discussed.
History of Health Crises Affecting Schools
Lessons From the 1918–19 U.S. Influenza Pandemic
The history of health crises affecting schools in the United States can provide insight and
guidance for school administration decision making when faced with similar circumstances
(Fong et al., 2020; Stern, Cetron, & Markel, 2009; Stern, Reilly, et al., 2010). In the Fall of 1918,
the influenza pandemic spread across the United States, killing thousands and prompting the
closure of many schools in the United States for weeks to months (Stern, Cetron, & Markel,
2009; Stern, Reilly, et al., 2010). However, New York City, Chicago, and New Haven,
Connecticut, kept schools open and intensified and extended school inspection programs that city
health and school officials had established (Stern, Reilly, et al., 2010). Stern, Reilly, et al. (2010)
suggested that these cities viewed keeping schools open as an opportunity to implement the
public health strategies of school medical inspection and intensified disease surveillance along
with their commitment to the health of their diverse student bodies.
In the fall of 1918, when influenza appeared in the United States, the American schooling
system was undergoing a series of dramatic physical, social, and pedagogical changes (Stern,
12

Reilly, et al., 2010). Public school attendance increased significantly aftr the late 19th century,
particularly in urban areas, which accounted for more than 50% of the U.S. population (Stern,
Reilly, et al., 2010). Many urban schools conducted classes in “poorly lit, under-ventilated
basements, corridors and temporary wooden structures” (Stern, Reilly, et al., 2010, p. 65).
Improving public school facilities and sanitary health conditions became a great concern to the
American public, and the development of school hygiene programs was seen as an essential
component of societies that sought to cultivate healthy intelligent populations (Stern, Reilly, et
al., 2010).
Research findings from the Journal of the American Medical Association demonstrate “a
strong association between early sustained, and layered application of nonpharmaceutical
interventions and mitigating the consequences of the 1918–19 influenza pandemic” in the United
States (Markel et al., 2007, p. 644). In 1918, experts determined how to make classrooms safe
and healthy for students; ventilation and lighting systems were installed, desks and classroom
furniture were organized, and safe drinking water was made accessible (Stern, Reilly, et al.,
2010). Cities like Boston and New York also established school corps, “comprised of medical
inspectors who made daily rounds through public schools to determine the health status of
individual children and entire classrooms” (Stern, Reilly, et al., 2010, p. 65). In the 1890s, cities,
including New York, Chicago, Boston, and Philadelphia, established medical inspection
programs for contagious childhood diseases and for a quick response as needed (Stern, Reilly, et
al., 2010). By the time the pandemic struck in the fall of 1918, the medical inspection of schools
had become more formalized and broader in reach, and schools prioritized educating children
and their parents about personal hygiene and disease prevention (Stern, Reilly, et al., 2010)
13

Diverging from the dominant trend, New York City, Chicago, and New Haven schools
remained open throughout the 1918–19 influenza pandemic. They amplified and extended
existing school medical inspection and disease inspection programs (Stern et al., 2010). To keep
schools open, experts stressed the importance of weekly medical inspections and keeping
children contained in the safe zone of the school while working with school health officers and
nurses to provide care to children displaying symptoms (Stern et al., 2010). Health experts and
researchers suggest that nonpharmaceutical interventions in schools should be considered just as
strongly as developing effective vaccines and medications when planning for future pandemics
(Markel et al., 2007; Stern et al., 2010; Fong et al., 2010).
A/H1N1 New Strain of Influenza and School Closures
Over the past several decades, financial cutbacks to public education impacted public
health programs by reducing the number of school nurses and resources for activities such as
physical education (Stern, Reilly, et al., 2010). In Spring 2009, an outbreak of a novel strain of
pandemic influenza A (H1N1) (pH1N1) was identified in a New York City (NYC) high school,
and 57 schools in NYC were closed for 5–7 days (Borse et al., 2011). As the virus spread, public
health and school officials faced numerous decisions such as whether and when to close schools,
how many schools, and how long they should keep schools closed (Lee Brown et al., 2010).
Research collected from the 2009 H1N1 pandemic shows that in school, students interacting
closely can transmit the influenza virus to one another, their families, and other community
members (Lee et al., 2010).
However, studies on school closures during the 1918–19 and H1N1 influenza pandemics
also show that closing Schools can cause significant social and economic issues by placing
additional burdens on parents, causing a loss of income, and interfering with children’s
14

education, nutritional status, and other activities. (Borse et al., 2011; Lee et al., 2010; Stern,
Cetron, & Markel, 2009) In addition to education, schools are the sources of many “vital
community services, such as lunches and after-school programs” (Lee et al., 2010, p. 253). The
Journal of Infectious Diseases explained that while school closures can be used for short periods
to stop outbreaks in schools, widespread transmission may resume once schools re-open (Chao et
al., 2010). School dismissals may protect the staff and children at high risk but are not likely to
reduce community transmission and may not be the most effective cost option (Chao et al., 2010;
Stern, Reilly, et al., 2010).
The COVID-19 Pandemic
In March 2020, the COVID-19 pandemic prompted school closures across the United
States, and education professionals transitioned to working from home (Bansak & Starr, 2021;
Grooms & Childs, 2021). COVID-19 caused morbidity and mortality at an unprecedented scale
and has resulted in a global healthcare crisis (Nalbandian et al., 2021). Healthcare experts
recognize COVID-19 as a multi-organ disease with a broad spectrum of manifestations, and
there are increasing reports of persistent and prolonged effects caused by the virus (Nalbandian
et al., 2021). The COVID-19 pandemic caused major disruptions in education delivery after most
primary and secondary K–12 schools sent children home with uncertain plans for when classes
would resume (Bansak & Starr, 2021).
Bansak and Starr (2021) stated that a number of school districts in the United States
transitioned to some form of remote learning, and some schools provided resources needed to
support distance learning, such as access to laptops, tablets, and the internet. Some school
systems offered options for online learning, some printed materials, and some did both (Bansak
& Starr, 2021). The method and intensity of “continued education varied by state and school
15

district, reflecting state-level directives and local school system decisions and resources”
(Bansak & Starr, 2021, p. 64).
Guidance and Financial Support from Outside Agencies
In California, public schools followed the guidance of federal and local health
government agencies, organizations, and health experts to safely prepare for the return to in-
person learning (Kearney & Childs, 2021). Safety guidelines and mandates from county and state
officials provided school and district leaders with criteria to safely re-open schools, such as the
COVID-19 School Guidance Checklist and the Blueprint for a Safer California (Harrington,
2021). The California Department of Public Health created the Blueprint for safer California,
aiming to reduce coronavirus cases through local partnerships while also serving as a model for
all Californians to participate in safe practices (Harrington, 2021). The CDE created resources
for parents to support their children at home and a Strong Together Plan, which provided a
comprehensive checklist for reopening schools, mental health, and well-being, among other
topics (CDE, 2021).
Schools in California were allowed to re-open for in-person instruction as long as their
districts posted a coronavirus safety plan by February 1, 2021, posted a dashboard listing COVID
positive cases of their students and staff at each open school and submitted a COVID-19 safety
plan to their local health officer and the state’s Safe Schools for All team (Harrington, 2021). In
addition to guidelines and mandates, schools also received financial support; the CARES Act
was signed into law on March 27th, 2020 (CDE, 2021). According to the CDE website, the
CARES Act provided states with federal funds and implemented a waiver process which enables
educational institutions more flexibility to serve vulnerable populations and more independence
to operate in ways different from local guidelines (CDE 2021). The $30.75 billion in emergency
16

education funding was distributed to states through the Governor’s Emergency Education Relief
(GEER) Fund and the ESSER Fund, which provided financial support to local educational
agencies (LEAs) with relief funds to assess and address the various ways in which COVID-19
has and may continue to impact the educational landscape and needs of school communities
(CDE, 2021).
In California, Governor Newsome signed Senate Bill 86, which allocated $2 billion to
schools that submitted reopening plans by April 1 and brought elementary students back by April
15 along with other prioritized, high-needs students (Jones & Freedburg, 2021). However, some
schools would face penalties such as having their allocated grant reopening funding cut by 1%
per day if they do not open by the deadline (Jones & Freedburg, 2021). SB 86 does require
district plans to be approved by local bargaining units, but it does not specify much sought-after
union interests such as staff vaccinations prior to reopening (Mays, 2020). The plans and funding
for reopening were met with a great deal of backlash when schools expressed uncertainty and
concerns about whether safety measures could be fully implemented (Lambert & Fensterwald,
2020). While earlier safety guidelines were considered more supportive for schools, the
reopening plans still faced heavy criticism for being too restrictive and very expensive, despite
federal and state funding (Fensterwald, 2021).
Unions, District Leaders, and Negotiations
Adapting to new ways of learning and schooling redefined teacher and classified staff
responsibilities and practices (Hemphill & Marianno, 2021). The relationship between district
leadership and unions determined how quickly schools reach agreements and establish guidelines
for distance and in-person learning (Hemphill & Marianno, 2020). “Collective bargaining
agreements (CBAs) negotiated between teachers’ unions and school district leadership
17

established the working conditions and work rules for teachers in traditional instructional
settings” prior to the covid-19 pandemic (Hemphill & Marianno, 2020, p. 171). When schools
closed in March 2020 due to the pandemic, district leaders collaborated and negotiated with
teachers and teacher unions to determine how schooling and learning would look during distance
learning (Hemphill & Marianno, 2020). State health and educational agencies provided guidance
for negotiation agreements between district leaders and teacher unions to determine new working
conditions during the pandemic; these agreements determined compensation, work hours, non-
teaching duties, evaluation, leave, and technology (Hemphill & Marianno, 2020).
The increase in COVID cases throughout the summer of 2020 prompted new state and
county health guidelines, which shaped new agreements for learning in the fall of 2020 (CDE,
2020a). In the updated guidance, all adults were to stay 6 feet away from each other and 6 feet
away from children, and schools were to incorporate the use of face masks and coverings for all
staff and students in third grade and above. Schools were to identify individuals who had been in
close contact with an infected person and take steps to isolate COVID-19-positive persons and
close contacts (Office of Governor Gavin Newsom, 2020). Some districts applied for waivers to
open schools in a hybrid model, while others continued distance learning (California For All,
2021). Memorandum of understanding (MOU) agreements, legal contracts between the employer
and the union on behalf of its members, began to establish new negotiations for how students
could safely return to school in person during the 2020–2021 school year (Hemphill &
Marianno, 2020). Also, some teacher unions prioritized teacher safety by advocating for distance
learning until vaccinations were made available for all teachers (Hemphill & Marianno, 2020).
In California, classified employees are not required to hold a teaching credential (CSEA,
2021. This includes school staff who are paraprofessionals, those who provide clerical and
18

administrative services, transportation services, food and nutrition services, custodial and
maintenance services, security services, health and student services, technical services, and
skilled trades employees (CSEA, 2021). At the beginning of the pandemic, a number of these
employees were considered essential workers and continued to work in person (CSEA, 2021).
For example, food and nutrition service workers facilitated and prepared grab-and-go meals for
students, custodial staff and skilled trade employees were reassigned to address deferred
maintenance, security was retained to keep school premises clear, and other employees were able
to work virtually either at sites or from home (Mahnken, 2020). As schools began to open,
classified staff members developed and implemented new procedures for health screening,
cleaning, movement, personal safety, food preparation and distribution, isolation, and
transportation (Mahnken, 2020).
Leadership, Decision-Making, and Preparation
Leadership
A crisis is an urgent, unpredicted event or major disruption of normal routines that
requires immediate and decisive action by an organization and, in particular, by the
organization’s leaders (Fein & Isaacson, 2009; Smith & Riley, 2012). During times of crisis,
leadership characteristics and skills required of school leaders are fundamentally different from
those generally required in a normal school environment (Smith & Riley, 2012). Strong school
leaders position their school organization for the future and support and empower staff and
students in the pursuit of teaching and learning excellence; however, during times of crisis,
leaders are more focused on dealing with events, emotions, and consequences in the immediate
present to minimize harm to the school and school community (Smith & Riley, 2012). During
crises situations, leadership must also be sensitive and directed, provide certainty, hope, and
19

ensure open and credible communication to and for all affected members of the school
community (Smith & Riley, 2012)
Leadership that is flexible and highly adaptable to varying situations is most effective in
crises (Goleman, 1998). Disaster mitigation demands that leaders develop carefully formulated
response strategies and then communicate and implement them (Bishop et al., 2015). To
successfully lead a school through a crisis, leaders must perform multiple and, at times, very
different roles depending on the demands of the crisis (Bishop et al., 2015). They must also
channel behavioral and emotional responses toward the goals of their organization and those
pertaining to the community’s recovery and readjustment (Bishop et al., 2015). Bolman and Deal
(1997) advocated for leaders to communicate a vision in times of crisis, but while providing their
organization with a vision for recovery to normalcy, effective navigation through a crisis also
requires that leaders perform key managerial functions during the situation (Bishop et al., 2015).
A leader’s managerial roles during a crisis include redefining standards, establishing
options, remodeling relationships, and revising new positions or approaches to meet demands
when conventional methods become obsolete during a crisis (Bishop et al., 2015). In addition,
actions that leaders can take to be effective in times of crisis include identifying immediate
priorities, focusing time and efforts on priorities, communicating frequently with stakeholders,
and remaining sufficiently detached to make rational decisions (Pepper et al., 2010). School
leaders must develop and demonstrate effective leadership skills during times of crisis so that
their followers feel empowered and their school may resume normal operations as quickly as
possible (Dunkel, et al., 2020). Following the crisis, they should also record and review lessons
from the disaster to guide training activities, inform contingency planning, and improve policies
and procedures to prepare for future crises (Bishop et al., 2015).
20

Operation and Management
The demands of preparation, training, and implementation of new practices needed to
adjust to the COVID-19 pandemic posed unique challenges to school leaders; however, some
districts and schools were able to successfully transition to distance learning (Diliberti et al.,
2020). Diliberti et al. (2020) identified several preparedness indicators for schools and districts,
which included the availability of technological devices for students to use, professional
development for teachers in online instructional practices, implementing a learning management
system, offering fully online or blended courses, and drafting plans to deliver instruction during
prolonged school closure (2020). Organizations lacking preparedness indicators prior to the
pandemic had to restructure practices, procedures, and roles during the school building closures
beginning in late March 2020 (Diliberti et al., 2020). Approximately 42% of districts in the
United States lacked a strong technology infrastructure and had to reprioritize fiscal resources to
provide students with devices and internet access necessary for distance learning (Malkus et al.,
2020).
In addition to preparation, instruction, and practices, new items such as hand sanitizer,
temperature scanners, Plexiglas barriers, hands-free paper towel dispensers, surgical masks, face
shields, latex gloves, and protective coveralls became necessary school supplies (EdSource,
2020). Also, the emergence of unprecedented health and safety guidelines placed a new demand
on site administrators, who had to assume a new role in translating health and safety guidance
into policy (Fotheringham et al., 2020).
Meal distribution was one of the first and most urgent changes that school leaders needed
to address at the onset of school closures in March 2020 (Fotheringham et al., 2020). Districts
and schools had to quickly mobilize to mitigate meal loss for the students who rely on meals
21

from their schools nationwide (Kinsey et al., 2020). In California, an estimated 135 million
meals were missed by students during the first 8 weeks of school closures from early March
2020 to early May 2020 (Kinsey et al., 2020).
Districts and schools recreated meal distribution methods like distributing grab-and-go
meals daily or weekly, including breakfast, lunch, and supper (Malkus et al., 2020). Districts also
developed drop-off meal systems at locations such as neighborhood school bus stops, some
student homes; meal services expanded in some areas to seven days per week, allowed for
guardian pick-up rather than student pick-up, grew to include children 0 to 18 years of age and
included disabled students up to 26 years in age and adults in the community (McLoughlin et al.,
2020).
Implementation
Implementation of new pandemic-related policies, practices, and guidelines required
leaders to reimagine their current roles in the context of the pandemic, and they were also
required to assume the new roles of caregiver and caretaker, which took many forms (Anderson
et al., 2020). Teachers reported overwhelming feelings of anxiety, stress, fear, worry, and
sadness in the transition to distance learning, and leaders had to support educators by explicitly
addressing their well-being (Cipriano & Brackett, 2020).
Leaders who navigated changes prompted by the pandemic relied on collaboration and
teachers’ preparation for distance learning (Anderson, 2020). Effective communication has also
been critical in implementing many changes brought on by the demands of new policies,
practices, and guidelines (Canle, 2020). In addition to districts and school sites relying on
traditional methods of communication such as phone, newsletters, emails, websites, and phone
messages, many leaders began using new means of communication such as virtual meetings,
22

YouTube channel postings, and asynchronous presentations (Canle, 2020). Leaders have utilized
feedback and created a feedback loop that includes school leaders, parents, staff, and students
(Morgan, 2018).
Distance and Hybrid Learning
K–12 Learning
Schools and districts across the United States responded to the COVID-19 pandemic in
various ways, depending on their resources and populations (Hamilton et al., 2020). Many school
districts revolutionized traditional learning structures by providing voluntary, supplemental
content to students, including synchronous and asynchronous learning opportunities,
instructional work packets, and even televised instructional content (Diliberti et al., 2020;
Malkus et al., 2020). With many schools remaining closed at the start of the 2020–2021 school
year, instructional models further evolved to provide three distinct options: full-time in-person
instruction in regions where closures were not in effect, full distance learning where closures
were in effect, and in other areas, a hybrid of both in-person instruction and distance learning to
(EdSource, 2020). Also, studies showed that the typical elementary school faced different
challenges than the typical middle or high school (Hamilton et al., 2020; Polikoff, 2020). When
students were asked how difficult it was for them to learn before and after COVID, middle
school and high school students reported sharp increases in difficulty learning, while elementary
did not (Polikoff, 2020).
Grading Policies and Impact on College Admissions
In California, some district grading policies changed, and 12 school districts altered
grading procedures in their MOUs (Hemphill & Marianno, 2021). The two most common
changes in grading resulted in the institution of a system of “Pass/Fail/Incomplete grades or
23

stating that students’ final grades could not decrease from their grades on the day schools closed”
(Hemphill & Marianno, 2020, p. 175). Long Beach Unified School District, Beverly School
District, and Oakland Unified District implemented a pass/fail/incomplete system, whereas Los
Angeles Unified School District, San Diego Unified School District, San Francisco Unified
School District, and Hawaii utilized the latter (Hemphill & Marianno, 2020). In addition, Los
Angeles and San Diego required teachers to provide written or oral feedback to students on
assignments in place of grades (Hemphill & Marianno, 2020).
The MOUs for Beverly Public Schools, San Francisco USD, and Oakland USD included
an equity clause exempting students from incomplete assignments if they had limited virtual
access. Camas Public Schools and Montgomery County reported that grading would continue
with minimal changes, and Detroit had a combination of these options where teachers could
input traditional letter grades or grade students using the pass/fail metrics (Hemphill &
Marianno, 2021). The pandemic also impacted college admissions and testing. In January 2021,
The College Board announced that it is ending the optional essay section and subject area exams
of the SAT for college-bound U.S. Students (Fitzsimmons, 2021). The Berkley Center of
Educational Partnership’s website explains that the pandemic accelerated a process that was
already underway for the College Board to reduce demands on students (Fitzsimmons, 2021).
Impacts on Historically Marginalized Groups
The COVID-19 pandemic had damaging consequences for individuals, families, and the
wider society; however, the impact on individuals is not equal (Devakumar et al., 2020). In the
United States, the pandemic and changes in society due to social distancing measures
exacerbated inequities and discrimination impacting marginalized groups and resulted in many
vulnerable populations experiencing a much harsher impact on economic, health, and work-
24

related factors (Kantamneni, 2020). Education systems, labor markets, and workplace
environments often perpetuate systems of oppression, power, and privilege for individuals from
vulnerable, underserved communities; times of crisis can reinforce and exacerbate these
disparities (Kantamneni, 2020). Low-income and marginalized communities are negatively
affected by multiple determinants of health while also battling the coronavirus pandemic (Benfer
& Wiley, 2020). Some of these populations include those living with a disability, workers who
do not have the option to stay home, people experiencing homelessness, those who lack access to
affordable, safe, and healthy housing, people of color, immigrants, and asylees (Benfer & Wiley,
2020).
Infection and Mortality Rates
The pandemic disproportionately affected racial/ethnic minority and underserved
populations, especially LatinX, African American, and Native American communities in the
United States (Tai et al., 2021). As of June 2020, the CDC reported that “21.8% of COVID-19
cases in the United States were African Americans and 33.8% were LatinX, even though these
groups comprise only 13% and 18% of the U.S. population” (Tai et al., 2021, p. 704). Also, the
“mortality rate for COVID-19 among African Americans is more than 2-fold higher than whites”
(Tai et al., 2021, p. 704). Black, Asian, and minority ethnic and migrant groups have a greater
risk of contracting coronavirus infection and are more likely to get a severe infection
(Devakumar et al., 2020). In addition, many low-income individuals and families also face
significant challenges that prevent them from protecting themselves and others from the negative
effects of coronavirus (Benfer & Wiley, 2020). This includes the lack of access to a disposable
income, flexible work schedules, the ability to do paid work from home, and the lack of access to
affordable healthcare (Benfer & Wiley, 2020).
25

Access to Healthcare and Resources
The lower a person’s socioeconomic status, the more limited their resources and ability to
access essential goods and services, and the greater their chance of suffering from a chronic
disease that may increase the mortality risk of COVID-19 (Benfer & Wiley, 2020). These
chronic conditions and diseases include diabetes, heart disease, and lung disease (Benfer &
Wiley, 2020). Racial and ethnic disparities during the coronavirus pandemic constitute a new
crisis compounding the long-standing failure of our health care system to care adequately for
people of color (Blumenthal et al., 2020). Lack of health care coverage reduces access to care,
resulting in a higher prevalence of chronic illness among persons of color and leaving them more
vulnerable to the negative effects of COVID-19 (Blumenthal et al., 2020). Research shows that
some non-medical causes of illnesses that disproportionately impact the health of people of color
and can also lead to higher levels of vulnerability to coronavirus infection include food and
housing insecurity (Blumenthal et al., 2020). The disparities in access and health outcomes are
entrenched features of the U.S. healthcare system and reflect a history of discrimination that
impacts marginalized and vulnerable populations (Blumenthal et al., 2020).
Impacts on Mental Health
The pandemic negatively affected the lives and livelihoods of the U.S. population, with
harmful impacts across age, racial and ethnic groups, and localities; however, the impact on
marginalized populations has been especially egregious (Moore et al., 2021). Aside from
disproportionately poor outcomes from infection, “marginalized populations may also be prone
to experiencing greater negative impacts from the psychosocial turbulence and economic
uncertainty created by the interventional and policy responses to the pandemic” (Moore et al.,
2021, p. 577).
26

Being quarantined can impose an immediate and lingering psychosocial impact on
children to changes in their lifestyle, physical activity, and mental health (Ghosh et al., 2020).
Reports of child abuse, neglect, exploitation, and domestic violence are on a significant rise
during the pandemic lockdown (Ghosh et al., 2020). “Anxieties over health, finance, partial
inactivity of several welfare organizations due to lockdown and frustration encircling forced
home-stay are factors behind this rapid soaring of domestic violence” (Ghosh et al., 2020, p.
229). Some groups that may be more vulnerable than others to the psychosocial effects of the
pandemic include those who contract the disease and those who are at heightened risk for it, such
as the elderly, people with compromised immune function, and people with preexisting medical,
psychiatric, or substance use disorders (Pfefferbaum & North, 2020).
Attendance, School Closures, and Access to Education
The COVID-19 pandemic has also exacerbated disparities among schools between low-
income and affluent communities (Herold, 2020). School closures increased food insecurity
among students belonging to families living in poverty (Van Lancker & Parolin, 2020). Some of
the most significant gaps between our country’s poorest and wealthiest schools pertain to access
to basic technology, live remote instruction, and the percentages of students whom teachers
report are not logging in or making contact with them (Herold, 2020). There is a significantly
higher rate of low-income students marked truant during coronavirus-related closures. High-
poverty school districts are also less likely to reach all students (Herold, 2020). School closures
are likely to widen the learning gap between children from lower-income and higher-income
families (Van Lancker & Parolin, 2020). Children from low-income households live in
conditions that can make homeschooling more difficult (Van Lancker & Parolin, 2020). These
conditions include unreliable internet connection or lack of access to the internet, lack of access
27

to books at the appropriate reading level, homelessness or housing instability, and the lack of
access to outdoor facilities (Van Lancker & Parolin, 2020).
Chapter Summary
The COVID-19 pandemic posed unique challenges for school communities, including
students, families, staff, school administrators, and district leaders. Traditional models of in-
person schooling and learning shifted to online learning or a hybrid blend of the two. Districts
and schools have changed to accommodate the needs of the populations they serve and to
continue to provide access to learning, food, technology, and other critical resources during this
crisis. This chapter reviewed the history of health crises affecting schools, the guidance, and
financial support that schools and districts received from outside agencies, how district and
school leaders collaborated with other stakeholders to drive decision making, and the unique
ways the pandemic impacted marginalized groups. By examining how the pandemic impacted
traditional schooling and learning in the United States, and the factors that influenced school and
district leaders’ decisions, we can better prepare schools to address similar health crises in the
future.
28

Chapter Three: Methodology
The preceding chapters provided an overview of the study, the research questions guiding
the study, and a literature review that is relevant to the topic under discussion. This chapter
reviews the statement of the problem, the purpose of the study, and the research questions. It
outlines the design of the research study, summarizes the methodology, identifies the
participants, and explains the instruments used to conduct the research. It concludes with an
explanation of how the data were collected and analyzed and a summary of this chapter.
Statement of the Problem
The COVID-19 pandemic disrupted K–12 school districts, causing unforeseen
consequences within the education system and highlighting financial implications, the impact of
agencies, negotiations with unions, and the impact on students and the community. COVID-19
shifted school leaders’ roles into that of crisis managers.
Purpose of the Study
The purpose of this study was to analyze the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on
Southern California K–12 school districts and understand what participants 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 examined how district and school leadership influenced administrative
practices, student achievement, financial responsibility, union leadership, and community/parent
support as they responded to the COVID-19 crisis.
Research Questions
Four research questions guided the study:
29

1. What, if any, are the financial implications that the COVID-19 pandemic has had on
K–12 public school districts in Southern California, and how have district
superintendents, assistant superintendents, and principals addressed these
implications?
2. What, if any, have been the impact of federal, state, and local health agencies on K–
12 public school districts in Southern California, and what strategies have district
superintendents, assistant superintendents, and principals followed to address the
suggested guidelines?
3. How, if at all, have union negotiations played a role in K–12 Southern California
public school districts’ response to the COVID-19 pandemic?
4. How, if at all, have K–12 Southern California public school districts leadership teams
comprised of superintendents, assistant superintendents, and principals addressed the
concerns of the parent community regarding safety, nutrition, distance learning, lack
of technology, academic standing, and how and when to re-open schools due to the
COVID-19 pandemic?
Research Team
Dr. Rudy Castruita from the USC Rossier School of Education led the research team.
The dissertation group consisted of 22 students, with Dr. Castruita as the lead researcher and the
studies’ supervisor. The three research team members began meeting in the spring of 2021 and
contributed to the literature review, bibliography, statement of the problem, the purpose of the
study, research questions, conceptual framework, and data collection instruments. There may be
some similarities in their dissertations due to the many group aspects of the thematic process.

30

Research Design
This study was designed as a mixed-methods study, utilizing qualitative and quantitative
methods to collect and analyze the data. A mixed-methods approach was selected to establish
triangulation for more accurate findings and make the research study more holistic (Maxwell,
2013). Lochmiller and Lester (2017) stated that triangulation establishes evidence across
multiple data points to support the claims made in the study. Collecting data through interviews
and surveys enables triangulation of the results, which is crucial for cross-checking the data
collected and supporting the study’s findings (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). This study included
school superintendents, assistant superintendents, and principals of Southern California K–12
public school districts. This study involved collecting qualitative data from open-ended interview
questions with superintendents, assistant superintendents, and school site principals and
quantitative surveys completed by the same district and school leaders interviewed.
Qualitative Methods
In qualitative research, the researcher is the primary instrument of data collection and
analysis, and the product is very descriptive. Qualitative researchers study their natural settings
and are often interested in comprehending how people interpret their experiences and what
meaning they attribute to their experiences. They use an inductive process to gain understanding
from the perspective of the study’s participants (Lochmiller & Lester, 2017; Maxwell, 2013;
Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). Qualitative methods allowed researchers in this study to uncover how
school leaders made decisions and addressed challenges during the COVID-19 pandemic. The
researchers used nine interviews. The semi-structured interview protocol consisted of 26
questions, and the researchers were able to ask follow-up questions. Separate interview protocols
with minimal vocabulary changes and very similar questions were created for superintendents,
31

assistant superintendents, and principals. The interview protocols can be found in Appendix A.
The interviews were conducted 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. The researchers gathered data on the participants’ opinions,
decisions, and knowledge via the interviews. The overall purpose of qualitative research is to
interpret how individuals make sense of a process and describe how they interpret what they
experience (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016).
Quantitative Methods
Quantitative research describes patterns, trends, and relationships using numerical data.
Quantitative research usually collects data using instruments such as assessments, surveys, and
existing datasets. The most commonly used protocol for gathering quantitative data is a survey.
Surveys allow the researcher to obtain information from the participants and then easily convert
it to quantitative data to be analyzed (Lochmiller & Lester, 2017). For this study, quantitative
data were collected using a self-administered survey on Qualtrics (Appendix B). The survey
questions were developed around the four research questions. The survey was designed to gather
data that reflected the school leaders’ experiences, views, decisions, and knowledge about the
impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on Southern California K–12 public school districts The
surveys consisted of 5-point Likert scale questions using the following responses: 1 indicated
Strongly Disagree, 2 indicated Disagree, 3 indicated Neither Agree nor Disagree, 4 indicated
Agree, and 5 indicated Strongly Agree. The survey link was emailed to nine Southern California
K–12 school district leaders: three superintendents, three assistant superintendents, and three
principals. The survey included a cover letter (Appendix C), the survey questions, and final
32

instructions. Participants completed the survey using Qualtrics, which tabulated the number of
responses returned.
Each survey was slightly altered for each participant group to create more relevancy to
the role and experience of each of the three roles included in this study. This also allowed access
to the best possible responses to address the research questions and quantify the level of support
for each specific survey item accurately (Creswell, 2014).
Sample and Population
The identified population for the study consists of leaders of Southern California K–12
public school districts, superintendents, assistant superintendents, and principals. Convenience
sampling and purposeful sampling were utilized in selecting the school districts and the
superintendents, assistant superintendents, and principals who participated in this study.
Convenience sampling happens when the researcher selects individuals based on their proximity
and accessibility rather than based on specific criteria. Purposeful sampling occurs when the
participants are selected on the basis of specific criteria (Lochmiller & Lester, 2017; Merriam &
Tisdell, 2016). This study included purposeful selection to ensure that all participants worked in
public Southern California K–12, K–8, elementary, and high school districts in the roles of
superintendent, assistant superintendent, or principal. The selection criteria required the
participants to serve as superintendents, assistant superintendents, or principals in traditional
public K–12, K–8, elementary, or high school districts with student populations of at least 1,000.
They had to have served in their role for at least a year and have served during the 2020–2021
school year. The sample for the interviews was set at nine participants. Participants selected for
this study played a role in supporting school districts and school sites during the COVID-19
33

pandemic. The results from the interviews and surveys collected will be compared to the results
collected by other research team members. Table 1 displays the population for this study.

Table 1
Participant Selection Criteria
Superintendent Assistant superintendent Principal
In position for at least two
years
In position for at least two
years
In position for at least two
years
Served in position during
2019–2020 and 2020–2021
school years
Served in position during
2019–2020 and 2020–2021
school years
Served in position during
2019–2020 and 2020–2021
school years
Leader in public, K–12
district in Southern
California
Leader in public, K–12
district in Southern
California
Leader in public, K–12
district in Southern
California
Completed study survey and
interview
Completed study survey and
interview
Completed study survey and
interview

34

Researcher 1 School District Information
School district A serves 6,603 students in Grades kindergarten through 12 (EdData,
2021). The district has an average daily attendance of 4,765(EdData, 2021). According to
EdData (2021), nearly 37.2% of the student population are English learners, and 91.2% receive
free and reduced-price meals. School district B serves 4,612 students grades kindergarten
through 12th grade (EdData, 2021). The district has an average daily attendance of 2,426
(EdData, 2021). According to EdData (2021), nearly 7.8% of the student population are English
learners, and 38% receive free and reduced-price meals. School district C serves 16,278 students
grades kindergarten through 12th grade (EdData, 2021). The district has an average daily
attendance of 15,755 (EdData, 2021). According to EdData (2021), nearly 27.3% of the student
population are English learners, and 63% receive free and reduced-price meals.
Researcher 2 School District Information
School district A serves 24,776 students in grades kindergarten through 12 (EdData,
2021). The district has an average daily attendance of 19,393 (EdData, 2021). According to
EdData (2021), nearly 26.3% of the student population are English learners, and 93.4% receive
free and reduced-price meals. School district B serves 3,406 students grades kindergarten
through 12th grade (EdData, 2021). The district has an average daily attendance of 3,176
(EdData, 2021). According to EdData (2021), nearly 25.6% of the student population are English
learners, and 91.2% receive free and reduced-price meals. School district C serves 22,563
students Grades 7 through 12 grade (EdData, 2021). The district has an average daily attendance
of 19,667 (EdData, 2021). According to EdData (2021), nearly 9% of the student population are
English learners, and 70.9% receive free and reduced-price meals.

35

Researcher 3 School District Information
School district A serves 22,166 students in Grades kindergarten through 12 (EdData,
2021). The district has an average daily attendance of 17,301 (EdData, 2021). According to
EdData (2021), nearly 21.8% of the student population are English learners, and 90.4% receive
free and reduced-price meals. School district B serves 3,502 students grades kindergarten
through 12th grade (EdData, 2021). The district has an average daily attendance of 3,408
(EdData, 2021). According to EdData (2021), nearly 3.1% of the student population are English
learners, and 14.6 % receive free and reduced-price meals. School district C serves 15,730
students in kindergarten through eighth grade (EdData, 2021). The district has an average daily
attendance of 15,194 (EdData, 2021). According to EdData (2021), nearly 46.3% of the student
population are English learners, and 86.9% receive free and reduced-price meals.
Instrumentation and Conceptual Framework
After analyzing the current literature and participating in collaborative discussions to
identify gaps in research, an interview protocol and a survey were designed to address the
research questions guiding this research study. The interview questions and the survey questions
were field-tested beforehand to ensure they were concise and that the results generated addressed
the research study questions. Interviews took place virtually because of the safety protocols due
to the COVID-19 pandemic and out of consideration for the time constraints of the participants
who were still leading schools through the pandemic. Survey instruments were sent to the
participants’ email of choice. All the interviews were recorded with participants’ permission, and
notetaking was also used. Appendix A contains the interview protocol that was used. The survey
instruments were administered to Southern California K–12 public school superintendents,
36

assistant superintendents, and principals. The link to the survey questions were emailed to the
participants. Appendix B contains the survey questions that were sent to each participant.
This study’s conceptual framework (Figure 1) 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. The four frames, political, structural, human resources, and symbolic, described by
Bolman and Deal (2017) provide school leaders at both site and district levels the roadmap to
navigate the different aspects of leadership and how leader actions and habits can impact the
organization. Fullan’s (2014) work 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 organization that can move through change and to create systems for continuous
improvement. These three frameworks together provide Southern California K–12 school
districts with the steps to persist, at all levels of leadership, even through a crisis like the
COVID-19 pandemic.

37

Figure 1
Conceptual Framework

Data Collection
After the University of Southern California Institutional Review Board (IRB) granted
approval, data collection began during the fall of 2021. District superintendents were contacted
via a formal written request (email), 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 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.
38

The surveys were conducted through Qualtrics, an online format that allows participants
to complete the survey on their own time and at their own discretion. Participants spent an
average of 15 minutes completing the online survey. The semi-structured interviews took place
via Zoom and took an average of 35 minutes to complete. All interviews were recorded with the
participants’ permission. The recordings from the interviews were transcribed by a professional
transcriber.
Data Analysis
This mixed-methods study used qualitative data from interviews and quantitative data
from surveys. After the data was collected, the qualitative and quantitative data were analyzed
separately based on the four research questions delineated in the study. The qualitative data
collected from the interviews were organized and analyzed to identify common themes. The
researchers read through the interview transcripts and made notations using open coding
followed by axial coding and concluded with selective coding. Common themes and patterns
were identified to understand the impact of the pandemic on schools, students, and leaders and
how school leaders managed the crisis.
The quantitative data collected by the survey instrument was compiled and analyzed
using Qualtrics. Each participants’ responses were separated and organized using the Likert-scale
values of 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5. The average score from each question was calculated for each
participant and included one overall average score across all 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
39

the voice of the oppressed at the center of inquiry and use that inquiry to reveal the change and
activism needed to help people. So, an important aspect of ethical research is the focus on respect
for the individuals and the community (Denzin, 2016; Glesne, 2011; Lochmiller & 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 IRB were reviewed and implemented throughout the research study. To
ensure that 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
that the data would be handled carefully and safely. During the interviews, explicit permission
was requested to record the sessions. The participants were made aware of how the findings
would be distributed as a dissertation in the doctoral program at the University of Southern
California.
Summary
This chapter restated the statement of the problem, the purpose of the study, and the
research questions. The research design, which included details of the research methods,
including the sample and population, instrumentation, data collection, and data analysis, was also
presented in this chapter. Emphasis was made that the data collection began after the researcher
obtained approval for IRB. This study used appropriate tools and followed all ethical standards
to ensure the validity and reliability of the study. The superintendent, principals, and assistant
principals willingly participated in this study. The research findings of this study and in-depth
analysis will be presented in Chapter Four.

40

Chapter Four: Research Results and Findings
The purpose of this study was to analyze the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on K–12
Southern California school districts and understand what participants 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 examined how district and school leadership influenced administrative
practices, student achievement, financial responsibility, union leadership, and community/parent
support as they responded to the COVID-19 crisis.
This study was designed as a mixed-methods study, utilizing both qualitative and
quantitative methods to collect and analyze data. A total of 27 Southern California K–12 district
leaders and school leaders, nine superintendents, nine assistant superintendents, and nine
principals participated in the study. A mixed-methods approach was selected to establish
triangulation for more accurate findings and make the study more holistic (Maxwell, 2013).
Qualitative methods allowed for examining how school leaders made decisions and addressed
challenges during the COVID-19 pandemic. Interviews were used in the study’s qualitative
phase. The semi-structured interview protocol consisted of 14 questions and a series of follow-up
probes. The interviews served to gather data that reflected the participants’ opinions, decisions,
and knowledge. This study involved collecting qualitative data from open-ended interview
questions with participants and quantitative surveys completed by the interviewees.
The survey questions were also developed around the four research questions and
designed to gather data that reflected the school leaders’ experiences, views, decisions, and
knowledge about the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on Southern California K–12 public
school districts. This study gathered data by using three variations of the same survey (one each
41

for superintendents, assistant superintendents, and principals), which was distributed to all 27
participants. The surveys consisted of 5-point Likert-scale questions. The following descriptors
were used for each of the 26 survey items: 1 indicated Strongly Disagree, 2 indicated Disagree, 3
indicated Neither Agree nor Disagree, 4 indicated Agree, and 5 indicated Strongly Agree. The
survey instrument was web-accessible to all participants and designed to capture the numeric
description of the perceptions of district- and site-level administrators regarding district- and site-
level challenges related to the COVID-19 pandemic.
The quantitative findings show the average participant score for each survey question.
Chapter Four presents the findings from the research questions. The results found in this chapter
are the results of the online survey and zoom interviews. The following four questions guided the
research study:
1. What are the financial implications of the COVID-19 pandemic on K–12 public
school districts in Southern California, and how did district superintendents, assistant
superintendents, and principals address these implications?
2. What was the impact of federal, state, and local health agencies on K–12 public
school districts in Southern California, and what strategies did district
superintendents, assistant superintendents, and principals follow to address the
guidelines suggested by these agencies?
3. What was the role of union negotiations in K–12 Southern California public school
districts’ response to the pandemic?
4. How did K–12 Southern California public school districts leadership teams composed
of superintendents, assistant superintendents, and principals address the parent
community’s concerns regarding safety, nutrition, distance learning, lack of
42

technology, academic standing, and how and when to re-open schools due to the
pandemic?
Participants
Nine school districts located in Southern California were contacted to participate in the
study. The nine districts were located in Los Angeles, Ventura, and San Bernardino counties. All
nine school districts serve demographically diverse students in kindergarten through high school.
All nine participants met the selection criteria. All 27 school and district leaders selected
completed a self-administered survey designed around four research questions and participated
in a virtual interview via Zoom. To protect the participants’ identities, they were assigned
pseudonyms.
As shown in Table 2, 27 participants were chosen from nine different K–12 public school
districts in Southern California. The nine school districts served 122,330 students, with the
smallest school district (District E) serving 3,406 students and the largest school district (District
D) serving 24,776 students. An average of 62.9% of all enrolled students across all nine districts
were identified as socioeconomically disadvantaged (SES), with the smallest percentage of SES
students (14.6%) in District G and the largest percentage of SES students (93.4%) in District D.
Of the total student enrollments in all nine school districts, an average of 22.7% of students were
identified as English learners, with the smallest percentage of EL students (6.3%) in District I
and the largest percentage of EL students (46.3%) in District H.

43

Table 2
School District Participants: Demographic Information
District Grade
levels
Student
population
Socioeconomically
disadvantaged
Average
daily
attendance
English
learners
District A K–12 6,603 91.2% 4,765 37.2%
District B K–12 4,612 38% 2,426 7.8%
District C

District D

District E

District F

District G

District H

District I
K–12

K–12

K–12

K–12

K-8

K-8

9–12
16,278

24,776

3,406

23,699

3,502

15,730

23,724
63%

93.4%

91.2%

27.5%

14.6 %

86.9%

60.9%
15,755

19,393

3,176

22,301

3,408

15,194

22,611
27.3%

26.3%

25.6%

13.2%

14.6%

46.3%

6.3%

Note: Data reflects the 2019–2020 school year (EdData,2021)

As part of the research, 27 participants were asked two demographic questions regarding
how many years they had served in the leadership role and how many years they had served in
their current roles. It was critical that research participants had actual experience leading their
districts and schools during the COVID-19 pandemic.
As displayed in Table 3, three superintendents have served in their roles for just 1 to 2
years. Similarly, three have served in their roles for over 10 years. Two have served in their roles
44

for 3 to 5 years. Additionally, one superintendent has served in their position in their current
districts for 6 to 10 years. All nine experienced leading through the COVID-19 pandemic.

Table 3
Quantitative Survey: Participant Demographic Information
Position Southern California
district
Years in position Years in position at
current district
Superintendent A1 Yes 1 to 2 Less than 1
Superintendent B1 Yes 3 to 5 3 to 5
Superintendent C1

Superintendent D1
Yes

Yes
3 to 5

Over 10
3 to 5

6 to 10
Superintendent E1

Superintendent F1
Yes

Yes
1 to 2

1 to 2
1 to 2

1 to 2
Superintendent G1

Superintendent H1
Yes

Yes
6 to 10

Over 10
6 to 10

Over 10
Superintendent I1 Yes Over 10 Over 10

45

As shown in Table 4, six assistant superintendents have served in their positions for 3 to
5 years. One is newer to the position, having served only 1 to 2 years. Two have served in their
positions for 6 to 10 years. Eight assistant superintendents have served in their current positions
exclusively in their current districts. All assistant superintendent participants experienced leading
through the COVID-19 pandemic.

Table 4
Quantitative Survey: Participant Demographic Information
Position Southern California
district
Years in
position
Years in position at
current district
Assistant Superintendent A2 Yes 6 to 10 6 to 10
Assistant Superintendent B2 Yes 1 to 2 1 to 2
Assistant Superintendent C2 Yes 3 to 5 3 to 5
Assistant Superintendent D2 Yes 3 to 5 1 to 10
Assistant Superintendent E2 Yes 3 to 5 3 to 5
Assistant Superintendent F2 Yes 3 to 5 3 to 5
Assistant Superintendent G2 Yes 6 to 10 6 to 10
Assistant Superintendent H2 Yes 3 to 5 3 to 5
Assistant Superintendent I2 Yes 3 to 5 3 to 5

46

As indicated in Table 5, one principal has served in their role for just 1 to 2 years.
Similarly, one served in their position for 3 to 10 years. In contrast, three have served in their
positions for 6 to 10 years. Four have served in their role for over 10 years. Seven have held the
position of principal exclusively in their current districts. All principal participants experienced
leading through the COVID-19 pandemic.

Table 5
Quantitative Survey: Participant Demographic Information
Position Southern California
district
Years in position Years in position at
current school
Principal A3 Yes 6 to 10 6 to 10
Principal B3 Yes 6 to 10 6 to 10
Principal C3 Yes 6 to 10 6 to 10
Principal D Yes Over 10 6 to 10
Principal E3 Yes Over 10 Over 10
Principal F3 Yes Over 10 Over 10
Principal G3 Yes 1 to 2 1 to 2
Principal H3 Yes Over 10 1 to 2
Principal I3 Yes 3 to 5 3 to 5

47

Research Question One
The first research question asked, “What are the financial implications of the COVID-19
pandemic on K–12 public school districts in Southern California, and how did district
superintendents, assistant superintendents, and principals address these implications?” The
unprecedented financial implications K–12 school systems faced due to COVID-19 include
rising costs, declining revenue due to declining enrollment, and greater student needs. These
implications impacted how leaders approach their finances (Zhou et al., 2021). Given the impacts
of factors such as fluctuating revenue projections, unpredictable enrollment numbers, the
uncertainty of the ongoing costs related to COVID-19, and the greater breadth and depth of
students’ needs, it will take a transformed vision of schooling to effectively meet these needs
(Educational Research Strategies, 2021) and financial resources to support that vision. The first
question was designed to assess the financial implications of the COVID-19 pandemic on
schools and to learn how districts used the CARES Act for the ESSER to respond to those needs
and if the additional funds helped mitigate the challenges school districts are facing.
Six survey questions addressed Research Question 1. These questions were designed to
learn district leaders’ perceptions of the effectiveness of the ESSER Funds their districts
received. As seen in Table 6, there were two areas where most superintendent respondents
(77.8%–100%) agreed or strongly agreed that CARES Act met their district’s funding needs. The
majority of superintendents (77.8%) agreed that the CARES Act met their district’s funding
needs in the area of personnel. All superintendents agree or strongly agree that the CARES Act
met their district’s funding needs in the area of PPE. Whether the CARES Act met the district’s
funding needs in the area of facility upgrades, superintendents responded differently, with
responses from Disagree to Strongly Agree.
48

Table 6
Quantitative Survey: Superintendents’ Perceptions of Financial Implications of COVID-19
Element Strongly
disagree
Disagree Neither
agree nor
disagree
Agree Strongly
agree
The CARES Act met
my district’s funding
needs in the area of
personnel.
0.00% 0.00% 22.2% 55.5% 11.1%
The CARES Act met
my district’s funding
needs in the area of
personal protective
equipment (PPE).
0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 44.4% 44.4%
The CARES Act met
my district’s funding
needs in the area of
technology.
0.00% 0.00% 33.3% 22.2% 33.3%
The CARES Act met
my district’s funding
needs in the area of
professional
learning and/or
training.
0.00% 11.1% 22.2% 55.5% 0.00%
The CARES Act met
my district’s funding
needs in the area of
facility upgrades.
11.1% 22.2% 11.1% 33.3% 22.2%

Four interview questions directly addressed the research question and were designed to
provide respondents an opportunity to discuss the financial implications more broadly. Interview
responses to the four questions provided information to better understand financial and fiscal
decision-making made by school and district leaders during the COVID-19 pandemic crisis. The
49

unprecedented challenges K–12 school systems faced required coordinated action from district,
state, and federal leaders and a sustained, multi-year effort to transform and rebuild the nation’s
schools. However, federal and state education leaders must help districts with financial support,
by removing barriers, and by creating pathways that make it easier to implement sustainable
strategies for students, teachers, and districts (Zhou et al., 2021). Two themes emerged during
the interviews about financial and fiscal decision-making made by school and district leaders
during the COVID-19 pandemic.
Government Relief
Schools in California were allowed to re-open for in-person instruction as long as their
districts posted a coronavirus safety plan by February 1, 2021, posted a dashboard listing
COVID-positive cases among students and staff at each open school, and submitted a COVID-19
safety plan to their local health officer and the state’s Safe Schools for All team (Harrington,
2021). In addition to guidelines and mandates, schools also received financial support. The
GEER Fund and the ESSER Funds distributed $30.75 billion in emergency education funding to
states, which provided financial support to LEAs with relief funds (CDE, 2021). The
interviewees expressed their appreciation for government aid during the pandemic and how these
monies provided school districts with opportunities to support students.
Superintendent B1 explained how government relief prevented detrimental cuts and
supported the maintenance and growth of programs that support student learning:
There was sort of an ebb and a flow, rollercoaster sort of, as we started the pandemic,
because we entered March of 2020 looking at that budget going into June, and the
approval of the governor’s budget at that point, looking at a significant cut to the LCFF.
So, we were planning for what we would call a worst-case scenario, a really tragic
50

scenario, in terms of staffing and layoffs and program cuts and all of that. And then, the
government stepped in and provided relief and it ended up totally flipping. Then, there
was enough money, obviously, to be able to maintain and grow programs, really in
response to COVID.
Superintendent E1 provided an example of how one-time government funding helped
mitigate district expenses brought upon by the COVID-19 pandemic:
All the one-time money we’ve gotten from the state and the federal government has
helped really to mitigate some of the expenses tied to the COVID 19 pandemic and
helped. We needed to buy additional PPE, air filters, upgrading the filters in the HVAC
systems. And, moving forward with some of the money to replace some of our older
HVAC systems to newer ones.
Superintendent F1 also expressed how one-time government funding helped mitigate
district expenses as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic:
Well, I think it’s been positive. With all the one-time funding for COVID relief and the
increases that people didn’t see coming with all of the revenues at the state level, that’s
going to really help here in the short term, but also kind of as we push through this to
mitigate some of the effects and what we’re able to provide for students.
No Incentives
In California, Senate Bill 86 allocated $2 billion to schools that submitted reopening
plans and brought elementary and other prioritized, high-needs students back to campus (Jones &
Freedburg, 2021). In addition, the new law also proposed that some schools might face penalties
such as having their allocated grant reopening funding cut by 1% per day if they did not open by
the deadline (Jones & Freedburg, 2021). However, in the interviews, district leaders unanimously
51

claimed that the additional funding was not an incentive for their reopening plan. Instead, the
preparedness and readiness of their staff and students served as the main driving force behind
allowing students back into the classroom.
Superintendent H1 explained that their district’s schools planned to open as soon as they
could, and additional government funding did not influence their timelines:
Not at all. Again, from the very beginning, the mantra was, we don’t know when but we
are opening the schools. We try, and I got a lot of heat for that at the beginning. When
people asked me, “Will you be waiting until? and my answer is always, “We are getting
ready to open tomorrow.” And even though it wasn’t literally, I wanted people to know
that, as soon as we could, we will open.
Superintendent I1 clearly expressed that their decision to re-open was driven by what was
best for students:
Zero. That wasn’t the incentive. The incentive was for us to get students back in the
classroom because we believe that is the best situation for them. We do have some
students that chose not to do that, but a very, very small percentage, less than 2%.
School and district leaders in Southern California K–12 schools agreed that financial
government relief helped mitigate some of the costs brought upon by the COVID-19 pandemic.
Students remained a priority when considering the way money was spent and timelines for
reopening school buildings.
Research Question Two
The second research question asked, “What, if any, have been the impact of federal, state,
and local health agencies on K–12 school districts, and what strategies have districts followed to
address the suggested guidelines?” In the spring of 2020, schools faced a complicated array of
52

health considerations; throughout the state, districts were navigating these and other issues with
guidance from federal and local health government agencies, organizations, and health experts to
safely prepare for the return to in-person learning (Kearney & Childs, 2021). School and district
leaders grappled with inconsistent guidance and surging community infections (Gross & Opalka,
2020). Safety guidelines and mandates from county and state officials provided school and
district leaders with a set of criteria to safely re-open schools (Harrington, 2021), and the CDE
created resources for how parents can support their children at home and a Strong Together Plan,
which provided a comprehensive checklist for reopening schools, mental health, and well-being
among other topics (CDE, 2021). The school-reopening guidance offered by the CDC naturally
focuses on public health considerations, leaving it to educators to devise how to keep students
and staff safe while also meeting students’ educational needs (Bailey, 2021).
The second research question was designed to better understand the impact of health and
safety guidelines on school districts’ ability to re-open schools safely. Participants responded to
three survey questions related to health and safety guidelines. As seen in Table 6, all of the
superintendent respondents agreed that health guidelines impacted their district’s return to school
plan in the spring of 2021. Most superintendents (66.6%) strongly disagreed or disagreed that the
federal, state, and local health guidelines were clear in providing information to support the safe
reopening of schools, while 22.2% agreed or disagreed on the same element. Whether
superintendents understood how to safely bring back staff during the fall of 2020 to work sites
based on the public health guidelines, superintendents also responded differently with responses
ranging from strongly Disagree to Strongly Agree.

53

Table 7
Quantitative Survey: Superintendents’ Perceptions of the Impact of Health and Safety Guidelines
Element Strongly
Disagree
Disagree Neither agree
nor disagree
Agree Strongly
Agree
The federal, state, and
local health
guidelines were clear
in providing
information to
support the safe
reopening of schools.
11.1% 55.5% 0.00% 11.1% 11.1%
I understood how to
safely bring back
staff during the fall of
2020 to work sites
based on the public
health guidelines.
11.1% 11.1% 0.00% 44.4% 22.2%
The health guidelines
impacted our
district’s return to
school plan in the
spring of 2021.
0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 33.3% 55.5%

There were four interview questions that directly addressed the research question and
were designed to provide respondents with an opportunity to discuss the impact, if any, of the
health and safety guidelines from various governmental agencies they had to implement to re-
open schools safely. Responses to the three questions provided information to understand the
collaboration among various agencies and the strategies districts used to implement the guidance
and re-open schools safely. There were two themes that emerged during the interviews:
differences in opinion regarding consistent guidance and the role of communication and
collaboration.
54

Difference in Opinion of Consistent Guidance
District and school leaders disagreed on the opinion of consistent guidance for the
implementation of health and safety mandates and policies from federal and local health
government agencies, organizations, and health experts. Superintendent B1 discussed the
challenges that school and district leaders faced due to inconsistent communication from federal
and local health government agencies, organizations, and health experts.
I’m talking specifically about county and state organizations, specifically about the health
departments, maybe the governor’s office, too, in that there just was a lack of alignment
in getting the message to school leaders quick enough, getting it where it was clear
enough, where it was in print fast enough and where the voice of the school
administrators, the school district leaders was taken into account. That was a big
challenge. And I have to say that, looking at CDC guidelines versus LADPH guidelines
versus California Department of Health guidelines, Cal/OSHA guidelines and all of the
others, was extremely, extremely challenging. And, when one organization doesn’t talk to
the other organization, you’re left in a position where you’re susceptible, and you’re
vulnerable. And, it’s hard as a leader to be vulnerable when you’re trying to battle a
pandemic and deal with all the fallout of a pandemic.
Superintendent A1 explained how inconsistent communication from federal and local
health government agencies, organizations, and health experts left district superintendents feeling
lots of pressure from schools and the communities they serve:
I think it was hit and miss. You know, medical people, the science people, you know,
they come out, they share information, and then when it would reach down to our
Department of Public Health, sometimes it would align, sometimes it wouldn’t. You
55

know, as a school district, you have a lot more pressure on you, especially as a
superintendent to say, I’m sorry, I know the school down the road that’s in another
county has said, no more masks or you don’t have to do this anymore. But we are gonna
follow the guidelines, we’re gonna stay true to this until we hear differently, and
sometimes that’s not the popular thing to do.
Superintendent D1 expressed a difference in opinion regarding guidance and
communication from federal and local health government agencies, organizations, and health
experts:
The LCDPH did a fantastic job of providing guidance. We meet on a weekly basis to
receive updates related to state and county guidelines pertaining to COVID-19
Guidelines, mandates, and recommendations. This is an ongoing process that allows us to
update our COVID-19 Protocols within our school district.
Principal D3 also mentioned that their school and district depended heavily on guidance
from federal, state, and local government agencies and community organizations to keep school
communities safe:
We also, of course, had guidance from the CDC, the health department, the Los Angeles
County Office of Education, and as soon as any new finding was revealed dealing with
COVID, we complied, and we made sure that we reassess our situation and went along
with whatever plan they had. Because we understood it’s a pandemic, and we couldn’t
take it lightly. There were health issues at stake. You know, these are people’s lives at
stake. And so we want to make sure that everyone was as healthy as possible coming
back and re-engaging. But we always followed the agencies that I just named. We always
followed the plan.
56

Communication and Collaboration
Despite a difference of opinion in the way various government agencies, organizations,
and health experts offered guidance to school and district leaders, the superintendents agreed that
communication and collaboration played a critical role in interpreting and implementing health
guidelines and policies. Superintendent A1 shared the process of communication and the ways in
which school and district leaders collaborate to ensure there is an alignment in messaging to
staff, students, and families:
I quickly just made that decision, like, no, we’re gonna do weekly updates, you know,
even if there are no updates, just to sort of say, like, here’s our, you know, information.
So in terms of communicating that piece, it always begins with, you know, I meet with
my cabinet, and we listen to the conversation, to the updates and guidelines and say,
okay, what changes do we need to make? Okay, this, okay, what’s a clear way to say
that? So, we’ve been tweaking, copying from different districts that have these great
graphics or these visuals that we can use, infographics to help. But, you know, once we
sort of come up with the way we’re going to communicate it, then I communicate that to
my administrators and directors, once they give the blessing or say, hey, you know what,
maybe we should also say this, and then we communicate it to staff. And then the final
piece is communicating to parents, you know, making sure that’s all in alignment. And
obviously, we can mitigate that in Spanish as well.
Assistant Superintendent F2 also discussed how school and district leaders collaborate to
communicate with students and families to help them understand decisions and district policies:
I think the biggest strategy, it certainly comes under the umbrella of communication to
why is what we like to refer to it as where it’s, it’s not just a, you know, distribution of
57

rules and info. And, you know, without it being a dialogue. So, I’d say, you know, we
had a lot with every phase of reopening. We had the district level, and then at the local
school level. It gave folks a chance to know and understand the why behind a decision
making, and the construction of the boundaries and, you know, restrictions that are put in
place, and how to feel assured that what we’re doing is, you know, going to be done
safely and with thorough thought.
Principal E3 discussed the ways in which their district communicated and collaborated
with health agencies to remain up to date with mandates and procedures:
I would say that, like, I know, the superintendent had, like a weekly meeting with, you
know, our LA county superintendent and health, LA County Health and so forth. So
different agencies there. And I know there was a weekly meeting, and that’s where the
updates would come in. And then our district office would relay those to us.
Some district leaders shared the challenges that school and district leaders faced as a
result of inconsistent communication from federal and local health government agencies,
organizations, and health experts, while other district leaders had a difference of opinion and felt
that agencies such as Los Angeles County Department of Public Health did a fantastic job of
providing guidance. Despite a difference of opinion, superintendents and assistant
superintendents agreed that communication and collaboration played an instrumental role in
implementing and interpreting health guidelines and policies.
Research Question Three
The third research question asked, “How, if at all, have union negotiations played a role
in K–12 district’s response to the COVID-19 pandemic?” After the initial closures in March of
2020, school districts were forced to quickly roll out distance learning plans and revisit the
58

present CBAs that were negotiated between teachers’ unions and district administration
(Hemphill & Marianno, 2021). State health and educational agencies provided guidance that
helped district leaders negotiate MOUs with certified and classified unions to determine staff’s
work stipulations due to the pandemic. These MOUs determined compensation, work hours,
non-teaching duties, evaluation, leave, and technology (Hemphill & Marianno, 2021). COVID
cases began to decline in the spring of 2021, and schools began to re-open, which placed teacher
unions in a position to be able to influence the opening of schools through CBAs. The decision to
re-open schools was placed on school boards and district administrators instead of policymakers,
leaving teacher’s unions in a position to influence when and how schools re-opened (Hemphill &
Marianno, 2021).
The third research question was designed to help the researchers better understand the
role of labor unions in shaping districts’ response to the COVID-19 pandemic. Study participants
responded to three survey questions related to Research Question 3, as seen in Table 8.
superintendents, assistant superintendents, and principals were all aligned in their responses as,
overall, participants felt very strongly that union negotiations with both certificated and
classified staff were important in effectively responding to the COVID-19 pandemic.

59

Table 8
Quantitative Survey: District and Site Leaders’ Perceptions of the Impact of Union Negotiation
Superintendent
Assistant
superintendent Principal
Negotiations with certificated unions
influenced the way my district effectively
responded to the COVID-19 pandemic for
students and families.

3.9 2.9 4.3
Negotiations with classified unions
influenced the way of my district
effectively responding to the COVID-19
pandemic for students and families.

3.2 3.5 4.3
Negotiations with the teacher’s union
impacted the quality of instruction offered
to students during distance learning.
3.6 3.9 3.9

Note. The online Qualtrics® survey incorporated a 5-point Likert scale response, indicating the
following: 1 = Strongly Disagree; 2 = Disagree; 3 = Neither Agree nor Disagree; 4 =Agree; 5 =
Strongly Agree.

Four interview questions directly addressed Research Question 3 and were designed to
allow respondents to discuss the impact of union negotiations on districts’ response to the
COVID-19 pandemic. Responses to the four questions provided information to better understand
the interaction between district leadership and labor unions and the impact on districts as they
planned their response to the COVID-19 pandemic. Three themes emerged during the
interviews: nourishing relationships amongst classified and certificated staff, redefining roles and
responsibilities for classified and certificated staff, and the return to in-person learning.

60

Nourishing Relationships Amongst Classified and Certificated Staff
Assistant Superintendent I2 highlighted the importance of using principal and teacher
voices as a guide to making decisions:
And so at every school site, you had school leaders just coming together to find solutions.
And then the broader picture of principals bringing these ideas together. And then based
on the feedback that we’re getting from all those schools, that really shaped how
negotiations went. So it was really a bottom-up, grassroots, teacher-led initiative, from
my perspective, but obviously, as you do that, you begin to learn about certain things
begin to look at certain perspectives, and then all that becomes part of the negotiation.
They have become part of negotiations. So, I would say the leaders, the teacher
leadership, in their knowledge is what really shaped negotiations for the instructional
programs, particularly when it came to working on Zoom and working online. And then
the district came behind that to assist in the implementation, and obviously, bringing
some more things that we think could augment what the teachers wanted, and needed,
wasn’t always the most fun thing to do, but I thought it’s pretty successful in being able
to pivot from being in the classroom to going online.
Assistant Superintendent F2 highlighted the importance of collaborating with their
classified staff:
We had conditions in place that were mutually worked through and agreed upon. I’ll say
it was extremely amicable. We were, we’re very fortunate. And I think our teachers’
union would say the same that, you know, we really do work collaboratively. And, and it
was, we all had the same idea in mind, you know, let’s, let’s make sure what we’re doing
is thoughtful, and that we’re doing it safely, that we understand the rules, and you know,
61

the restrictions and boundaries that are given to us by other people who are more expert
in this than us. And then let’s do everything we can to do what’s best for kids and get
back to whatever thing we can do that’s closest to normal. And that was the mindset, and
I, you know, it hasn’t changed, fortunately.
Superintendent C1 discussed the importance of having mutual agreements with unions:
But we have a really solid relationship with our teachers’ union. And, so, we had
handshake agreements every step of the way. And then, we followed up with those with
MOU. And as we hit bumps in the road, we talked them through, but there’s not been one
issue that we haven’t been able to come to some level of mutual agreement upon because
I think we philosophically agree on the need to protect our workforce while serving our
kids.
Superintendent B1 reiterated the importance of listening to the staff and their needs:
And then, you have to be open to listening. For a lot of us who are in district leadership
positions, we’ve been out of the classroom for quite some time. So, that direct impact to
teacher, to student, we can think and think we know all we want, but the reality is, until
you’re in the classroom and dealing with the day-to-day, we don’t. And so we have to
listen. But we also have to make sure that our focus is on the student. And adults need to
keep adult issues to adult issues. And so, again, to resolve it, we wanted to come up with
this. My mantra always is, “Let adult problems be adult problems, and not let that impact
kids.” And so, going through negotiations, as hard as it is, is still trying to keep that
center.
Principal F3 emphasized the importance of going the extra mile to hear concerns and
allowing staff to have input in the layout of their workspace:
62

It was how we’re setting up their classrooms. And also, how are we screening kids
coming in. And, so, we took an extra step here, there was the healthy screening survey,
every student had to take every student coming in at the gates, I just show their green
screen. We also went all spring. We were doing temperature checks. We provided the
masks, the hand sanitizer, and the wipes, not just for the teachers but, in every classroom
students, we had boxes laid out throughout every classroom. So we had 1000s and 1000s
of 1000s of wipes on campus. And then making sure their workspace or no student desk
was within six feet of the teacher’s station. So those are the things that we put in place in
partnering with the teachers union.
Redefining Roles and Responsibilities Schedules for Classified and Certificated Staff
Superintendent A1 discussed how a workday for classified staff versus certificated staff
was presented and justified:
Truly, it was that bonus pay, because, when everybody was able to stay home, a lot of our
classified didn’t have that option. They had to be here. The lunch people, the custodians.
So, making sure that they got that hero pay. That was another way of negotiating with our
unions, finding that flexibility, where in the past, you couldn’t do something out of your
classification. They basically said, “Okay, because we’re short-handed, because we need
all hands on deck, we’re gonna allow you to do this” from here to this date. So, I really
found that working with unions, they were like, “Okay, we’ll do it because it’s what’s
best.” But there were some situations where I really do feel that it was just “shame on you
for doing that.” And, and it’s unfortunate. But, the whole rationale was, “There’s money.
Why not give it to us?”
63

Assistant Superintendent H2 highlighted how making the decision to have classified staff
onsite impacted their relationship:
We needed to have people at our schools to open our offices to answer questions to
provide our parents services, to assist our parents with helping them just logging on. We
implemented Canvas. Well, if you don’t know how to access that initially, then having a
virtual video isn’t gonna get you to where you need to get. So, the burden of that day, the
responsibility of that was to a certain extent placed on our classified staff, our outreach
consultants, and our office staff and being able to open our offices. So, that was probably
the most complex. Ultimately, it happened, but it didn’t happen without some rub. We’re
still dealing with the consequences of those relationships, of feeling that they’re less
valued, and it’s not a matter of value. It was really a matter of, we have to continue to
operate and offer our families, the services, and teachers could teach virtually, so we’re
still dealing with that. That relationship building, I think.
Superintendent G1 discussed the need to negotiate higher expectations for the hybrid
model in order to best serve students:
Between March of 2020, when we initially closed schools, in June of 2020, the level of
teacher time and in quality of programs was not good. So, when we came back to
negotiate the fall of 2020 to 2021, what hybrid was going to look like. It was absolutely
necessary that we were going to have more rigor. We were going to have more teacher
time in front of the Zoom. We were going to have more student check-ins. We were
going to have social-emotional learning. So, the district took a more active role in what
virtual hybrid learning was going to look like because they didn’t do a very good job. The
first three months, what we did do well was we literally closed school and sent kids home
64

on Friday, the 13th of March. On Saturday, or on Monday, the 16th of March, we
reopened virtually, and every student had a device. So, we had no pause in access or in
devices of instructional program. But the quality of what they got was not that good.
Return to In-Person Learning
Assistant superintendent F2 discussed the concerns teachers had regarding the conditions
of returning to work:
Well, certainly working conditions when we moved to being at home, work didn’t get
easier. Certain factors of work changed. The idea of helping students in person and
dealing with some of the distractions and nuances of behavior and a classroom was very
different on Zoom. They asked for some training, they asked for some time to prepare, so
they could do that job well, and we were able to provide that to them. When we shifted
from one to the other, we had the terms spelled out with mutual agreement via the MOU
process specific to that so that everybody knew and understood that regardless of what
school you worked for, what grade level you work for, when it was your turn, to come
back, and be in person with live students that we were going to allow for a transition
period to occur.
The superintendents, assistant superintendents, and principals in this study concurred that
safety was the most important topic addressed in union negotiations. Principal C3 highlighted
how negotiations informed safety procedures:
I think just make sure that we had enough of the PPE for all of our staff members,
making sure that we followed what the guidelines were from the Department of Health to
have lots of the Senate, a lot of hand sanitizers. Making sure that everything is cleaning
and custodial staff UPS goes in and cleans them regularly. So, making sure that if there
65

was a positive case, then we would make sure that we have a team going in, and making
sure that we can clean off the tables a little bit more doing a deep cleaning, rather than
just in general. So, that was an impact from our work, they wanted to make sure that that
was safe for the students and staff.
Research Question Four
The fourth research question asked, “How, if at all, has your district addressed the
concerns of the parent community regarding safety, nutrition, distance learning, lack of
technology, academic standing, and how and when to open schools due to the COVID-19
pandemic?” During a pandemic, the decision to close schools is very difficult. On the one hand,
closing schools sends a powerful message to the community about the severity of the pandemic,
but closure also means that the needs of the communities won’t be met (Braunack-Mayer, 2013).
Closing schools impacts many social structures in the community; therefore, public health
benefits from school closures are to be weighed against life-altering costs such as the
educational, economic, and social-emotional turmoil imposed on students and their families
(Bailey, 2021).
In a nationally representative online poll of 1,720 educators administered on April 7 and
8, 2020, 99% of district leaders said they were doing something to address equity during
closures. They were offering pick-up/delivery of free or reduced-price meals, providing devices,
providing additional online tutoring available, and providing online/phone therapy for students
who needed them (Kurtz, 2020). Amid disruptions, a majority of parents of K–12 students
expressed concerns about their children falling behind (Horowitz & Igielnik, 2020). Parents with
lower incomes are more likely than middle-income and upper-income parents to voice concerns
about their children falling behind due to pandemic disruptions (Horowitz & Igielnik, 2020).
66

Many students rely on free or reduced meals provided at schools, and when schools close,
nutrition is compromised. According to Sharfstein and Morphew (2020), “There are major
divides by race/ethnicity, geography, and economic class in access to home computers and high-
speed internet” (p. 133). Operating schools during the COVID-19 pandemic requires sufficient
resources to implement and sustain effective mitigation strategies. School districts across the
country grappled with how to safely operate schools in the 2020–21 school year and leaned on
the CDC, which provided indicators to help guide school districts to operate schools in the safest
ways possible. Rice et al. (2021) stated,
These indicators include measures of underlying community transmission and a measure
of adherence to five primary mitigation strategies 1) consistent and correct use of masks,
2) social distancing to the extent possible, 3) hand hygiene and respiratory etiquette, 4)
cleaning and disinfection, and 5) contact tracing in collaboration with the local health
department. (p. 1917 )
The fourth research question was designed to help the researcher better understand the
relationship between school districts and the parent community during the COVID-19 pandemic.
Research study participants responded to seven survey questions. As seen in Table 9, 88.8% of
superintendent participants agreed or strongly agreed that their districts maintained good
communication with families during the pandemic and met the needs of students and families in
the areas of nutrition and technology (computers/devices). As seen in Table 9, there were four
areas where superintendents believed they could have served their constituents better: meeting
students’ needs in technology (internet service), meeting students’ academic needs, meeting
students’ social-emotional needs, and health and safety. Overall, 66.6% of superintendent
participants agreed or strongly agreed their district met the needs of students and families in the
67

area of technology (internet service), while 11.1% of participants neither agreed nor disagreed,
and 11.1% o disagreed.
In addition, 33.3% of superintendent participants disagreed that their district met the
academic needs of students. In contrast, 33.3% of superintendent participants agreed that their
district did meet these needs, while 22.2% neither agreed nor disagreed. Also, 55.5% agreed or
strongly agreed that their district met students’ social-emotional needs, while 11.1 % neither
agreed nor disagreed, and 22.2% disagreed. Lastly, 66.6% agreed or strongly agreed that their
district met the needs of students and families in the area of health and safety, while 22.2%
disagreed.

68

Table 9
Quantitative Survey: Superintendents’ Perceptions of Parent Concerns
Element Strongly
disagree
Disagree Neither
agree nor
disagree
Agree Strongly
agree
My district maintained
good communication
with families during
the pandemic.
0% 0% 0% 22.2% 66.6%
My district met the needs
of students and families
in the area of nutrition.
0% 0% 0% 33.3% 55.5%
My district met the needs
of students and families
in the area of
technology
(computers/devices).
0% 0% 0% 33.3% 55.5%
My district met the needs
of students and families
in the area of
technology (internet
service).
0% 11.1% 11.1% 33.3% 33.3%
My district met the needs
of students and families
in the area of social-
emotional well-being.
0% 22.2% 11.1% 33.3% 22.2%
My district met the needs
of students and families
in the area of health &
safety.
0% 22.2% 0% 33.3% 33.3%
My district met the
academic needs of
students.
0% 33.3% 22.2% 33.3% 0%

69

Two interview questions directly addressed the research question and were designed to
learn more about the relationship between the parent community and school districts during the
pandemic. Responses to the two questions provided information about parents’ perceptions of
school districts meeting their needs during the COVID-19 pandemic. There were four themes
that emerged during the interviews, safety as a priority, food insecurity, technology needs of
students and their families, and students’ academic needs.
Health and Safety Needs
Superintendent C1 discussed that parents were more involved than ever before, which
was an indication that they needed to make sure they had built-in streams of communication.
Early on, I realized that this pandemic woke up the sleeping giant, and that’s parents. I’m
not exaggerating. We’re a district of 15,000 kids. Prior to the pandemic, if we called a
district-wide meeting regarding LCAP [local control accountability plan] input we got 25
parents, If so. Remember March 20. We shut down, we started our LCAP planning, like
in May, April, May, we held a Zoom LCAP meeting, I had 1,100 parents in that meeting.
I don’t think they knew that they were coming to, but they were hungry and needing to
connect with the schools. So, we realized real quick we had to have these avenues for
connecting.
All superintendents, assistant superintendents, and Principals in Districts A–I shared that
their community’s main concern was surrounding their children’s safety. Assistant
Superintendent B2 spoke about families’ safety concerns regarding how schools were going to
maintain safety.
Safety first was just that. How are you going to keep distance? How are you going to
make sure people are going to wear masks? That was the first concern in October,
70

November, December of 2020. How are you going to make sure kids are going to wear
masks? How are you going to make sure special ed kids are going to wear masks? How
are you going to make sure teachers keep masks on? That was kind of the first thing of,
how safe are you really to come back and what are you going to do if someone gets
COVID? How do you clean? A lot of it was around that safety piece of it, of the
hesitation. Do you guys really know what you’re doing? That was part of it.
Principal C3 discusses how parent reassurance of safety made it easy to transition back
into in-person learning: “I think we do a good job of communicating with them with what we’re
going to do and how to keep their children safe.”
Superintendent B1 reflected on mental health as one of the biggest safety concerns for
students and staff.
I do think that, when I look back and or evaluate where we are now today, the biggest
thing that, I don’t want to say I misjudged or was misjudged, but just don’t think there
was any way to quantify how bad the mental health side of this was going to be for, not
just for students. I’m talking for staff. I’m talking for parents, families, caregivers. The
level of mental health. I don’t know. Gosh, the level of need in the area of mental health
was so huge, and still is so huge, that there’s just not enough resources to fully address it.
I mean, you do the best you can. But I don’t think that any of us could have guessed to
the extent that this would be such a huge issue for the return. And, so, I think parents saw
it more, maybe sooner.
Food Insecurity
Superintendent A1 expressed pride in the district’s ability to meet students’ nutritional
needs during the pandemic school closures.
71

Because we’re 100% free and reduced lunch, there were structures and systems in place,
where our kids can pick up and go every single day. So, I think that that system, once
they got those kinks worked out, was great. After a while, not only did kids receive, their
breakfast or lunch, but they were also even given additional food to the families too. So, I
think that that was something that the state did a fantastic job. Providing those extra
resources, and nutrition. All nutrition staff, the state really stepped up to another level and
making sure that our families had food. And on some days packing it up, so that way, it
would eliminate the amount of times that our families had to go out and possibly expose
them, to their kids to, to the virus.
Principal B3 also expressed their district’s response to meet the nutritional needs of their
community.
None whatsoever. Because through the entire time, when the school was closed, families
were able to come pick up lunch. And extra, too, no questions were asked. If you said, I
need three,” you got three. We just had to document. Also, the local high school was
doing it. So, families who really needed it could come here and then go there. Again, no
questions were asked. This year, all students are getting free lunch as well. So, regardless
of socioeconomic status, everybody qualifies for free lunch.
Superintendent D1 discussed having to adjust and rethink their nutritional programs to
meet students’ nutritional needs:
Yes, the packaging and distribution of meals had to be reevaluated. We had to adjust
hours of operations and reconfigure menus. We adapted the pick-up process so that
families could pick up meals during virtual learning from any site in the district during
instead of their home school. Multiple meals were sent home instead of one meal per day.
72

Students Technology Needs
Principal B3 discussed how having a one-to-one device allowed for a seamless transition
to virtual learning:
Our district, our site has always been a one-to-one device, one device per student. In
some cases, more because we have a computer lab in addition to every student having
their own device. So, students were able to take their Chromebooks home. So, even right
now, when a student gets exposed, if they have to quarantine for five to 10 days, parents,
we ask parents, “Do you need a Chromebook?” Parents will say, “No, we got it,” or yes,
and they sign it out and return it when they come back. We also have hotspots available
for families that don’t have internet at home. Luckily, we’re in a community or in an area
where I think we probably, at this school alone, only had about five spots that we shared
out during distance learning, and none this year.
Superintendent D1 shared their immediate response to the school closures by getting their
families what they needed to continue schooling:
Yes, there were. We did a pretty good job with the distribution of devices and hot spots
for all students that needed them. However, we soon found out there were dead zones
within the city. We had to adapt and supply hotspots from all four major carriers because
certain hot spots worked in areas where others did not. We did a pretty good job of
identifying which families did not have internet access in their homes, and as such,
supplied them with hot spots.
Superintendent C1 discussed the challenges with students being able to access technology
to participate in distance learning.
73

We saw every school district has a story like you distribute a laptop, a Chromebook. And
then the family calls and says it’s not working. So, we say, okay, bring it back. We get a
new one. And then the second one’s not working. Okay, bring it back. We get the third
one. It’s not working. We realize it’s the user. So, there’s those kinds of things. But
wholesale. Now, we all pivoted and learned the technology. It was bumpy in the
beginning, much smoother as we got into the 2021 school year.
Parents’ Academic Concerns
Superintendent B1 shared how parent concerns around their child’s well-being and
academic progress pushed the district to rethink their instructional programs for virtual learning:
Yes. Yes. I mean, pretty much any concern you could think of was brought up probably
at one point throughout this process. And the concerns, as I shared earlier, achievement
gap or the learning gap, social-emotional gap, and how are we addressing that, and how
we’re making sure students had enough time with their teacher. Very, very big concern in
the district was, was it enough time? Is 40 minutes block period, 40 minutes of time
before a break enough? And, I think we were challenged by our community to revisit and
relook at our schedules, to make sure that we were giving enough time, to make sure we
had conversations with our teachers about the why, why do we need to provide more time
for students? But definitely, I say valid concerns from the community related to student
achievement, academics.
Principal A3 discusses the challenges that students had to go through when learning
virtually:
Yeah, I think everywhere, right, and not just specifically to our community, but even in
more affluent communities, we saw that parents were like, What is this? What is this
74

Zoom thing, you know, it is so hard to stay focused via screen. Depending on the kid, you
know, some kids, that was their gig, they were going to be fine. There, there’s always
going to be some kids that are going to thrive on something. But then there’s those kids
that really need that social interaction that they’re just not going to be you are going to
lose them. So, you had parents saying, I don’t know how to do this, you know, there’s
falling asleep when I’m checking in on them. Or some teachers were saying, you know,
the kids in their bed and the pajamas? Well, yeah, they’re at home, you know, and then
we have little control of that. Or we have the parents in the background, you know, doing
all kinds of things like cooking. And some parents live in a tiny house, so they had four
or five kids Zooming. The reception was horrible. Just so many stories and so many
dilemmas. I could write a book. But, yeah, it was a challenge.
Superintendent A1 discussed parent concerns about their child’s support and lack of
motivation:
I think mostly, our special ed families were the biggest ones to really advocate for the
lack of live instruction, the lack of support. Because I mean, although I think all students
didn’t benefit from distance learning, and that’s just my take, because you obviously
can’t replace that day-to-day interaction and connection. But when you’re looking at
students with very severe learning disabilities, there’s no way that their needs could have
been met. Most of these kiddos are in a classroom. They have an aide right next to them
[who] helps them stay engaged and super focused. I think, for the most part, those are the
families that were heard the most from, and a lot of our students who are, you know,
learning English, it was hard for them to navigate to not having that constant support, the
scaffolding, all the different supports that are put in place. With that piece. Interventions.
75

A lot of families at the middle school advocated for the fact that their students were just
not motivated. Like, they were disconnected.
Research Question Four sheds light on parents’ concerns around student safety, student
health and wellness, and students achievement. Across all nine districts, parents advocated for
students, which pushed superintendents, assistant superintendents, and principals to revamp their
communication strategies and supports during the COVID 19 pandemic.
Summary
Chapter Four reported the findings of 27 Southern California school leaders; nine
superintendents, nine assistant superintendents, and nine principals. Our study collected
qualitative and quantitative data through survey questionnaires and Zoom interviews that all 27
participants completed. The results from this study bring to light the impact of the pandemic on
students, families, leaders, schools, and districts. The study provides insight into how leadership
practices were influenced by the financial implications, government agencies, and concerns
among parents and unions brought on by the COVID-19 pandemic. Most importantly, this study
examined what district and school leadership learned from their experiences and their decision-
making responsibilities in managing the crisis. Based on the analysis of the responses from the
surveys and interviews, several common themes were identified in the leadership of participating
superintendents, assistant superintendents, and principals across all nine districts: communication
and collaboration, safety, and financial implications.
Collaboration and Communication With Local Agencies
The pandemic required leaders to respond quickly, efficiently, and proactively but not
alone. Because the crisis was uniquely rooted in health and safety, it was crucial for public
schools to partner with state and local health agencies. Superintendents, assistant
76

superintendents, and principals across all nine districts shared mixed experiences regarding their
collaboration with local agencies and implementation of COVID-19 guidelines. Some district
and school leaders shared common challenges and frustrations with not being able to provide
input into the guidance for schools issued by their local health agencies. Findings from the data
indicate that collaboration between these entities was primarily a top-down, one-way approach,
with district leaders receiving information and implementing it accordingly without being able to
put much input into the protocols and guidelines put forth by public health agencies. Leaders also
expressed how the implementation of safety protocols looks different from one district to another
because of the ambiguity of guidelines. On the other hand, other leaders felt that they had strong
collaboration with local agencies and felt confident in implementing the health and safety
guidelines. The responsibility put on the public school leaders to make decisions regarding the
safety and health of all employees and students was made more difficult by the reported
challenges with collaboration.
Collaboration and Communication With Stakeholders
Overall, the participants in this study placed a high value on the relationships between
management and school staff and with certificated and classified unions, which was leveraged
during negotiations. District leaders and classified and teacher unions negotiated throughout the
pandemic to ensure that evolving working conditions were safe, and they were proactively
planning for multiple scenarios. Findings also revealed that leaders emphasized creating a space
where staff received updates regularly and the opportunity to get any questions or concerns
answered. One frequent mode of communication was Zoom, which most leaders found to be
efficient as it allowed them to communicate to all stakeholders-especially with the ever-changing
findings delivered by the CDC. Leaders also took advantage of hosting meetings online to reduce
77

anxiety amongst families, especially when students returned to on-campus instruction. Some
common practices were updating the school’s website regularly, posting information on social
media, sending surveys home for feedback, and phone calls to ensure current information was
accessible to families. While communication regarding myriad topics during COVID-19 was
confusing, complex, and ever-changing, the data suggest that associated challenges led to
opportunities for district and school leaders to strengthen, diversify, and effectively communicate
with their collaborators and stakeholders.
Safety
Overall, participants in the study discussed safety as the most important priority for their
decision making during the COVID- 19 pandemic. During the transition to virtual learning,
districts put students’ and communities’ health and safety at the forefront. District leaders
ensured that all students were to have access to free meals. Structures and systems were put in
place for families to pick up multiple lunches without question. All leaders discussed pride in
their district’s ability to meet students’ nutritional needs during school closures. When students
transitioned back to in-person learning, leaders dealt with another safety concern surrounding
students and staff’s mental health. Students’ motivation had declined, and schools saw more
absenteeism, fights, and substance abuse. Leaders prioritized safety and worked collaboratively
to mitigate the spread of the virus and attempted to create the safest learning environment but
underestimated the extent of the impact the pandemic had on students’ mental health. School
leaders hired more school counselors to help with students’ social-emotional learning and mental
health concerns. Responses from all nine districts indicated that leaders put all of their efforts
into addressing student safety and addressing the uneasiness of the school community.
78

Due to the uncertainty with the COVID-19 virus, parent involvement was at an all-time
high. Parents joined Zoom meetings, met with district and school site leaders, and voiced
concerns on district and site-level surveys about their children’s safety. Parents wanted to know
what the health and safety guidelines were going to be at their child’s school site and how those
guidelines would be enforced and maintained. Parents expressed concerns with the systems in
place to ensure student compliance with safety protocols, the privacy of their students’ COVID
status, their students’ potential exposure to the virus, and their child’s mental health.
Superintendents and assistant superintendents followed required public guidelines and
implemented safety plans to ease stakeholders’ concerns around safety surrounding the
reopening of schools. Findings indicated that parent and staff concerns with reopening schools
surrounded appropriate PPE, facility upgrades, masking, sanitation, physical distancing, and
contract tracing. Participants built streams of communication to help ease parent concerns around
safety.
Financial Implications
Throughout the interviews, researchers learned about how financial government relief
supported schools and districts in Southern California and its influence on school and district
leaders' decisions. The CARES Act for the ESSER provided school districts with additional
funds to help mitigate the challenges brought on by the COVID-19 pandemic. The GEER and
ESSER Funds provided financial support to LEAs with relief funds to assess and address how
the educational landscape is and may continue to be impacted by the COVID-19 pandemic.
Student health and safety remained a deciding factor in how government relief aid was
spent. School and district leaders were also pressured to make financial decisions based on
guidance from federal, state, and local governments. This required the purchase of materials and
79

spending on changes made to facilities to keep the school community safe. Districts also spent
additional monies on new education programs, student technology, hot spots, and academic
support staff to adapt to the transition from in-person to remote learning. In addition, district
funding components, such as average daily attendance, were negatively impacted by the
pandemic and also played a critical factor in school and district spending.
Chapter Five summarizes the findings, implications for practice, a discussion of future
research, and further conclusions.

80

Chapter Five: Summary, Conclusion, and Implications
On March 11, 2020, the WHO declared COVID-19 a global pandemic. The lives of
millions of students, educators, and classified school staff throughout the United States
experienced disruption due to the COVID-19 pandemic and the mitigation policies associated
with the virus (Hinrichs, 2021). School-related crises have been historically short-term such as
active shooters or natural disasters. The disruption to education caused by the COVID- 19
pandemic was unique due to its lingering effects persisting for over 2 years (Gainey, 2009). The
COVID-19 pandemic was an unprecedented challenge for school districts as they were forced to
close schools on very short notice due to the lockdown mandate, not knowing when schools
would re-open. With no concrete timeline, superintendents, assistant superintendents, and
principles began facing challenges as a result of this crisis.
As revealed in the data from this study, this health crisis had an impact on public
education. Consequences of the pandemic included financial implications, the impact of
agencies, negotiations with unions, and the impact on students and the community. Data analysis
revealed how schools and school leaders led and guided their organizations through the
pandemic. This chapter summarizes the key findings of each research question along with the
implications of the study, recommendations for future research, and a conclusion.
Purpose of the Study
The purpose of this study was to analyze the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on
Southern California K–12 school districts and understand what district and site administrators
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 examined how district and school leadership influences
81

administrative practices, student achievement, financial responsibility, union leadership, and
community/parent support as they responded to the COVID-19 crisis.
Participants
The 27 research participants were nine superintendents, nine assistant superintendents,
and nine principals across 9 K–12 public school districts in Southern California. These research
participants qualified if they held their current position for at least a year, they served in their
position during the 2020–2021 school year, and the student population of their district is at least
1,000.
Key Findings
The following section presents the key themes of the four research questions that guided
this study, as the research team found across all nine school districts.
Findings for Research Question 1
The first research question assessed the financial implications of the COVID-19
pandemic on schools to learn how districts used the CARES Act for the ESSER Fund to respond
to those needs and if the additional funds helped mitigate the challenges school districts are
facing. Responses to this research question provided researchers with information about how
school districts and sites met their financial needs and obligations during the COVID-19
pandemic. According to the participants’ responses, the financial implications highlighted two
themes: government relief and the need to prioritize students’ safety over the financial incentive
to open schools.
Theme 1: Government Relief
The first theme identified how funding from the CARES Act provided relief to the
districts and prevented detrimental cuts while allowing for maintenance and growth of programs.
82

Interviews indicated the emphasis on one-time money being used to meet the needs of students
and staff. Some leaders discussed wanting more flexibility, while other leaders felt that the
flexibility was there. Although leaders shared that they were appreciative of the “one-time
money,” some mentioned that they were limited in their ability to create programs that would
require ongoing funding.
Theme 2: No Incentives
The second theme identified was the district’s priority around student safety. Though
financial incentives seemed enticing in theory, district leaders realized that student and staff
safety was their priority. Findings showed that incentives to re-open schools in the spring of
2021 did not influence district leaders, and they stood firmly on their priority of staff and student
safety.
Findings for Research Question 2
The second research question was designed to better understand the impact of health and
safety guidelines on school districts’ ability to re-open schools safely. While health and safety
are always a priority in the public education system, the COVID-19 pandemic demanded an
entirely new understanding and meaning of student and staff health and safety. The research
findings highlighted the significance of guidance from federal and local health government
agencies, organizations, and health experts. These guidelines were critical in assisting schools to
re-open safely. Two key themes emerged from this research question: a difference of opinion on
consistent guidance and the importance of communication and collaboration across school and
school district stakeholders.

83

Theme 1: Difference of Opinion on Consistent Guidance
The first theme among the respondents was a difference of opinion on consistent
guidance for the implementation of health and safety mandates and policies from federal and
local health government agencies, organizations, and health experts. Guidelines were sometimes
misaligned with information issued by several state and federal agencies, which caused
confusion. Responses indicated that participants in this study did not agree that communication
from government agencies, organizations, and health experts was clear and consistent. The
findings indicate that some school and district leaders faced challenges, such as pressure from
parents and the surrounding community, because of inconsistent communication from
government agencies, organizations, and health experts. Responses also show that other school
and district leaders felt that communication from agencies, organizations, and experts was
consistent and provided clarity around COVID-19 protocols and health and safety mandates that
were easy to follow.
Theme 2: Communication and Collaboration
The second theme among respondents was the importance of communication and
collaboration across school and school district leaders. Study participants unanimously agreed
that collaboration and communication were critical when interpreting and implementing health
guidelines and policies. Respondents shared that school and district leaders collaborate to ensure
alignment in messaging to staff, students, and families. Collaboration and strong communication
also help school community stakeholders understand decisions and district policies.
Findings for Research Question 3
The third research question was designed to help the researcher better understand the role
of labor unions in shaping districts’ responses to the COVID-19 pandemic. Participants felt very
84

strongly about working with their union to solve their respective problems for both certificated
and classified employees. Regular communication between the superintendents, assistant
superintendents, principals, and the unions, allowed them to meet the needs of their schools and
their employees regarding safety, learning, and new working conditions. Given these needs, three
themes emerged from the participants regarding working with unions during the COVID-19
pandemic, which focused on nourishing relationships amongst classified and certificated staff,
redefining roles and responsibilities for classified and certificated staff, and returning to in-
person learning.
Theme 1: Nourishing Relationships Amongst Classified and Certificated Staff
The first theme that emerged from Research Question 3 was the importance of listening
to the staff and their needs and using their needs as a guide when making decisions.
Changing working conditions for teachers and classified personnel prompted superintendents,
assistant superintendents, and principals to consistently nourish their relationships and meet with
their unions, teachers, and community members with a collaborative mindset. These
collaborations often required leaders to be proactive with asking for concerns prior to scheduled
meetings so that it allowed them to attend with answers. In general, leaders understood the
anxiety the school community felt, and as a result, they seized every opportunity they could to
communicate with transparency.
Theme 2: Redefining Roles and Responsibilities for Classified and Certificated Staff
The second theme that emerged was redefining employees’ roles and responsibilities. As
schools closed due to the COVID-19 pandemic, for some employees’ their work could be done
online, and for others, it required them to be onsite. As a result, research participants indicated
negotiations were key in temporarily redefining roles and responsibilities as new working
85

conditions demanded. The participants in this study concurred that teachers’ unions played a key
role in representing the views of frontline education workers during a period of unprecedented
difficulty. Therefore, consistent collaboration was a need among unions, superintendents,
assistant superintendents, and principals.
Theme 3: Return to In-Person Learning
The third theme that emerged was teachers' concerns regarding the conditions of
returning to work. As education leaders announced their plans to return students to classrooms,
some teachers and teachers’ unions pushed back, often citing fears for their own or their
students’ safety. The participants in this study concurred that safety was the most important topic
addressed in union negotiations. They highlighted the importance of taking the time to reassure
and educate families on how the school would implement layered prevention strategies (PPE,
sanitizing areas frequently) in alignment with CDC recommendations to safely re-open for in-
person learning.
Findings for Research Question 4
The fourth research question was designed to help the researcher better understand the
relationship between school districts and parents during the COVID-19 pandemic. Four themes
that emerged from the research participants' perceptions included themes around health and
safety, food insecurity, student technology needs, and parents' concerns around their student's
academics. Research Question Four sheds light on parents’ concerns around student safety,
student health and wellness, and students’ achievement, which pushed superintendents, assistant
superintendents, and principals to revamp their communication strategies and supports during the
COVID 19 pandemic.

86

Theme 1: Health and Safety Needs
The First theme from Research Question 4 revealed that there was an increase in parent
participation which led superintendents, assistant superintendents, and principals to create
consistently streamlined communications with families and the community. Parents’ main
concern was surrounding their child’s safety and the schools’ ability to keep their children safe
as students returned to in-person schooling. District and sight leaders shared their reflections on
how they were not equipped to support the mental health concerns that arose due to the
pandemic.
Theme 2: Food Insecurity
The second theme revealed that all districts and schools in this research study met the
student’s nutritional needs during the school closures. The interviews highlighted that while
some districts felt the pressure to prioritize this need, other districts offered nutritional services,
but it was not a pressing need in their respective communities.
Theme 3: Student’s Technology Needs
The third theme that emerged was the importance of technology for the continuation of
learning during school closures. Findings indicated that 100% of districts were able to distribute
the appropriate technology such as laptops and hotspots for students in their respective districts.
Some districts had a seamless transition as their student population had a one-to-one computer
prior to the pandemic. Other districts discussed the challenges with transitioning to virtual
learning due to the digital divide in the student and families that their districts serve.

87

Theme 4: Parents’ Academic Concerns
The fourth theme that emerged was parent concerns around their child’s academic
progress, lack of student motivation, and the lack of support, which pushed districts to rethink
their instructional programs and how students were receiving support and accommodations.
Implications for Practice
This research study examined the impact that the COVID -19 pandemic has on K–12
public school districts in Southern California. Through this mixed-methods study, the three
members of this research study collected surveys and conducted interviews to collect data for
this study. The research team was able to better understand what superintendents, assistant
superintendents, and principals learned from their experiences, decision-making, and
responsibilities. The literature and results led the research team to three implications for practice
regarding leaders becoming crisis managers, the need for leaders to collaborate, and the need for
clear communication during the pandemic. The conceptual framework in Figure 1 was based on
three theoretical frameworks to understand the theories that impact school leadership and how
they can be adapted to the current situation of managing the COVID-19 pandemic crisis. When
compared to the findings of this study, the three theories used to develop the conceptual
framework present important implications for leaders and their changing roles throughout this
crisis.
The first implication for practice is to utilize appropriate leadership frames to enact
unpredictable guidelines during a crisis to keep the school community safe (Bolman & Deal,
2017). The four frames (political, structural, human resources, and symbolic) described by
Bolman and Deal (2017) provided school leaders at both site and district levels the roadmap to
navigate the different aspects of leadership and how leader actions and habits can impact the
88

organization. Because of the ever-changing challenges teachers encountered due to the
pandemic, ranging from layoffs, pay cuts, and fear of COVID-19 exposure, it became crucial for
leaders to communicate with their stakeholders accurately (Fullan et al., 2014). Because
participants shifted between roles continually, it became crucial to increase communication,
which resulted in strengthening meaningful partnerships with local community organizations that
helped their organizations navigate the pandemic.
The second implication the three research team members found for leadership practice
during a crisis is the need for clear communication. The school leaders interviewed utilized a
variety of focused but far-reaching communication strategies (e.g., Zoom meetings, town halls,
surveys) and frequently collaborated with outside entities to ensure they were receiving the most
up-to-date information, which allowed them to enact change (Fullan et al., 2014). Further,
leaders highlighted the importance of being proactive by listening to the community and
attending meetings with answers. Whether virtually or in-person, educational leaders must create
dedicated time to solicit feedback.
The third implication for practice by superintendents, assistant superintendents, and
principals is the need for leaders to be learning leaders to help their organizations best manage an
unpredictable situation like the pandemic. Westover’s (2020) framework provides the guiding
principles that districts can enact to create an organization that can move through change and
create systems for continuous improvement. The school leaders interviewed highlighted the
importance of creating spaces where they can lean on other leaders, share ideas, and build
collective expertise.

89

Recommendations for Future Study
The literature review provides context for the study of school leadership as they took on
the role of crisis managers during the COVID-19 pandemic. At the time of this study, the
pandemic continues to impact school communities and district leaders. Due to the ongoing
pandemic, there are many unknowns about the long-term impact on students, staff, and school
leaders. These unknown long-term consequences of the pandemic present several opportunities
for future research to assess how COVID-19 has created lingering implications for school
communities.
Recommendation 1
The first recommendation for future research is to examine the long-term effects of the
COVID-19 pandemic on K–12 students’ mental health, especially those living in historically
socioeconomically disadvantaged communities. The American Psychological Association
(2021) reported that 81% of teens aged 13–17 experienced more intense stress during the
COVID-19 pandemic. This presents itself in many ways, including increased diagnoses of
anxiety and stress and increased reports of self-harm and suicide (Golberstein et al., 2008).
Furthermore, low-income and marginalized communities are negatively affected by multiple
determinants of health while also battling the coronavirus pandemic, including housing
instability, homelessness, and lack of access to healthcare or mental health services (Benfer &
Wiley, 2020). Future research can help determine if school closures and isolation have added to
mental health concerns and can also provide guidance for treating and preventing the impacts of
future crises.

90

Recommendation 2
The second recommendation for future research is to examine and guide how school and
school district leaders can support students, families, and staff across socioeconomically diverse
communities in navigating technology and technology platforms and access to high-speed
internet. According to a report conducted in 2021, up to 12 million K–12 students experience a
lack of connection to high-speed internet due to limitations of poor broadband mapping data,
current infrastructure, and supply chains, insufficient marketing and adoption support, and
inadequate funding (Ali, et al., 2021). The need to close the digital divide, even after the
pandemic, goes beyond distributing laptops to students. Technology plays a critical role in
providing students with a high-quality education experience. This presents an opportunity for
future research to provide information that will help construct systems and implement strategies
for technology that will benefit student learning experiences for future generations.
Conclusion
Due to the COVID-19 pandemic, K–12 schools were disrupted, causing many ripple
effects in our education system. Gaining insight into the experience of K–12 leaders can allow us
to reimagine and revolutionize a new educational landscape during a crisis. During the COVID-
19 crisis, superintendents, assistant superintendents, and principals became responsible for
managing impacts on school sites. Doing so required them to shift into crisis managers, prioritize
collaboration, and communicate clearly to better serve staff, students, and families. The research
participants relied on the power of nourishing relationships, both new and ongoing, to ground
their decision making in their values in prioritizing the safety and needs of their staff, students,
and parents. District and site leaders quickly realized that collaborating and sharing resources is
the only way to move forward. These practices will help improve the school system and student
91

learning experiences during the pandemic and in future attempts to provide a more equitable
landscape for students and staff. The data collected through this study supports how K–12 public
school district leaders in Southern California became crisis managers during the COVID-19
pandemic by focusing on safety, clear communication, and relationships.

92

References
Ali, T., Chandra, S., Cherukumilli, S., Fazlullah, A., Hill, H., McAlpine, N., McBride, L.,
Vaduganathan, N., Weiss, D., Wu, M. (2021). Looking back, looking forward: What it
will take to permanently close the K–12 digital divide. San Francisco, CA: Common
Sense Media.
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.
https://www.gse.harvard.edu/news/20/04/harvard-edcast-school-leadership-during-crisis
Bailey, J. (2021). Is It Safe to Reopen Schools? An Extensive Review of the Research. American
Enterprise Institute.
Bansak, C., & Starr, M. (2021). Covid-19 shocks to education supply: How 200,000 U.S.
households dealt with the sudden shift to distance learning. Review of Economics of the
Household, 19(1), 1–90. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11150-020-09540-9
Benfer, E. A., & Wiley, L. F. (2020). Health justice strategies to combat COVID-19: protecting
vulnerable communities during a pandemic. Health affairs blog. https://perma.cc/MA87-
HMUH
Bishop, W., Fifolt, M., Peters, G., Gurley, D., & Collins, L. (2015). Perceptions and experiences
of K-12 educational leaders in response to the 27 April 2011 tornadoes. School
Leadership & Management, 35(2), 215–235.
https://doi.org/10.1080/13632434.2015.1041487
93

Blumenthal, D., Fowler, E. J., Abrams, M., & Collins, S. R. (2020). Covid-19—implications for
the health care system.
Bolman, L. G., & Deal, T. E. (1997). Reframing organizations: Artistry, choice, and leadership
(2nd ed.). Jossey-Bass.
Borse, R., Behravesh, C., Dumanovsky, T., Zucker, J., Swerdlow, D., Edelson, P., Choe-Castillo,
J., & Meltzer, M. (2011). Closing Schools in Response to the 2009 Pandemic Influenza A
H1N1 Virus in New York City: Economic Impact on Households. Clinical Infectious
Diseases, 52(suppl_1), S168–S172. https://doi.org/10.1093/cid/ciq033
Braunack-Mayer, T. (2013). Understanding the school community’s response to school closures
during the H1N1 2009 influenza pandemic. BMC Public Health, 13(1), 344–344.
https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2458-13-344
California Department of Education. (2020a). California safe schools for all.
https://schools.covid19.ca.gov/
California Department of Education. (2020b). COVID-19 guidance in the school nutrition
programs. https://www.cde.ca.gov/ls/nu/cnpcovid19guidance.asp
California Department of Education. (2020c). SSPI webinar for school leaders: Review of the
state’s public health guidance https://www.cde.ca.gov/ls/he/hn/healthguide20200909.asp
California Department of Education. (2021). California safe schools for all.
https://schools.covid19.ca.gov/
California For All. (2021). Blueprint for a safer economy https://covid19.ca.gov/safer-economy/
California School Employees Association. (2021). About CSEA. https://csea.com/about-csea
94

Canlé, A. (2020). Keeping lines of communication open during distance learning. Edutopia.
https://www.edutopia.org/article/keeping-lines-communication-open-during-distance-
learning
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. (2020). Operating schools during COVID-19:
CDC’s considerations. Retrieved on May 23, 2021. From
https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov
Chao, D. L., Halloran, M. E., & Longini, I. M. (2010). School opening dates predict pandemic
influenza A (H1N1) outbreaks in the United States. The Journal of Infectious Diseases,
202(6), 877–880. https://doi.org/10.1086/655810
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
Creswell, J. (2014). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, & mixed methods approaches
(4th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Devakumar, D., Bhopal, S. S., & Shannon, G. (2020). COVID-19: The great unequalizer.
Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine, 113(6), 234–235.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0141076820925434
Diliberti, M., Schwartz, H. L., Hamilton, L. S., & Kaufman, J. H. (2020). Prepared for a
pandemic? How schools’ preparedness related to their remote instruction during COVID-
19. RAND Corporation., https://www.rand.org/pubs/research_reports/RRA168-3.html
https://doi.org/10.7249/RRA168-3
95

Dunkel, Rollo, J. M., & Zdziarski, E. L. (2020). Campus crisis management: a comprehensive
guide to practitioners. Routledge.
Fein, A. H., & Isaacson, N. S. (2009). Echoes of Columbine: The emotion work of leaders in
school shooting sites. The American Behavioral Scientist, 52(9), 1327–1346.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0002764209332549
Fensterwald, J. (2021, January 20). More school organizations urge revising Gov. Newsom’s
reopening plan: They warn that districts will ignore offer as too burdensome for the extra
funding. EdSource. Retrieved on May 24, 2021, from https://edsource.org/2021/more-
school-organizations-urge-revising-gov-newsoms-reopening-plan/647298
Fitzsimmons, T. (2021). College Board drops SAT’s optional essay and subject tests to ‘reduce
demands on students’. University of California Berkeley Center for Educational
Partnerships. https://cep.berkeley.edu/college-board-drops-sats-optional-essay-and-
subject-tests-to-reduce-demands-on-students
Fong, M. W., Gao, H., Wong, J. Y., Xiao, J., Shiu, E. Y., Ryu, S., & Cowling, B. J. (2020).
Nonpharmaceutical measures for pandemic influenza in nonhealthcare settings—Social
distancing measures. Emerging Infectious Diseases, 26(5), 976–984.
https://doi.org/10.3201/eid2605.190995
Fotheringham, P., Harriott, T., Healy, G., Arenge, G., McGill, R., & Wilson, E. (2020). Pressures
and influences on school leaders as policy makers during COVID-19. Available at SSRN
3642919. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3642919
Fullan, McKenzie, W. B., Getty., & Hamilton, J. (2014). The principal : three keys to
maximizing impact (First edition.). Jossey-Bass.

96

Gainey, B. S. (2009). Crisis Management’s New Role in Educational Settings. The Clearing
House, 82(6), 267–274. http://www.jstor.org/stable/20697878
Ghosh, R., Dubey, M. J., Chatterjee, S., & Dubey, S. (2020). Impact of COVID-19 on children:
Special focus on the psychosocial aspect. Minerva Pediatrica, 72(3), 226–235.
https://doi.org/10.23736/S0026-4946.20.05887-9
Golberstein, E., Eisenberg, D., & Gollust, S. E. (2008). Perceived stigma and mental health care
seeking. Psychiatric services, 59(4), 392-399.
https://ps.psychiatryonline.org/doi/pdf/10.1176/ps.2008.59.4.392?casa_token=ezKsf_uzO
r0AAAAA:8sqeD7TSV05ODJhFE09iYBPZvCB2pxKUruQEORQb9PZCN3dwc40OdIn
35tk_T_b1hHOUQGFDiqYw
Goleman, Daniel (1998). What makes a leader?
http://fs.ncaa.org/Docs/DIII/What%20Makes%20a%20Leader.pdf
Grooms, A. A., & Childs, J. (2021). “We need to do better by kids”: Changing routines in US
schools in response to COVID-19 school closures. Journal of Education for Students
Placed at Risk, 26, 1–22. https://doi.org/10.1080/10824669.2021.1906251
Gross, B., & Opalka, A. (2020). Too many schools leave learning to chance during the
pandemic. Center for Reinventing Public Education.
https://www.crpe.org/sites/default/files/final_national_sample_brief_2020.pdf
Hamilton, L. S., Kaufman, J. H., & Diliberti, M. (2020). Teaching and leading through a
pandemic: Key findings from the American Educator Panels Spring 2020 COVID-19
Surveys. Data Note: Insights from the American Educator Panels (Research Report. RR-
A168-2). RAND Corporation.
97

Harrington, T. (2021, February 2). Quick Guide: What California’s color coded county tracking
system means for schools? EdSource. Retrieved https://edsource.org/2021/quick-guide-
what-californias-color-coded-county-tracking-system-means-for-schools/639357
Hemphill, A. A., & Marianno, B. D. (2021). Teachers’ unions, collective bargaining, and the
response to COVID-19. Education Finance and Policy, 16(1), 170–182.
https://doi.org/10.1162/edfp_a_00326
Herold, B. (2020). The disparities in remote learning under coronavirus (in charts). Education
Week, 39(30), 12–13.
Hinrichs. (2021). COVID-19 and education: A survey of the research. Economic Commentary,
2021-4, 1–6. https://doi.org/10.26509/frbc-ec-202104
Horowitz, J. M., & Igielnik, R. (2020). Most parents of K-12 students view learning online worry
about them falling behind. Pew Research Center. https://www.pewresearch.org/social-
trends/2020/10/29/most-parents-of-k-12-students-learning-online-worry-about-them-
falling-behind/
Jones, C., & Freedburg, 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. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvb.2020.103439
Kearney, C. A., & Childs, J. (2021). A multi-tiered systems of support blueprint for re-opening
schools following COVID-19 shutdown. Children and Youth Services Review, 122,
105919. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.childyouth.2020.105919
98

Kinsey, E. W., Hecht, A. A., Dunn, C. G., Levi, R., Read, M., Smith, C., Niesen, P., Segilman,
H. K., & Hager, E. R. (2020). School closures during COVID-19: Opportunities for
innovation in meal service. American Journal of Public Health, 110(11), 1635–1643.
https://doi.org/10.2105/AJPH.2020.305875
Kurtz, H. (2020, April 10). National survey tracks impact of coronavirus on schools: 10 key
findings. Education Week. https://www.edweek.org/teaching-learning/national-survey-
tracks-impact-of-coronavirus-on-schools-10-key-findings/2020/04
Lambert, D., & Fensterwald, J. (2020, May 4). Can California schools put safety measures in
place in time to open early? Many school leaders skeptical. EdSource.
https://edsource.org/2020/can-california-schools-put-safety-measures-in-place-in-time-to-
open-early-many-district-leaders-skeptical/630741
Lee, B., Brown, S., Cooley, P., Potter, M., Wheaton, W., Voorhees, R., Stebbins, S.,
Grefenstette, J., Zimmer, S., Zimmerman, R., Assi, T., Bailey, R., Wagener, D., & Burke,
D. (2010). Simulating School Closure Strategies to Mitigate an Influenza Epidemic.
Journal of Public Health Management and Practice, 16(3), 252–261.
https://doi.org/10.1097/PHH.0b013e3181ce594e
Lochmiller, & Lester, J. N. (2017). An introduction to educational research : connecting
methods to practice. SAGE.
Los Angeles Unified School District. (2021). At-home learning: A California education
partnership. Retrieved January 20, 2021, from https://achieve.lausd.net/pbs
Mahnken, K. (2020). Half of all school employees aren’t teachers. This recession will endanger
their jobs. The74million. https://www.the74million.org/article/half-of-all-school-
employees-arent-teachers-this-recession-will-endanger-their-jobs/
99

Malkus, N., Christensen, C., & West, L. (2020). School district responses to the COVID-19
pandemic. American Enterprise Institute for Public Policy Research.
Marianno, B. D., Hemphill, A. A., Loures-Elias, A. P., Garcia, L., Cooper, D., & Coombes, E.
(2022). Power in a pandemic: Teachers’ unions and their responses to school reopening.
AERA Open, 8. https://doi.org/10.1177/23328584221074337
Markel, H., Lipman, H., Navarro, J., Sloan, A., Michalsen, J., Stern, A., & Cetron, M. (2007).
Nonpharmaceutical Interventions Implemented by US Cities During the 1918-1919
Influenza Pandemic. Journal of the American Medical Association, 298(6), 644–654.
https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.298.6.644
Maxwell, J. A. (2013). Qualitative research design: An interactive approach: An interactive
approach. Sage.
Mayer, J.D., Salovey, P., & Caruso, D.R. (2008). Emotional intelligence: New ability or eclectic
traits?. American Psychologist, 63(6), 503-517.
Mays, M. (2020, March 1). Newsom strikes school reopening deal with California lawmakers.
Politico. https://www.politico.com/states/california/story/2021/03/01/newsom-strikes-
school-reopening-deal-with-california-lawmakers-1366270
McLoughlin, G. M., McCarthy, J. A., McGuirt, J. T., Singleton, C. R., Dunn, C. G., & Gadhoke,
P. (2020). Addressing food insecurity through a health and equity lens: A case study of
large urban school districts during the COVID-19 pandemic. Journal of Urban Health,
97, 759–775. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11524-020-00476-0
Merriam, S., & Tisdell, E. (2016). Qualitative research: A guide to design and
implementation(4th ed.). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
100

Moore, S. E., Wierenga, K. L., Prince, D. M., Gillani, B., & Mintz, L. J. (2021).
Disproportionate impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on perceived social support, mental
health and somatic symptoms in sexual and gender minority populations. Journal of
Homosexuality, 68, 1–15. https://doi.org/10.1080/00918369.2020.1868184
Morgan, Michael. (2018). Improve your leadership approach by understanding your team.
https://herrmann.com.au/blog/2018/10/improve-leadership-approach-understanding-team/
Nalbandian, A., Sehgal, K., Gupta, A., Madhavan, M., McGroder, C., Stevens, J., Cook, J.,
Nordvig, A., Shalev, D., Sehrawat, T., Ahluwalia, N., Bikdeli, B., Dietz, D., Der-
Nigoghossian, C., Liyanage-Don, N., Rosner, G., Bernstein, E., Mohan, S., Beckley, A.,
… Wan, E. (2021). Post-acute COVID-19 syndrome. Nature Medicine, 27(4), 601–.
https://doi.org/10.1038/s41591-021-01283-z
National Conference for State Legislatures (NCSL) (2021). COVID-19: Essential workers in the
States. https://www.ncsl.org/research/labor-and-employment/covid-19-%20essential-
%20workers-in-the-
states.aspx#:~:text=According%20to%20the%20U.,to%20defense%20to%20agriculture.
Office of Governor Gavin Newsom. (2020). Governor Gavin Newsom lays out pandemic plan
for learning and safe schools . Retrieved July 22, 2021 from:
https://www.gov.ca.gov/2020/07/17/governor-gavin-newsom-lays-out-pandemic-plan-
for-learning-and-safe-schools/
Pepper, M. J., London, T. D., Dishman, M. L., & Lewis, J. L. (2010). Leading Schools during
Crisis: What School Administrators Must Know. Rowman & Littlefield Education.
Pfefferbaum, B., & North, C. S. (2020). Mental health and the Covid-19 pandemic. The New
England Journal of Medicine, 383(6), 510–512. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMp2008017
101

Polikoff, M. (2020). Who’s learning under quarantine, who’s not. FutureEd. https://www.future-
ed.org/whos-learning-under-quarantine-whos-not
Rice, M., Miller, G. F., Coronado, F., & Meltzer, M. I. (2021). Estimated resource costs for
implementation of CDC’s recommended COVID-19 mitigation strategies in pre-
kindergarten through grade 12 public schools — United States, 2020–21 School Year.
MMWR. Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report, 69(50), 1917–1921.
https://doi.org/10.15585/mmwr.mm6950e1
Sharfstein, J. M., & Morphew, C. C. (2020). The Urgency and Challenge of Opening K-12
Schools in the Fall of 2020. JAMA: The Journal of the American Medical Association,
324(2), 133–134. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2020.10175
Singer, B.J., Thompson, R.N. & Bonsall, M.B. (2021). The effect of the definition of ‘pandemic’
on quantitative assessments of infectious disease outbreak risk. Sci Rep 11, 2547 (2021).
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-021-81814-3
Smith, L., & Riley, D. (2012). School leadership in times of crisis. School Leadership &
Management, 32(1), 57–71. https://doi.org/10.1080/13632434.2011.614941
Stern, A. M., Cetron, M. S., & Markel, H. (2009). Closing The Schools: Lessons From The
1918–19 US Influenza Pandemic: Ninety-one years later, the evidence shows that there
are positive and negative ways to do it. Health Affairs (Project Hope), 28(Suppl1),
w1066–w1078. https://doi.org/10.1377/hlthaff.28.6.w1066
Stern, A. M., Reilly, M. B., Cetron, M. S., & Markel, H. (2010). “Better Off in School”: School
Medical Inspection as a Public Health Strategy During the 1918–1919 Influenza
Pandemic in the United States. Public Health Reports, 125(3, suppl), 63–70.
https://doi.org/10.1177/00333549101250S309
102

Tai, D. B. G., Shah, A., Doubeni, C. A., Sia, I. G., & Wieland, M. L. (2021). The
disproportionate impact of COVID-19 on racial and ethnic minorities in the United
States. Clinical Infectious Diseases, 72(4), 703–706. https://doi.org/10.1093/cid/ciaa815
Ujifusa, A. (2020, October 13). Untangling the role of Trump, unions, and politics in school
reopening decisions. Education Week. https://www.edweek.org/education/untangling-the-
role-of-trump-unions-and-politics-in-school-reopening-decisions/2020/10
United States Department of Labor (2021). Personal Protective Equipment – Overview |
Occupational Safety and Health Administration. Retrieved August 16, 2021 from
https://www.osha.gov/personal-protective-equipment
U.S. Department of Education. (2021). CARES Act Emergency Relief.
https://www.ed.gov/coronavirus/cares-act-emergency-relief
Van Lancker, W., & Parolin, Z. (2020). COVID-19, school closures, and child poverty: A social
crisis in the making. The Lancet. Public Health, 5(5), e243–e244.
https://doi.org/10.1016/S2468-2667(20)30084-0
Westover, Fullan, M., & Quinn, J. (2020). Districts on the move : leading a coherent system of
continuous improvement. Corwin, a SAGE Company.
World Health Organization. (2021). Coronavirus disease (COVID-19) pandemic.
https://www.who.int/emergencies/diseases/novel-coronavirus-2019
Zhou, T., Molfino, T., & Travers, J. (2021). The cost of COVID: Understanding the full financial
impact of COVID-19 on districts and schools. Education Resource Strategies.

103

Appendix A: Interview Protocols

104

105

106

107

108

109

Appendix B: Survey Questions

110

111

112

113

114

115

116

117

118

119

120

121

122

123

124

Appendix C: Letter For Permission to Participate in Study

125

Abstract (if available)

Abstract Thee purpose of this study was to analyze the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on Southern California K–12 school districts and understand what district and site administrators learned from their experiences and decision-making responsibilities in managing the crisis. This study brings to light the impact of the pandemic on students, families, leaders, schools, and districts and examines how district and school leadership influences administrative practices, student achievement, financial responsibility, union leadership, and community/parent support as they responded to the COVID-19 crisis. This study set out to determine: financial implications on K–12 public school districts how participants addressed these implications, the impact of federal, state and local health agencies and the strategies participants followed to address suggested guidelines, the role of union negotiations in districts’ response to the pandemic, and how participants addressed the concerns of the parent community regarding safety, nutrition, distance learning, lack of technology, academic standing, and how and when to re-open schools due to the COVID-19 pandemic. This study implemented a mixed-methods approach in which nine respondents completed a survey and participated in a structured interview. The findings indicate that participants relied on relationships to ground their decision making in their values in prioritizing safety and needs for their staff, students, and parents. In addition, they acknowledged that collaboration and sharing resources played a critical component in moving forward during the COVID-19 pandemic crisis. These practices will help improve the school system and student learning experiences to provide a more equitable landscape for students and staff. Ultimately, this study provides guidance for district and site administrators’ decision-making responsibilities in managing future crises.

Linked assets

University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Conceptually similar

PDF

Analyzing the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic On K-12 southern California public school districts and understanding what district and site administrators…

PDF

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

PDF

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

PDF

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

PDF

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

PDF

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

PDF

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

PDF

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

PDF

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

PDF

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

PDF

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

PDF

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

PDF

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

PDF

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

PDF

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

PDF

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

PDF

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

PDF

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

PDF

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

PDF

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

Asset Metadata

Creator Vallin, Erica Kristen (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 04/29/2022

Defense Date 04/28/2022

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

Tag asynchronous learning,COVID-19,Crises,Crisis,K-12 schools,leaders,leadership,Management,OAI-PMH Harvest,pandemic,Principal,superintendent,synchronous learning

Format application/pdf (imt)

Language English

Contributor Electronically uploaded by the author (provenance)

Advisor Castruita, Rudy (committee chair), Cash, David (committee member), Franklin, Gregory (committee member)

Creator Email evallin@usc.edu,vallin.erica@gmail.com

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-oUC111159682

Unique identifier UC111159682

Document Type Dissertation

Format application/pdf (imt)

Rights Vallin, Erica Kristen

Type texts

Source 20220502-usctheses-batch-935 (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