Close
About
FAQ
Home
Collections
Login
USC Login
Register
0
Selected
Invert selection
Deselect all
Deselect all
Click here to refresh results
Click here to refresh results
USC
/
Digital Library
/
University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses
/
The impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on K–12 public school districts in southern California: responses of superintendents, assistant superintendents, and principals
(USC Thesis Other)
The impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on K–12 public school districts in southern California: responses of superintendents, assistant superintendents, and principals
PDF
Download
Share
Open document
Flip pages
Contact Us
Contact Us
Copy asset link
Request this asset
Transcript (if available)
Content
The Impact of the COVID-19 Pandemic on K–12 Public School Districts in Southern
California: Responses of Superintendents, Assistant Superintendents, and Principals
by
Angela Dillman
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 Angela Dillman 2022
All Rights Reserved
The Committee for Angela Dillman certifies the approval of this Dissertation
David Cash
Brent Forsee
Rudy Castruita, Committee Chair
Rossier School of Education
University of Southern California
2022
iv
Abstract
The COVID-19 pandemic caused a major disruption to K–12 public school districts that shifted
the roles of school and district leaders. This study sought to understand the impact of the
COVID-19 pandemic on K–12 public school districts in Southern California through the
responses of superintendents, assistant superintendents, and principals. The four research
questions that guided this study were designed to capture the impact of finances, agencies,
unions, and community concerns on research participants and their respective districts during the
COVID-19 pandemic. This mixed-methods study utilized both quantitative and qualitative data
to answer the four research questions. Thirty-six Southern California K–12 public school leaders
responded to surveys that consisted of 26 close ended questions to collect quantitative data. A
semi-structured interview protocol consisting of 14 questions was employed to collect qualitative
data in one-to-one interviews. Data analysis revealed that the COVID-19 pandemic had
extraordinary impacts on all facets of education and that leaders collaborated and leaned into
relationships to lead and guide their communities through the pandemic.
v
Acknowledgments
It is with sincere appreciation that I acknowledge the individuals at the University of
Southern California, Rossier School of Education who have supported and encouraged my work
and learning. I would specifically like to acknowledge my dissertation chair, Dr. Rudy Castruita
and committee members, Dr. David Cash and Dr. Brent Forsee, for their encouragement,
wisdom, and unwavering support. Thank you to Mrs. Amy Dundon-Brechtold and Mr. and Mrs.
Cowan for the generous endowments which made this journey possible.
Thank you to the members of my cohort who made this experience so much richer
through friendships and shared experiences. Jorge Munoz, Christine Kim, and Michelle Pierce
have made this educational adventure deeply rewarding through the trusting friendship we have
developed over the course of this program and dissertation writing process. I am deeply grateful
to all of my colleagues for their inspiration and assistance, and I hope to pay it forward as more
colleagues join the doctoral club.
Most importantly, I acknowledge my loving husband and family. You have been my
personal cheerleaders throughout this journey and have given me the support and encouragement
to persevere. I grew up with a mom who told me that education was my ticket to anywhere I
wanted to go. Everywhere I have gone is because of her.
vi
Table of Contents
Abstract .......................................................................................................................................... iv
Acknowledgments ........................................................................................................................... v
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
Significance of the Study .................................................................................................... 3
Limitation and Delimitations .............................................................................................. 4
Definition of Terms ............................................................................................................. 5
Organization of the Study ................................................................................................. 10
Chapter Two: Review of the Literature ........................................................................................ 11
Leadership in Crisis Situations Facing Schools ................................................................ 11
Governmental Guidance and Support ............................................................................... 17
District Preparation and Training ...................................................................................... 20
The Impact of the Pandemic on Teacher and Classified Unions ...................................... 25
Parental Concerns Through the Pandemic ........................................................................ 28
Theoretical Framework ..................................................................................................... 31
Conclusion ........................................................................................................................ 37
Chapter Three: Methodology ........................................................................................................ 38
Purpose of the Study ......................................................................................................... 38
Research Questions ........................................................................................................... 38
Research Team .................................................................................................................. 39
Sample and Population ..................................................................................................... 39
Research Design ................................................................................................................ 43
Methodology ..................................................................................................................... 43
vii
Instrumentation and Conceptual Framework .................................................................... 44
Data Analysis .................................................................................................................... 47
Ethical Considerations ...................................................................................................... 48
Summary ........................................................................................................................... 49
Chapter Four: Findings ................................................................................................................. 50
Participants ........................................................................................................................ 52
Demographic Data ............................................................................................................ 52
Research Question 1 Findings .......................................................................................... 57
Research Question 2 Findings .......................................................................................... 70
Research Question 3 Findings .......................................................................................... 82
Research Question 4 Findings .......................................................................................... 96
Summary ......................................................................................................................... 110
Chapter Five: Summary, Implications, and Conclusion ............................................................. 115
Statement of the Problem ................................................................................................ 115
Purpose of the Study ....................................................................................................... 116
Participants ...................................................................................................................... 116
Key Findings ................................................................................................................... 116
Implications for Practice ................................................................................................. 123
Recommendations for Future Study ............................................................................... 125
Conclusion ...................................................................................................................... 127
References ................................................................................................................................... 128
Appendix A: Superintendent Survey .......................................................................................... 140
Appendix B: Assistant Superintendent Survey ........................................................................... 144
Appendix C: Principal Survey .................................................................................................... 148
Appendix D: Alignment of Survey Questions with Research Questions and Conceptual
Framework ...................................................................................................................... 152
Appendix E: Superintendent Interview Protocol ........................................................................ 153
Appendix F: Assistant Superintendent Interview Protocol ......................................................... 156
Appendix G: Principal Interview Protocol ................................................................................. 159
Appendix H: Superintendent Letter of Invitation ....................................................................... 162
viii
Appendix I: Assistant Superintendent Letter of Invitation ......................................................... 164
Appendix J: Principal Letter of Invitation .................................................................................. 166
ix
List of Tables
Table 1: Participant Selection Criteria 40
Table 2: Demographic Information: School District Participants 54
Table 3: Quantitative Survey: Superintendent Demographic Information 55
Table 4: Quantitative Survey: Assistant Superintendent Demographic Information 56
Table 5: Quantitative Survey: Principal Demographic Information 57
Table 6: Quantitative Survey: District and Site Leaders’ Perceptions of Financial Implications of
COVID-19 59
Table 7: Quantitative Survey: District and Site Leaders’ Perceptions of the Impact of Health and
Safety Guidelines 72
Table 8: Quantitative Survey: District and Site Leaders’ Perceptions of the Impact of Union
Negotiation 84
Table 9: Quantitative Survey: District and Site Leaders’ Perceptions of Parent Concerns 99
Appendix D: Alignment of Survey Questions with Research Questions and Conceptual
Framework 152
x
List of Figures
Figure 1: Kindergarten Through 12th Grade School and District Leadership as Crisis
Management 47
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 practices. To meet their objective of developing
highly skilled practitioners equipped to take on real-world challenges, the USC Graduate School
and the USC Rossier School of Education have permitted our inquiry team to carry out this
shared venture.
This dissertation is part of a collaborative project between four doctoral candidates:
Angela Dillman, Christine Kim, Jorge Munoz, and Michelle Pierce. We four doctoral students
met individually with superintendents, assistant superintendents, and principals from twelve
Southern California K–12 public school districts and compiled this qualitative and quantitative
data in a mixed methods study with the aim of learning how these 36 leaders guided their
organizations through the COVID-19 pandemic. However, the process of examining and
acquiring a thorough perspective from the selected participants was too large for a single
dissertation. As a result, the four dissertations produced by our inquiry team collectively
examined the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on K–12 public school districts through the
experiences of superintendents, assistant superintendents, and principals.
1
Chapter One: Overview of the Study
The COVID-19 pandemic has been both rapidly evolving and lingering. This is unusual
for the types of crises schools typically face, which tend to be either immediate, like an active
shooter, or persistent like underachievement (Gainey, 2009). The pandemic prompted schools to
close on very short notice under “hold harmless” guidelines from state agencies overseeing
education with the exception of school closures lasting several weeks (Fensterwald, 2021a).
However, the school closures caused by COVID-19, whether full or partial, have continued to
impact school districts for over a year. As the pandemic lasted, the issues facing school leaders
and their school communities became more complex (Mayer et al., 2008).
Background of the Problem
Over the last century, schools throughout the United States have had to face various
public health crises that have impacted schooling for K–12 students. One of the deadliest
pandemics in human history was the Spanish Flu of 1918 (H1N1, Influenza A), which lasted two
years, infected approximately 500 million people, and left behind a death toll of an estimated 20
to 50 million (Stern et al., 2009). Some 80 years later, the world saw Severe Acute Respiratory
Syndrome (SARS) circle the globe from 2002 to 2004, which infected over 8,000 people from 29
different countries and caused a death toll of 774 (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
[CDC], 2021a). In 2009, the Swine Flu (another H1N1 virus similar to the Spanish Flu of 1918)
broke out worldwide, lasted just under 8 months, and caused an estimated 284,000 deaths
(Braunack-Mayer, 2013; Stern et al., 2009). COVID-19 was not the first time that American
schools closed their doors as a result of a flu pandemic. The deadly second wave of the 1918–19
Spanish flu pandemic caused many urban K–12 public schools to close their doors, in some
cases for up to fifteen weeks (Stern et al., 2009). What is different about the COVID-19
2
pandemic as it relates to school closures is that they occurred as a preventative public health
measure for the disease, not as a response to massive community spread (Stern et al., 2009).
The most recent and current pandemic, COVID-19, was first identified in December
2019, and has resulted in over 78,050,000 confirmed cases and over 935,000 documented deaths
in the United States alone as of February 2022 (World Health Organization, 2022). Worldwide,
this pandemic has resulted in over 430,257,500 confirmed cases and over 5,922,000 documented
deaths (World Health Organization, 2022). While COVID-19 has yet to rival the statistics of the
Spanish Flu from a hundred years ago, the U.S. education system’s response to the current
COVID-19 crisis is unparalleled in history (Berkman, 2008; Malkus et al., 2020; Malkus et al.,
2020a, 2020b; Stern et al., 2009).
Statement of the Problem
The COVID-19 pandemic presented a disruption in 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 community.
COVID-19 shifted the roles and scope of schools and school leaders, beyond instructional
leaders and transforming them into “crisis managers.”
Purpose of the Study
The purpose of this study is to analyze the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on K–12
school districts and understand what district and site administrators have learned from their
experiences and their decision-making responsibilities in managing the crisis. This study has
brought to light the impact of the pandemic on students, families, leaders, schools, and districts.
Most importantly, this study examined how district and school leadership influences
3
administrative practices, student achievement, financial responsibility, union leadership, and
community/parent support as they responded to the COVID-19 crisis.
Research Questions
The following research questions helped guide this 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 impact, if any, have federal, state, and local health agencies had on K–12 public
school districts in Southern California and what strategies have district
superintendents, assistant superintendents, and principals followed to address the
suggested guidelines?
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 principles
addressed the concerns of the parent community regarding safety, nutrition, distance
learning, lack of technology, academic standing, and how and when to re-open
schools due to the COVID-19 pandemic?
Significance of the Study
This study is significant as it will add to the body of knowledge about the evolving roles
and responses of California public K–12 school superintendents, assistant superintendents, and
principals during the COVID-19 pandemic. COVID-19 has shifted the roles and scope of schools
4
and school leaders beyond instructional leaders by transforming them into “crisis managers.”
This unprecedented event in history forced educational leadership to quickly make changes in a
strategic way to support students and families. Educational leadership was on display in
California from the governor’s office to K–12 school educators and classified staff members who
prioritized student safety at the expense of academic excellence. Difficult decisions had to be
made to support a myriad of student needs throughout school closures. By analyzing the
effective practices and shortcomings of this crisis from the leaders on the frontlines,
superintendents, assistant superintendents, and principals, we hope to gain insight about
prevention and implementation as future crises occur in education. If a pandemic ever arises
again, this study will support how the crises would be addressed through the systems in place by
school leaders, educators, boards of education, and community stakeholders that are meant to
reimagine and revolutionize a new educational landscape that is committed to building a culture
of equity in order to repay the educational debt.
Limitation and Delimitations
There are some boundaries of the study beyond the control of the research team that may
affect internal validity. Limitations of this study included the ongoing disruptions caused by the
COVID-19 pandemic on public education, the participants being only from Southern California
public schools, self-reporting surveys were included, interview questions may contain researcher
bias, interviews were conducted virtually, and the sample may not accurately represent all school
districts in California. Next steps would include using a similar process to include a larger
representation from different districts throughout California or the United States.
In addition, the delimitations of the study relate to generalizability of the findings and are
associated with availability of time and resources. To narrow the focus of this study, the
5
superintendents, assistant superintendents, and principals selected are current leaders in large,
urban public school districts in Southern California who were willing to participate in the study.
Definition of Terms
The following is a list of key terms and definitions used throughout this research study:
Assembly and Senate Bill 86: This bill provided $2 billion as an incentive for schools that
have not already done so to offer in-person instruction beginning April 1, 2021, starting with the
earliest grades. The legislation also allocated $4.6 billion for all school districts regardless of
whether they met the timetable governor Gavin Newsom called for in his “Safe Schools for All”
plan (Jones & Freedburg, 2021).
Assembly and Senate Bill 129: A landmark state budget agreement that added a year of
school for all 4-year-olds, significantly expanded Cal Grants and middle-class scholarships for
college students and provided record funding for pre-K–12 schools anxious to use billions in
one-time money to bounce back from a 15-month pandemic (Fensterwald et al., 2021).
Asynchronous learning: Asynchronous learning occurs without direct, simultaneous
interaction of participants such as videos featuring direct instruction of new content which
students watch on their own time (California Department of Education, 2020).
California Department of Education (CDE): The CDE is a governmental body that
oversees the state’s diverse public school system, which is responsible for the education of more
than six million children and young adults in more than 10,000 schools with 300,000 teachers.
Specifically, they are in charge of enforcing education law and regulations and continuing to
reform and improve public school programs (CDE, 2020).
California Department of Public Health (CDPH): A public agency that focuses on
infectious disease control and prevention, food safety, environmental health, laboratory services,
6
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 largest classified school
employee union in the United States, representing more than 250,000 school support staff
throughout California. CSEA members perform a wide range of essential work in our public
schools and community colleges, including security, food services, office and clerical work,
school maintenance and operations, transportation, academic assistance and paraeducator
services, library and media assistance, computer services and more (CSEA, 2021).
CARES Act: The Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act (CARES Act) was
passed by Congress on March 27th, 2020. This bill allotted $2.2 trillion to provide fast and direct
economic aid to the American people negatively impacted by the COVID-19 pandemic. Of that
money, approximately $14 billion was given to the Office of Postsecondary Education as the
Higher Education Emergency Relief Fund (CSEA, 2021).
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention: Nation’s health agency that “conducts
critical science and provides health information” and responds to health crises (CDC, 2021a).
Cohort: “Refers to a group of individuals who have something in common” such as same
grade level, or specific student groups such as English Learners (Great Schools Partnership, n.d.-
a, para. 1).
Collective bargaining agreement (CBA): The primary activity of a union is to represent
the teachers in negotiating the terms of employment contracts, called collective bargaining.
Under the Rodda Act, passed in 1975, the school board and the union must review the terms of
the existing agreement at least once every three years. The result of this negotiation determines
the salaries and benefits, hours, calendar, and most aspects of teachers’ working conditions.
7
Negotiators can also discuss problems and address new issues that have arisen during the period
of the contract. This can be especially significant when the Legislature and governor have passed
new laws—for example, about COVID-19 safety measures, school finance, or teacher training
and evaluation. A district can implement these laws only after the impact has been collectively
bargained (Ed-Data, 2021b).
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 as a global pandemic (World Health Organization, 2022).
Distance learning: Instruction in which the pupil and instructor are in different locations
and pupils are under the general supervision of a certificated employee of the local educational
agency (CDE, 2020).
Elementary and secondary school emergency relief (ESSER): ESSER, was established in
the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security (CARES) Act and further funded under the
Coronavirus Response and Relief Supplemental Appropriations (CRRSA) Act and the American
Rescue Plan (ARP) Act, in which the U.S. Department of Education awarded emergency relief
funds to address the impact the COVID-19 pandemic has had, and continues to have, on
elementary and secondary schools across the Nation (U.S. Department of Education, 2021).
Essential workers: Essential workers are those who conduct a range of operations and
services that are typically essential to continue critical infrastructure operations (National
Conference for State Legislatures, 2021).
Free and appropriate public education (FAPE): All students ages 3 to 22 receive a free
public education that meets their educational needs. They have a right to fully take part in school
8
life, including after-school activities. What is “appropriate” for each child will be different
because each has unique needs (Exceptional Lives, 2019).
Hybrid (blended) learning: Combination of in-person and distance learning (CDE, 2020).
In-person: Students are receiving in-person instruction for at least part of the instructional
day for the full instructional week (CA Safe Schools for All, 2021).
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, n.d.-b, para. 1).
Pandemic: The International Epidemiology Association’s Dictionary of Epidemiology
defines a pandemic as “an epidemic occurring worldwide, or over a very wide area, crossing
international boundaries and usually affecting a large number of people” (Singer et al., 2021,
p. 540).
Personal protective equipment (PPE): Personal protective equipment, commonly referred
to as “PPE,” is equipment worn to minimize exposure to hazards that cause serious workplace
injuries and illnesses. These injuries and illnesses may result from contact with chemical,
radiological, physical, electrical, mechanical, or other workplace hazards. Personal protective
equipment may include items such as gloves, safety glasses and shoes, earplugs or muffs, hard
hats, respirators or coveralls, vests, and full body suits (Occupational Safety and Health
Administration, 2021).
Social emotional learning (SEL): Reflects the critical role of positive relationships and
emotional connections in the learning process and helps students develop a range of skills they
need for school and life (CDE, 2020).
9
Stakeholders: Refers to anyone who is invested in the welfare and success of a school and
its students, including administrators, teachers, staff members, students, parents, families,
community members, local business leaders, and elected officials such as school board members,
city councilors, and state representatives. Stakeholders may also be collective entities, such as
local businesses, organizations, advocacy groups, committees, media outlets, and cultural
institutions, in addition to organizations that represent specific groups, such as teachers’ unions,
parent-teacher organizations, and associations representing superintendents, principals, school
boards, or teachers in specific academic disciplines (e.g., the National Council of Teachers of
English or the Vermont Council of Teachers of Mathematics). In a word, stakeholders have a
“stake” in the school and its students, meaning that they have personal, professional, civic, or
financial interest or concern (Great Schools Partnership, n.d.-c).
Synchronous learning: Synchronous learning takes place in real-time, with delivery of
instruction and/or interaction with participants such as a live whole-class, small group, or
individual meeting via an online platform or in-person when possible (CDE, 2020).
Williams Compliance Act: The 2000 Eliezer Williams et al. vs. State of California et al.
(Williams) case was a class action suit against the State of California and state education
agencies. The plaintiffs included nearly 100 San Francisco County students who claimed that
these agencies failed to provide public school students with equal access to instructional
materials, safe and decent school facilities, and qualified teachers. The case was settled in 2004,
resulting in the state allocating $138 million in additional funding for standards-aligned
instructional materials for schools and another $50 million for implementation costs. Now
known as the Williams Compliance Act, the settlement was implemented through legislation
adopted in August 2004: Senate Bill (SB) 6, SB 550, Assembly Bill (AB) 1550, AB 2727, AB
10
3001. Up to 2.3 million California public school students may benefit from funding from the
Williams case settlement (CDE, 2020).
World Health Organization: A team of more than 8000 professionals that includes the
world’s leading public health experts, including doctors, epidemiologists, scientists, and
managers. Together, the World Health Organization coordinates the world’s response to health
emergencies, promotes well-being, prevents disease, and expands access to health care (World
Health Organization, 2021).
Organization of the Study
The organizational structure of this study consists of five chapters. Chapter One provides
an overview of the study along with the significance of the study, and the background and
context of the problem that the research explores. Chapter Two consists of the literature review
that supports the topic and research questions. Chapter Three includes the design of the study
that includes the methodology, population, instrumentations used, and data collection procedures
and analysis. In addition, a statement on ethical considerations is included. Chapter Four
provides a description of how data was coded and analyzed. Lastly, Chapter Five concludes with
a discussion of the study findings, implications, and considerations for future research on school
leadership in times of crises.
11
Chapter Two: Review of the Literature
The COVID-19 pandemic has posed complicated challenges for school officials to
address. 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 well. As these rules and regulations evolved, so too did the roles and
expectations of district employees. Unions renegotiated basic aspects of working conditions
during this time to keep members safe and to express how the pandemic impacted their work.
Parents were also heavily impacted by the pandemic as students stayed home to learn. Parents
rely on schools not just for education, but also for childcare, food, as well as social, emotional,
and medical care for their children. All of these stakeholder concerns drastically changed the role
of school leadership, both at the district and site level. School leaders became crisis managers to
see their organizations through this tumultuous time of the COVID-19 pandemic.
Leadership in Crisis Situations Facing Schools
At the beginning of the pandemic, the Harvard Graduate School of Education hosted a
panel discussion on school leadership in a crisis. Dr. Jewell-Sherman, a current Harvard
professor and former superintendent of Richmond Public Schools, described that going “back to
the basics” of Bolman and Deal’s four frames of leadership would set up school leaders for
successfully leading their organizations through the COVID-19 pandemic crisis (Anderson,
2020). According to Jewell-Shermann, the four frames (structural, human resources, symbolic,
and political) can help leaders devise the areas to address and work through which can prevent
them from becoming quickly overwhelmed (Anderson, 2020).
12
However, Smith and Riley (2012) have shown that the leadership characteristics and
skills that are required of school leaders in times of crisis are fundamentally different from what
is expected from leaders in a ‘normal’ school environment. Strong school leaders develop and set
a clear and meaningful vision and empower others around them to unleash their potential in
order to create a rich learning environment for the students they serve. In the context of a crisis
in schools, school leaders must minimize personal and organizational harm to the school and the
school community. They must provide certainty, cultivate hope and ensure open and credible
communication to all the affected members of their community (Smith & Riley, 2012).
A crisis is defined by Pearson and Clair (1998) as “a low probability, high impact event
that threatens the viability of the organization and is characterized by ambiguity of cause, effect
and means of resolution, as well as by a belief that decisions must be made quickly” (p. 60).
According to Coombs (2012), due to the unpredictability of a crisis, no organization can
successfully prepare for every possible crisis. Though it is important to plan for a future crisis,
what goes on during and after the event plays an important role in the outcome. Effective school
leadership in times of a crisis deals more with the attributes that a leader can bring than leaning
solely on plans that are in place. It is important to prepare to act decisively and appropriately
when a crisis arises unexpectedly (Smith & Riley, 2012). Bishop et al. (2015) stated, “A crisis
can, with appropriate responses, be managed in such a way as to lessen its real or potential
negative impact” (p. 216). A successful crisis leader asserts certain skills and attributes that make
for an effective leader. Therefore, leaders and their responses hold the key to the outcome of a
crisis.
However, there are several types of crises and understanding each type of crisis will help
leaders implement the appropriate strategies to respond and move the organization successfully
13
forward. There are several ways in which researchers have categorized crises, from a simple
predictable versus unpredictable on one end of the spectrum to a detailed examination of the root
cause of each crisis on the other. A widely used system of categorizing school-based crises
includes the following five classifications (Smith & Riley, 2012, pp. 63–64):
1. Short term crises begin abruptly and end quickly.
2. Cathartic crises build up slowly over time and reach a critical moment which can be
quickly resolved.
3. Long-term crises gradually develop and emerge over a long period of time without a
resolution. This is often associated with “failing” schools or long-term under-
achievement.
4. One-off crises are unique to a place, time, and circumstance and are highly unlikely to
continue or to return.
5. Infectious crises may occur and be resolved rather quickly, but they create
circumstances or situations that will be dealt with over a very long period of time.
Often the resulting issues can develop into crises in their own right.
The COVID-19 pandemic has created a school leadership crisis that reflects several of the
attributes of different types of crises. Because of the evolving nature of the virus, leaders also
evolved and adapted over the lingering time of the pandemic that may continue to impact the
future with further crises.
Crisis Management Strategies
For most crises a school may encounter, a straightforward linear model of prevent,
respond, recover may be implemented (Mayer et al., 2008). However, many crises, and most
certainly the COVID-19 pandemic, are not single, isolated events. The linear model also implies
14
that a crisis can be foreseen. With many potential crises facing schools, there is a certain amount
of preparation that can be done to prevent or mitigate the impact of a crisis, such as earthquake
and tornado drills or benchmark testing and intervention programs. However, the pandemic was
mainly unforeseen and certainly continued for an unanticipated length of time. Also, the linear
model suggests that there is a fixed end to a crisis and that does not seem likely in the case of the
current crisis.
Gainey (2009) has suggested a more complex cyclical strategy for crisis management
which incorporates reflection and learning after recovery to better prepare school leaders for the
future. Gainey’s model reveals the importance of continual, open, two-way communication at
each stage of the crisis or phase of the strategy. Open communication is crucial to make sure
leaders have the most accurate information for decision-making and helps keep misinformation,
which can cause panic and anxiety, at a minimum. This open communication helps to engage
stakeholders and create the appropriate resources for community needs.
The COVID-19 pandemic drastically altered the role of school leaders into long-term
crisis managers, which mandated a higher level of proficiency in crisis management-specific
skills. The most important skills school leaders needed to be successful during this time of crisis
with the nine most significant attributes (Smith & Riley, 2012, pp. 67–69):
• decisive decision-making ability even in times of limited and often unreliable
information
• impactful two-way interpersonal communication skills including the ability to listen
and deliver information effectively
• procedural intelligence including the knowledge and skills that are gained and
improved through crises both large and small
15
• high capacity synthesizing abilities to target key issues and interpret messages from
confused and contradictory sources of information
• deeply and genuinely empathize with the feelings of others and to respect the
authenticity and legitimacy of their experiences and views
• a capacity to remain consistently optimistic through adversity and to continue to carry
forth
• flexibility to make expedient alterations to plans, behavior and thinking in response to
a rapidly changing environment
• intuition and intuitive thinking capacity along with the preparation and willingness to
use it
• quickly and continually identify moments to develop new ideas and feasible solutions
while turning problems into opportunities
Aside from personal qualities, there are also general expectations of results from crisis
managers. While most school leaders are not specifically trained in crisis management, there are
aspects of it that are continually present in the average daily work of educational leaders.
During a major crisis such as Hurricane Katrina, the deadly tornadoes in Alabama, or the
devastating school shootings of Columbine, leaders began to reframe their current role as
community leaders and healers (Bishop et al., 2015; DeMatthews & Brown, 2019). Leaders have
discussed stories that show the possession of moral authority that allowed them to not only lead
their school districts but also their communities. In the Columbine shooting, leaders made an
effort to gain a sense of order and control driven by their sense of responsibility and job
description; they did this by using their personal definition of leadership as a compass while
taking action mid-crises (Fein & Isaacson, 2009). Leaders were able to collaborate formally and
16
informally. Superintendents formed a community among themselves and leaned on other districts
that had been successful managing and leading through a crisis (Bishop et al., 2015). Leaders
shifted their focus away from student learning and collaborated with school counselors to
advance partnerships with community mental health organizations and agencies, which helped
expand school mental health programs to help the community heal (DeMatthews & Brown,
2019).
A crisis requires swift decisive actions. In times of crisis, it is difficult for leaders to make
critical decisions out of fear of making the wrong decision. During the time of a crisis there
could be a lack of information to make the correct decision in order to take action. It is suggested
for a leader to use their best judgment in order to move forward (Bishop et al., 2015). Leaders in
crisis must prioritize. They must know that recovery efforts take time so they must focus on what
they can control (Bishop et al., 2015). Leaders may use tactics such as ‘self-talk’ to remind
themselves of their highest priorities and prioritize existing systems and in the moment, actions
over emotions (Fein & Isaacson, 2009) A part of the swift decision making comes from the
leaders’ intuition. Effective crisis leaders accept that there is a level of risk based on the
information at hand. “Intuition is not information-free; it is derived from what we have observed
and experienced in our past” (Smith & Riley, 2012, p. 66). It is important for leaders to collect as
much information as they can and trust their instinct and experience (Bishop et al., 2015). This
helps leaders make quick decisions during a time of uncertainty. Boin et al. (2013) have
discussed leadership intelligence which includes procedural, intuitive, and creative intelligence.
Stoll and Temperley (2009) have argued for the need for creative and adaptive leadership.
Creative leaders go beyond problem solving. It is about looking at their current situation and
assessing the challenges that need to be addressed in order to prevent a derailment of efforts to
17
move the school community forward. This is done by moving away from the managerial skills,
which will allow leaders to break the rules in ways that can allow for progression in solving the
crisis at hand. Boin et al. (2013) have argued that crisis leadership needs to rely on creative
intelligence. Leaders that have creative intelligence are leaders that are comfortable with
thinking outside of the box and are able to operate beyond established procedures. Smith and
Riley (2012) highlight Covey’s (2004) perception of crisis leadership as ‘opportunity solving’ in
which he argues that every crisis should be viewed as an opportunity for improvement. Valuing
our problems and bringing forth motivational leadership when going through a process can
ensure that the school is in a better place after a crisis than it was before a crisis.
Governmental Guidance and Support
Almost from the beginning of the pandemic, school leaders looked to outside
governmental agencies for support and guidance. As schools shifted almost overnight to distance
learning, financial support became crucial for schools to operate in this new environment. New
safety guidelines and mandates from county and state governments helped school leaders
understand how to best ensure the safety of students and staff (Freedburg, 2021). These
guidelines also posed additional costs for districts as they continued to offer much needed
services while shifting entirely to distance learning. As the pandemic waged on, schools
continued to look for assistance from agencies to help create a pathway to safely navigate
reopening schools. While this support and guidance was very necessary, the agencies also
created layers of confusion and bureaucracy that often added to uncertainty (Freedburg, 2021).
Governmental Financial Assistance
The biggest source of financial support came from the federal government with the
Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security (CARES) Act, which was signed into law on
18
Friday, March 27, 2020 (CDE, 2020). The CARES Act furnished states with federal funds and
also implemented a waiver process which enabled educational institutions to more flexibly serve
vulnerable populations and operate in ways that differed from local guidelines. This $30.75
billion in emergency education funding was distributed to states from two main funding sources,
the Elementary and Secondary School Emergency Relief Fund (ESSER Fund) and the
Governor’s Emergency Education Relief Fund. The ESSER fund allocated approximately
$1,647,306,127 to California while the Governor’s Emergency Education Relief Fund provided
an additional $355,227,235 (CDE, 2021). This financial support provided local educational
agencies (LEAs) with emergency relief funds to assess and address the various ways in which
COVID-19 has, and will continue to have for the foreseeable future, changed the educational
landscape and needs of school communities.
While there will certainly be ongoing costs for schools associated with the pandemic, a
more immediate cost was the decision to open schools in the spring of 2021 to in-person
instruction. In California, a complicated mixture of safety guidelines and waivers allowed
schools to open, but in February of 2021 Governor Newsom signed SB 86 which tied funding to
reopening (Fensterwald, 2021b). The controversial bill allocated an additional $2 billion to
schools who submitted reopening plans by April 1 and brought elementary students back by
April 15 along with other prioritized, high-needs students (Jones & Freedburg, 2021). The
controversy related to the penalties schools faced for not reopening on time, causing their
allocated grant reopening funding to be cut by 1% per day, rather than being ordered by the
governor to reopen (Jones & Freedburg, 2021). SB 86 required district plans to be approved by
local bargaining units, but it did not specify much sought-after union interests like staff
vaccinations prior to reopening (Mays, 2021).
19
Governmental Agency Health and Safety Guidance
While school safety is always a priority, COVID-19 created an entirely new category of
student and staff safety. The CDPH created the Blueprint for Safer California aimed at reducing
COVID-19 cases through local partnerships (Harrington, 2021). This blueprint was a model for
all Californians to take part in safe practices and fostered a mindset that each citizen can do their
part by wearing masks, social distancing, and staying at home when possible. The CDPH, along
with the Governor’s office, created a Safe Schools for All Plan to specifically focus on the
conditions in which schools could safely reopen (CDPH, 2020). The CARES Act was crucial in
supporting school safety in the COVID-era with the purchase of personal protective equipment,
or PPE, like masks, gloves, sanitizers, face shields, and more. This plan also gave valuable
guidance for schools to take steps toward opportunities for in-person learning at school with
small cohorts of students. This also included guidance and protocols for schools to manage,
report, and mitigate outbreaks, along with instructions on how staff members could return to
work after a positive test or an exposure. All of these were crucial for schools trying to navigate
this new terrain and the expert health guidance helped schools provide in-person services in a
safe way.
Aside from physical safety, the pandemic created an urgent need for schools to support
the mental and emotional safety of students as COVID-19 increased isolation, anxiety and
depression among students (Lambert, 2020). Schools are a reliable, safe place for many students
and also the place where they can receive counseling. The school closure took away that safety
net for many students so the CDE created an online hub of resources for how schools and parents
can support their students at home (CDE, 2020). The CDE also created the “stronger together”
plan, which provided a comprehensive checklist for reopening schools, mental health and well-
20
being, among other topics (CDE, 2020). In fact, wellness and social emotional learning became a
necessary part of reopening plans in many counties across California (Johnson, 2021).
However, this financial support and guidance from federal, state, and local governments
left many problems unsolved and many school communities underserved. Early on in the
pandemic, the CDE was concerned about equity and access for all students, especially those with
disabilities and English Language Learners, in a distance learning environment where reliable
internet service, let alone devices, were not guaranteed (CDE, 2020). Local agencies, like the
Los Angeles County Office of Education even created comprehensive guidelines for high quality
distance learning with a focus on equity and addressing the trauma students were experiencing
(Los Angeles County Office of Education, 2021). Even with guidelines for small, in-person
opportunities for students to return to school, the majority of schools with the neediest students
did not reopen (D’Souza & Marquez Rosales, 2020).
These plans for reopening met with a great deal of backlash as schools were uncertain if
all safety measures could be fully implemented (Lambert & Fensterwald, 2020). While earlier
safety guidelines were considered more supportive of schools, the reopening plans faced heavy
criticism for being too restrictive and, despite funding, very expensive (Fensterwald, 2021b). In
fact, even the CARES Act may not have been enough for schools to get back to where they were
before the pandemic school closures, as this one-time funding cannot support the still unseen,
long-term impacts on student learning and well-being for years to come.
District Preparation and Training
The preparation, training, and implementation of new practices required of schools and
districts in response to the COVID-19 pandemic have been extensive. Diliberti et al. (2020)
determined several preparedness indicators that positioned some districts and schools to
21
successfully transition to distance learning during the pandemic. Organizations with a
combination of the following practices in place prior to the pandemic more readily transitioned
to distance learning amid school closures: having devices available for student use, providing
professional development for teachers in online instructional practices, implementing a learning
management system (LMS), offering fully online or blended courses, and drafting plans to
deliver instruction during prolonged school closure.
Organizations with few to none of the indicators in place prior to the pandemic found
themselves having to restructure practices, procedures, and roles in the midst of rapid school
building closures that began in late March 2020. For many, it became necessary to quickly
deploy needs assessments to survey technology needs in terms of device and internet
accessibility (Diliberti et al., 2020; Malkus et al., 2020a). Approximately 42% of districts lacked
a strong technology infrastructure and had to reprioritize fiscal resources in order to provide
students with devices and internet access necessary for distance learning (Malkus et al., 2020a).
With the transition to distance learning also came an evolution in traditional learning
model structures. In the spring of 2020, many school districts provided voluntary, supplemental
content to students. Instruction took several forms, including synchronous and asynchronous
learning opportunities, instructional work packets, and even televised instructional content
(Diliberti et al., 2020; Malkus et al., 2020a). The new educational landscape also saw some
students transferring to pre-existing independent virtual schools. With many schools remaining
closed at the start of the 2020-2021 school year, instructional models further evolved to provide
three distinct options: fulltime in-person instruction in regions where closures were not in effect,
full distance learning where closures were in effect, and a hybrid of the two where diminished
restrictions were in place (Johnson, 2021).
22
This new instructional landscape also saw the addition of an entirely new category of
school supplies. Hand sanitizer, temperature scanners, Plexiglas barriers, hands-free paper towel
dispensers, surgical masks, face shields, latex gloves, and protective coveralls became necessary
school supplies alongside paper, pencils, crayons, and glue (Fitzgerald, 2020). Such supplies
became requirements for ensuring safe working and schooling conditions. 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). Such guidance came from several entities, including the CDPH, California Governor
Gavin Newsom’s office, the CDC, and local county health agencies, and was oftentimes
contradictory in nature.
Training
In the midst of school closures and districts’ subsequent move to a distance learning
instructional model, the need for training across a broad range of topics and areas has come from
a variety of sources. Almost overnight, corporations including large curriculum publishers and
technology giants like Zoom and Google began creating and offering tutorials and distance
learning adaptations. Nonprofits and associations such as the American School Counselor
Association, the National Parent Teacher Association, and Common Sense began growing their
professional training libraries on a broad range of topics, including learning at home, social-
emotional learning, and distance learning pedagogy and practice (Castelo, 2020). The enormous
amount of available online resources was overwhelming to educators and parents alike (Diliberti
et al., 2020). Many districts responded to the need for training on new and diverse instructional
topics by locally developing and delivering tailored professional learning based on their
organization’s specific needs relative to the local context (Johnson, 2021).
23
For training specific to COVID-19 preparation and protocols, district and site leaders
turned to federal state and local agencies for guidelines. At the federal level, the CDC became a
primary source for classroom layout, contact tracing, hygiene, and cleaning (CDC, 2020b). At
the state level, the CDE provided resources for all California schools in the areas of funding,
testing, personal protective equipment (PPE), safety guidance, and vaccines (CDE, 2021b). At
the local level, county health agencies provided guidance on school reopening protocols which
included workplace policies and practices, physical distancing requirements, infection control,
communication, and equitable access to critical services (County of Los Angeles Public Health,
2021).
In the midst of the pandemic, school nutrition guidelines focused on maintaining a safe
environment and changing health and safety practices originated at the federal level and were
funneled to the state and local levels. The U.S. Department of Agriculture (2021) provided
guidelines on safe pickup practices for school nutrition personnel. The CDC (2021b) also
provided training and guidance on what school nutrition professionals needed to do to maintain a
safe and healthy distribution and preparation environment for school meals. The National Parent
Teacher Association (2021) also provided training on germ prevention and cleaning practices in
partnership with Lysol.
In the area of leadership, several different organizations and nonprofit groups came
forward offering training and resources on a wide range of topics. The Association of California
School Administrators (2021) also provided many resources and training for leaders across a
broad range of topics. Many organizations and nonprofit groups relied on recent research
highlighting some of the best practices that leaders follow in helping their organizations navigate
through crises affecting their schools (Sokol et al., 2021). In addition to these offerings, leaders
24
also received training from their own district, the content of which was informed by the guidance
of state and local agencies. Such local leadership training, whether formal or informal, were
tailored to meet the specific needs of leaders and their unique organizational context.
Implementation
Implementation of new pandemic-related policies, practices, and guidelines required a
major shift in leaders’ mindsets. Leaders had to re-understand their current roles in the context of
the pandemic and subsequent building closures. They were also required to assume the new roles
of caregiver and caretaker, which took many forms (Anderson et al., 2020). With teachers
reporting vastly increased and overwhelming feelings of anxiety, stress, fear, worry, and sadness
in the transition to distance learning, leaders had to acknowledge that emotions matter and
support educators by explicitly addressing their well-being (Cipriano & Bracket, 2020).
In navigating the monumental demands that accompanied pandemic-forced building
closures, leaders found themselves relying on existing structures such as a collaboration time to
maintain systemness and coherence (Darling-Hammond & Hyler, 2020; Fullan & Quinn, 2016;
Honigsfeld & Nordmeyer, 2020). Collaboration and preparing teachers for distance learning
became crucial and one of the most common requests from teachers was more time and
collaboration opportunities. Leaders also found themselves going back to the basics such as
Bolman and Deal’s (2017) four frames of leadership and the importance of building and using
networks.
Effective communication has been critical in the implementation of many changes
brought on by the demands of new policies, practices, and guidelines. In addition to districts and
school sites relying on traditional and pre-existing communication means such as newsletters,
emails, websites, and phone messages, many leaders have been using new means of
25
communication such as virtual meetings, YouTube channel postings, and asynchronous
presentations (Canlé, 2020). In addition to information communications, leaders have had to
purposefully seek feedback and create a feedback loop that includes school leaders, parents,
staff, and students. In doing so, leaders have positioned themselves to learn from various
stakeholders’ experiences and, in turn, reflect on and reframe their leadership in order to
responsively meet the needs of all stakeholders (Hermann, 2020).
The Impact of the Pandemic on Teacher and Classified Unions
The labor of public school districts are primarily structured into three working groups:
administration, certificated, and classified employees. Under the supervision of a board, the
superintendent provides the highest level of leadership and is charged with managing and
negotiating with these three groups. Typically, the certificated and classified staff are represented
by unions while administration serves as the management class of the organization. Regular
negotiations with both unions are fundamental to operating school districts.
The certificated or teachers’ unions have a long history of advocating for safe working
conditions, fair pay, and over time, equity for marginalized communities. As far back as 1857,
teachers organized to elevate the status of the teaching profession in a precursor of what is now
the National Education Association (NEA). Over 100 years ago in Chicago, teachers created the
American Teachers Federation (AFT) modeled after the American Federation of Labor (AFL).
Teachers’ unions have become very powerful forces in shaping local and state policy (Mertz,
2014). On the local level, negotiations regularly result in Collective Bargaining Agreements
(CBA) and Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) agreements, which are legal contracts
between the employer and the union on behalf of its members (Hemphill & Marianno, 2021).
26
When schools closed due to the pandemic, district leaders had to quickly come to
agreements with teachers to determine how teaching and learning was going to continue while
both students and teachers were quarantined at home. State health and educational agencies
provided guidance which helped school leaders negotiate agreements with teachers’ unions to
determine new working conditions during the pandemic. These agreements determined
compensation, work hours, non-teaching duties, evaluation, leave, and technology (Hemphill &
Marianno, 2021).
The relationship between district leadership and teachers’ unions determined how quickly
schools were able to come to agreements and establish guidelines for distance learning in the
spring of 2020. The experiences of districts in California as the 2019–2020 school year ended,
the increase of COVID cases throughout the summer, and new state and county health guidelines
shaped the agreements that were made for distance or hybrid learning in the fall of 2020. Some
districts followed the governor’s blueprint for a safer economy to apply for waivers to open
schools in a hybrid learning model to start the year while others in more restrictive tiers
continued distance learning for all students (CDE, 2020). COVID cases peaked through the
beginning of 2021 and declined steadily through the spring; schools began to re-open and a new
round of MOU negotiations began to establish how students could safely return to school. For
teacher safety, unions advocated for distance learning until vaccinations were made available for
all teachers, which created a narrative that teachers did not want to go back to work.
Classified employees in California are school employees that are not required to hold a
teaching credential. They are represented by the local labor unions (the largest being CSEA)
which consist of the paraprofessionals, clerical, and administrative services, transportation
services, food and nutrition services, custodial and maintenance services, security services,
27
health and student services, technical services, and skilled trades employees in a district. The
CSEA, which is affiliated with the AFL-CIO, has long advocated for the enhancement of
workplace safety and wage increases for its workers (CSEA, 2021).
At the start of the pandemic, many of CSEA employees were designated “essential
workers” and continued to work on site. Negotiations between local CSEA chapters and districts
resulted in most employees being retained and some duties shifting to keep employees on the
payroll. Cafeteria workers began grab and go offerings, custodial staff and skilled trade
employees were reassigned to address deferred maintenance, security was retained to keep
school premises clear, and other employees were able to work virtually either at sites or from
home (Mahnken, 2020). Throughout the pandemic there were adults on sites continuing to
maintain facilities, offering meals to students, and assisting in the logistics of distance learning.
As schools began to reopen, classified employees were the first to be called back in to
work to prepare schools to meet new health and safety guidelines. New procedures for health
screening, cleaning, movement, personal safety, food preparation and distribution, isolation, and
transportation had to be developed and implemented by members of the classified staff. Meal
distribution was perhaps one of the first and most urgent changes that school leaders needed to
address at the onset of school closures in March 2020. With food-insecure students nationwide
relying on meals from school, districts and schools had to quickly mobilize to mitigate meal loss
(Kinsey et al., 2020). Within California alone, 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). In response, districts and schools had to imagine innovative meal
distribution that eliminated barriers to access. This included the creation of grab-and-go meals
that were distributed daily and/or weekly and included breakfast, lunch, and supper (Malkus et
28
al., 2020; Malkus et al., 2020b). Districts also developed drop-off meal systems at locations such
as neighborhood school bus stops and even students’ homes. Meal services expanded in some
areas to seven days per week, allowed for guardian pick-up rather than student pick-up, grew to
include children 0 to 18 years of age, and included disabled students up to 26 years in age and
adults in the community (McLoughlin et al., 2020).
Parental Concerns Through the Pandemic
In polls conducted in all 50 states, EdTrust (2020) found sweeping similarities among
parents across the nation, including the troubling reports of significant gaps in access to vital
resources and increased stress levels particularly among lower income families of color. While
parents reported overall general satisfaction with how school districts and schools had responded
during the pandemic, there was still a gap between what parents would have liked and what was
actually available, particularly at the beginning of the pandemic. Among all parents in all states,
there was a deep concern that their children were falling academically behind with almost 90%
of parents reporting this as a worry (EdTrust, 2020). Aside from learning loss, parent concerns
included the digital divide, student well-being, and reopening schools.
Learning Concerns
Learning loss is a current fear of parents, though the long-term results and impact of the
pandemic will not be fully understood or known for years to come (Engzell et al., 2021). Early
learning results do show drops in math scores, but not reading and one year of data does not
signify a trend in either direction (Fensterwald, 2020). Certainly, learning loss is not a new
phenomenon for schools as this is a regular occurrence over summer. However, the pandemic-
related learning loss, while it cannot be fully understood at this time, is still a top concern for
parents. Most learning stopped for most children during summers so learning loss was much
29
more uniform among students. However, learning has been very uneven and sporadic during the
pandemic “as some students have been able to participate fully in online learning while others
have faced obstacles—such as lack of internet access—that have hindered their progress”
(Terada, 2020, para. 6).
A parent concern related to learning loss is the academic support students have received
during distance learning. The EdTrust (2020) parent survey found that 82% of Latinx parents and
76% African American of parents were concerned they did not have adequate resources or
supplies to help their children stay on track academically. Furthermore, low-income families
were less likely to receive supplemental instruction in science and reported higher concerns
about reliable internet access to engage in distance learning (EdTrust, 2020). Furthermore, the
home environment is often not the quiet space students need to fully concentrate on learning,
especially when there is not a caring adult to encourage them as is the case in many homes
particularly with working parents (Fensterwald, 2021a). Even for students with stable internet
access, only about half of parents reported that their children have regular access for live
interaction with their teachers (EdTrust, 2020).
Well-Being Concerns
Student well-being is another top concern among parents during the pandemic. This is no
surprise as schools are the default source of mental health services for many adolescents,
providing care to 57% of children in need (Golberstein et al., 2020). School closures are even
more disruptive for students from lower-income families, who are much more likely to receive
mental health services solely from schools (Terada, 2020). It is possible, if not likely, that the
pandemic may worsen existing mental health problems among students or create new ones
because of the combination of the economic impact on families, the feeling of social isolation,
30
and the overall fear of the pandemic. As most mental health disorders begin in early adolescence,
it is “essential that any mental health issues be identified early and treated as if left untreated,
they can lead to serious health and emotional problems” (Terada, 2020, para. 15). There is a link
between mental health and academic achievement. Chronic stress, like what many children are
experiencing during the pandemic has been shown to change the chemical and, in some cases,
the physical structure of the brain, which can diminish cognitive skills such as attention,
concentration, memory, and creativity (Golberstein et al., 2020). In fact, student well-being is
such a concern that social emotional learning is part of the stronger together plan to reopen
schools in California (CDE, 2021).
Reopening Concerns
Another aspect of student well-being is health and safety (American Psychological
Association, 2020). Parents are very concerned about school districts’ ability to keep students
safe if schools reopen. Though 90% of parents are concerned with learning loss, far fewer
parents are willing to have their children return to in-person learning even if it is offered by their
school district (Johnson, 2021). Many parents believe that all teachers should be vaccinated
before reopening schools and many also feel that students should be vaccinated as well before in-
person learning will be truly safe. Other parents who remember their children’s schools running
out of soap and tissues do not feel that there will be adequate sanitation (Johnson, 2021).
Furthermore, many schools, especially among underserved communities, do not have the staffing
to ensure social distancing when students are on campus, but outside of the classroom. These
communities were also statistically harder hit by pandemic infection and fatalities which may
explain a reluctance to return their children to campus.
31
Governor Newsome’s Safer Together plan recommends stakeholder input which has
prompted most school districts to ask families directly if they would like to return to in-person
learning on campus and under what conditions. There are very different opinions among parents
about returning to school. Across the nation, approximately “41% of parents said they want their
child to participate only in distance learning under the current COVID-19 conditions, while 35%
prefer fully in-person instruction and 21% would like a hybrid model that combines both in-
person school with online classes” (Johnson, 2021, para. 3). There is also a significant difference
of opinion among parents of differing racial, ethnic and socioeconomic backgrounds.
Significantly more white and higher-income parents want their children to return to in-person
learning, while lower income families and families of color tend to prefer to stay in distance
learning (Johnson, 2021). While this varies in geographic regions with higher COVID-19 rages,
this data does reveal attitudes among parents signaling the degree to which school districts have
built trust during the pandemic (Samuels, 2020).
Theoretical Framework
The researcher utilized three frameworks to develop an understanding of the
transformation and skill transfer from K–12 school organization leadership to meet the needs of
leading through the crisis of the COVID-19 pandemic. In Reframing organizations: Artistry,
choice and leadership, Bolman and Deal (2017) analyze the four frames, or four significant
functions of a leader which include the structural, political, human resource, and symbolic
frames for leadership. This framework gives an overall understanding of the complex nature of
the leadership role within the K–12 educational system. The next framework is found in Fullan’s
(2014) The Principal: Three Keys to Maximizing Impact. This framework analyzes the specific
leadership skills and strategies as they fall into three key categories of learning leader, leader as
32
district and system player, and leader as change agent. The final framework comes from
Westover’s (2020) book, Districts on the move: Leading a coherent system of continuous
improvement. This work reveals how the unique culture of each K–12 school district will present
diversions along the journey of implementing coherent systems for continuous improvement.
Westover’s four main aspects to leading a coherent path of progress include clarity of district
goals, collective expertise, shared leadership and systematic collaboration, and evidence-based
inquiry cycles for continuous improvement.
Reframing Organizations: Artistry, Choice, and Leadership
Bolman and Deal’s (2017) four frames may be used to analyze the work of leaders within
complex educational organizations like K–12 school districts. This framework seeks to make the
work of school leaders more comprehensible by simplifying aspects of leadership into four
categories which can assist leaders in determining the importance of the multifaceted nature of
their roles. These four frames are the structural, human resource, political, and symbolic frames
and are detailed below (Bolman & Deal, 2017):
1. The structural frame views an organization as an entity formed to accomplish goals.
This frame focuses on the role the leader can play to ensure there is an adequate
environment in which employees can fulfill their roles with clear understanding of
positions and responsibilities. The role of the leader is to guarantee that the structure
is engineered to support the specific and unique needs and objectives of the
organization. Within the leadership structural frame, the priority is to lead with
rational and systematic thinking, rather than personal preference.
2. The human resource frame reveals how employees bring value to an organization
and, in turn, how the organization can support and empower its employees. Bolman
33
and Deal’s (2017) work on the human resources frame emphasized the importance of
the organization’s role in supporting employees and building capacity for growth.
3. The political frame shows the importance of leaders to manage conflict and
disagreement in order to build capacity within the organization. This frame
emphasizes the leadership ability to build coalitions in order to accomplish broader
organizational goals. Political leaders understand that their most vital role is to
allocate scarce resources and to comprehend the power balance involved with this
task, including a determination of who would be perceived to be the winners and
losers in each resource allocation decision. Therefore, the political leader makes
decisions and creates goals through bargaining and negotiation to engage the
competing stakeholders.
4. The symbolic leadership frame appreciates that the vision and charisma of the leader
to emphasize culture is a key quality. A symbolic leader values tradition and
ceremony and takes an active role in seeking opportunities to display the culture of
the organization. A symbolic leader takes special care to create and glorify what an
organization represents.
The four frames of leadership provide the context for the leadership work within complex
educational organizations like K–12 school districts. These frames provide leaders within K–12
school districts with a comprehensible system of analysis to meet the demands of their position
and to utilize the relationships developed with stakeholders to serve the larger goals of the
organization.
34
The Principal: Three Keys to Maximizing Impact
Fullan’s (2014) book, The Principal: Three Keys to Maximizing Impact, analyzes the
three primary elements of the work of a successful principal. Fullan’s impetus for the
development of the keys is the identified increased stress and decreased job satisfaction of school
principals. It is noted that 50% of school principals feel stress frequently, about 60% of
principals are satisfied with their position (a decrease of 10% in the past decade), and 75% of
principals deem the job as too complex (Fullan, 2014). As a result of these factors, Fullan
developed three keys for principals to maximize their work and to increase their satisfaction in
the position. The first key is to be a lead learner. Creating a culture of learning is the first priority
for a principal. The principal must ensure that learning and instructional improvement are at the
heart of all that a school does. He or she cannot do this work alone and should develop a team of
teachers and leaders to support the work of instructional improvement. The culture created by a
principal allows for schools to maximize the impact of the school and to provide a coherent
academic program. The principal’s role includes developing the professional capital of the team.
Professional capital is the human capital, social capital, and decisional capital of the team.
Human capital is the quality of the teaching force in a school and their abilities as instructors,
interventionists, and mentors to children.
Social capital is the relationships formed by administrators and their interactions with
staff and community members. A strong social relationship forms a culture of a school and
encourages the development of a common cause among the staff as well as an obligation to
perform. The decisional capital of the leader is his or her ability to engage the social and human
capital of an organization and the knowledge required to effectively utilize the human capital of
the school. Decisional capital refers to the leader’s ability to make sound professional decisions
35
and to utilize professional judgment in his or her work. Fullan’s first key requires a leader to
develop a school-based team committed to learning and to have the leader serve as a model for
this initiative. The second key is being a district and system player. A sound school administrator
must ensure that his or her school is functioning as a component of the district and the larger
initiatives and methods employed at the system level. In an era of increased scrutiny and
accountability, the role of the administrator as a system player is increasingly challenging. In
contrast, the ability to engage and collaborate across districts and schools provides a structure for
continuous improvement. The work across a district, or the district coherence, builds the capacity
of the district as an entity and the individual schools within the district. This work also leads to
the long-term development of a district’s mission and capacity for change and accountability.
Fullan’s second key supports principals to understand their role within the larger context of a
school system and the benefits and challenges of developing a system-wide mission. The third
key is becoming a change agent. The third key of the principal is his or her ability to lead
passionately and with professional mastery. An effective principal must gracefully charter a path
for the staff to change and support the team members as they adopt refined thinking regarding
their instructional role and obligations. Leaders must find a balance in their change efforts
between supporting those who adapt to change quickly and nudging resistant staff in the
direction of the organization. Leading through change requires principals to have the confidence
and resilience when their efforts flounder and an understanding that their mastery of the position
and passion for excellence enable organizational gains.
Districts on the Move: Leading a Coherent System of Continuous Improvement
Every district has a unique culture and its people and structures have an existing capacity.
When districts seek to transform themselves into creating a coherent system of continuous
36
improvement, there will be various diversions along the journey. Westover (2020) delves into the
key benchmarks of capacity and the leadership competencies necessary for districts to progress
in creating a system that ensures and monitors continuous improvement. Westover argues that
the culture of leadership in a school district is the most critical factor for both advancing progress
and sustaining improvement efforts. The major challenges to success are developing leadership
at every level to create a collaborative culture of improvement, while the “key for long-term
success is maintaining a focus on creating coherence in spite of the daily urgent demands in
schools that constantly pull leaders away from the important work of improving teaching and
learning” (Westover, 2020, p. 8). The four aspects of creating coherent systems for continuous
improvement within school districts as described by Westover (2020) are the clarity of district
goals and priorities, the culture of shared leadership and systematic collaboration, a coherent
instructional framework for developing collective expertise, and evidence-based inquiry cycles
for continuous improvement:
1. School districts must first analyze the underlying causes of areas where improvement
is needed and align specific improvement strategies that specifically address these
issues. School districts should only implement high-impact strategies that are proven
to be effective that will, in turn, guide district actions and the support that needs to be
provided.
2. School districts should create formal structures and processes so that employees can
engage in systemic collaboration and co-learning among and between colleagues at
all levels of the organization to promote a culture of leading from the middle.
Everyone in an organization can be a lead learner by gaining expertise in their area
which results in more successful navigation of any process of change.
37
3. A coherent instructional framework integrates resources, strategies, and assessments
which are implemented within short, three to four weeks cycles. At the end of each
cycle, feedback or results are gathered to determine the level of success of the
strategy and to determine what next steps are needed.
4. School districts and district leaders should set annual growth targets which can be
measured internally to inform the district progress toward goals. Through evidence-
based cycles of collaborative inquiry, educational organizations like K–12 school
districts can create feedback loops to track the continuous improvement of practice.
Conclusion
The review of this literature provides context for the study of school leadership during the
COVID-19 pandemic. The traditional roles and concerns among school leaders changed
dramatically during the COVID-19 pandemic. School leaders became crisis managers, which
required a new and specialized set of skills. The typical laws and funding guidelines also
changed dramatically during the pandemic, causing leaders to manage a continual wave of
changing and unpredictable information while serving stakeholders. The increased safety
concerns and general situation of distance learning altered the working conditions of both
certificated and classified union members. District leaders met these groups at the bargaining
table to come to agreements on how the new work of running a school could be conducted in a
safe way. On top of all of this, school districts continued to serve students as best they could
under difficult conditions. While parents have been generally supportive of school districts’
responses to the pandemic, there are still concerns that their children are falling behind and
lingering fear about returning to school. To address all of these concerns, school leaders needed
to reinvent their roles as crisis managers.
38
Chapter Three: Methodology
The COVID-19 pandemic created a sustained and ever-evolving crisis for districts,
schools, and leadership within (Malkus et al., 2020a). As the pandemic endured, the issues facing
school leaders and their school communities became more complex (Harrington, 2021). This
mixed-methods study explored the impact these issues have had on educational leaders and the
districts and sites they serve.
Purpose of the Study
The purpose of this study was to analyze the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on K–12
Southern California public school districts and understand what district and site administrators
have learned from their experiences and their decision-making responsibilities in managing the
pandemic crisis.
Research Questions
This study was guided by the following research questions:
1. What financial implications, if any, has the COVID-19 pandemic had on K–12 public
school districts in Southern California and how have district superintendents, assistant
superintendents, and principals addressed these implications?
2. What impact, if any, have federal, state and local health agencies had on K–12 public
school districts in Southern California and what strategies have district
superintendents, assistant superintendents, and principals 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?
39
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
The research team was led by Dr. Rudy Castruita from the University of Southern
California (USC) Rossier School of Education. The dissertation group was composed of 22
students with Dr. Castruita as the lead researcher and supervisor for the study. Within the larger
research team, cohort teams of three or four researchers were created in an effort to conduct
research in a more efficient manner.
The research team, which began meeting in the spring of 2021, contributed to the
literature review bibliography, designed the conceptual framework, and created the data
collection instruments. This researcher’s team is composed of four researchers who conducted
separate data collection. The team worked together to share their research findings which, in
turn, informed implications outlined in Chapter Five along with possibilities for future research.
Due to the many group aspects of the thematic process, there may be some similarities in the
dissertations.
Sample and Population
The researcher surveyed and interviewed K–12 public school district superintendents,
assistant superintendents, and site principals to gain a deeper understanding of the impact of and
response to the COVID-19 pandemic within K–12 public school districts. This study relied on
purposeful convenience sampling (Lochmiller & Lester, 2017; Maxwell, 2013; Merriam &
40
Tisdell, 2016). Participants were identified within geographically convenient counties in
Southern California who also held key administrative positions in K–12 public school districts
(see Table 1). Maxwell (2013) has shown that purposeful sampling in a mixed-method approach
can provide triangulation of data across the sample population while allowing for internal
generalizability within the specific context of these leadership roles during the COVID-19
pandemic.
Table 1
Participant Selection Criteria
Criterion Superintendent Assistant superintendent Principal
Leader in public, K–12 district
in Southern California
Met Met Met
In position for at least 1 year Met Met Met
Served in position during
2020–2021 school year
Met Met Met
Completed study survey and
interview
Met Met Met
Note. K–12 = kindergarten through 12th grade.
41
The sample size for each researcher in the cohort team was set at nine participants,
respectively. The findings from the interviews and surveys collected were compared to the
findings identified by other cohort team members in Chapter Five. The comparison of these
findings ultimately led to the implications for practice in Chapter Five. Researchers A, B, C, and
D collectively surveyed and interviewed a total of 36 participants across 12 K–12 Southern
California public school districts. Pseudonyms for school districts were used to protect the
confidentiality of every participant and their school districts.
The participants surveyed and interviewed by Researcher A were leaders in District A,
District B, and District C, all representing K–12 public school districts in Southern California.
District A serves 4,131 students grades kindergarten through 12th grade (Ed-Data, 2021a). The
district has an average daily attendance of 4,030 (Ed-Data, 2021a). According to Ed-Data
(2021a), nearly 4.4% of the student population are English Learners and 3.2% receive free and
reduced-price meals. District B serves 2,909 students in grades kindergarten through 12th grade
(Ed-Data, 2021a). The district has an average daily attendance of 2,842 (Ed-Data, 2021a).
According to Ed-Data (2021a), nearly 9.5% of the student population are English Learners and
7.4% receive free and reduced-price meals. District C serves 5,574 students in grades
kindergarten through 12th grade (Ed-Data, 2021a). The district has an average daily attendance
of 4,784 (Ed-Data, 2021a). According to Ed-Data (2021a), nearly 19.7% of the student
population are English Learners and 57.8% receive free and reduced-price meals.
The participants surveyed and interviewed by Researcher B were leaders in District D,
District E, and District F, all representing K–12 public school districts in Southern California.
District D serves 9,254 students in grades kindergarten through 12th grade (Ed-Data, 2021a).
The district has an average daily attendance of 9,038 (Ed-Data, 2021a). According to Ed-Data
42
(2021a), 12.3% of the student population are English Learners and 25.9% receive free and
reduced-price meals. District E serves 10,580 students grades kindergarten through 12th grade
(Ed-Data, 2021a). The district has an average daily attendance of 10,116 (Ed-Data, 2021a).
According to Ed-Data (2021a), 7.2% of the student population are English Learners and 53.9%
receive free and reduced-price meals. District F serves 2,506 students in grades kindergarten
through 12th grade (Ed-Data, 2021a). The district has an average daily attendance of 2,426 (Ed-
Data, 2021a). According to Ed-Data (2021a), 7.8% of the student population are English
Learners and 38% receive free and reduced-price meals.
The participants surveyed and interviewed by Researcher C were leaders in District G,
District H, and District I, all representing K–12 public school districts in Southern California.
District G serves 3,564 students in grades kindergarten through 12th grade (Ed-Data, 2021a).
The district has an average daily attendance of 3,276 (Ed-Data, 2021a). According to Ed-Data
(2021a), 17% of the student population are English Learners and 60.7% receive free and
reduced-price meals. District H serves 11,257 students in grades kindergarten through 12th grade
(Ed-Data, 2021a). The district has an average daily attendance of 10,672 (Ed-Data, 2021a).
According to Ed-Data (2021a), 6.3% of the student population are English Learners and 7.9%
receive free and reduced-price meals. District I serves 5,767 students in grades kindergarten
through 12th grade (Ed-Data, 2021a). The district has an average daily attendance of 5,463 (Ed-
Data, 2021a). According to Ed-Data (2021a), 18.8% of the student population are English
Learners and 39.4% receive free and reduced-price meals.
The participants surveyed and interviewed by Researcher D were leaders in District J,
District K, and District L, all representing K–12 public school districts in Southern California.
District J serves 18,170 students in grades kindergarten through 12th grade (Ed-Data, 2021a).
43
The district has an average daily attendance of 17,355 (Ed-Data, 2021a). According to Ed-Data
(2021a), 28.8% of the student population are English Learners and 77.3% receive free and
reduced-price meals. District K serves 22,101 students in grades kindergarten through 12th grade
(Ed-Data, 2021a). The district has an average daily attendance of 21,247 (Ed-Data, 2021a).
According to Ed-Data (2021a), 14.6% of the student population are English Learners and 68.3%
receive free and reduced-price meals. District L serves 21,062 students in grades kindergarten
through 12th grade (Ed-Data, 2021a). The district has an average daily attendance of 19,810 (Ed-
Data, 2021a). According to Ed-Data (2021a), 8.2% of the student population are English
Learners and 61.9% receive free and reduced-price meals.
Research Design
The researcher chose a two-phase, sequential mixed methods study design with the intent
of understanding the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on K–12 public school districts and the
responses required of district and site administrators. Grounded in Creswell and Creswell’s
(2018) mixed-methods approach, this study includes the collection of quantitative and qualitative
data based on research questions developed by the researcher, rigorous analysis of both sets of
data, and the application of the data to a larger crisis leadership framework.
Methodology
The methodology applied in this study was mixed and included the collection of
quantitative data from closed-ended surveys of superintendents, assistant superintendents, and
site principals serving in K–12 Southern California public school districts in Los Angeles,
Riverside, and San Bernardino counties (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). To better understand the
leadership experiences of the participants surveyed, the researcher used a semi-structured
interview protocol to gather qualitative data (Lochmiller & Lester, 2017). The four research
44
questions were used to design both the quantitative survey questions and the qualitative
interview questions.
The researcher determined that a sequential explanatory strategy design was appropriate
for the study (Creswell & Creswell, 2018). In the first phase, quantitative data is collected
through the administration of a survey and then analyzed. In the second phase, qualitative data is
collected through the administration of an interview protocol and then analyzed. The qualitative
data collected in the second phase builds on the quantitative results of the first phase, thus aiding
in the explanation of the quantitative data contributing to the interpretation of the entire analysis
(Creswell, 2009).
Instrumentation and Conceptual Framework
Quantitative Instrument
This study captured quantitative data utilizing three variations of the same survey, which
was distributed to a total of 36 K–12 public school district- and site-level administrators: 12 K–
12 public school superintendents, 12 K–12 public school assistant superintendents, and 12 K–12
public school site principals within three school districts (see Appendices A–C). 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. All three forms of the survey each
contained a total of 26 closed-ended questions. Survey questions were created to address each of
the research questions previously outlined in the purpose of the study section of this chapter and
aligned to at least one of the leadership theories of the conceptual framework (see Appendix D).
The first two questions of the survey gathered demographic data of participants, while Section I
addressed the first research question and provided insight into the financial implications of the
pandemic. Section II addressed the research question related to federal, state, and local health
45
agency guidelines. Sections III and IV addressed the research question centered on negotiating
with school unions. Section V addressed the final research question regarding stakeholder
concerns, needs, and involvement.
The survey was formatted and uploaded using Qualtrics online software and incorporated
a five-point Likert scale for all five sections (1 = strongly disagree to 5 = strongly agree). The
survey instrument was web-accessible to all participants and was designed to capture the
numeric description of the perceptions of district- and site-level administrators regarding district-
and site-level challenges related to the COVID-19 pandemic.
Qualitative Instrument
Qualitative data were captured for this study through interviews with the same 36 K–12
public school district superintendents, assistant superintendents, and site principals that were
surveyed in Southern California. Due to limitations imposed by COVID-19 pandemic health and
safety guidelines, interviews were conducted virtually via Zoom video conferencing. The
interview protocol, which varied only slightly for each participant group, contained 14 questions
(see Appendices E–G) and all questions were designed to address the research questions outlined
previously for this study. The interview protocol administered was semi-structured and open-
ended to allow for follow up and clarification (Lochmiller & Lester, 2017). Such an approach
also held the potential to reveal unanticipated findings (Creswell & Creswell, 2018).
Conceptual Framework
For this study, the researcher created the conceptual framework in Figure 1, which is
drawn from three theoretical leadership frameworks to develop an understanding of the theories
that impact school leadership and how leadership can be adapted to manage crises such as the
COVID-19 pandemic. The first framework, Bolman and Deal’s (2017) Reframing organizations:
46
Artistry, choice and leadership, provides different perspectives from which to analyze the
structural, symbolic, human resource, and political aspects of educational leadership within
complex organizations like K–12 school districts. Fullan’s (2014) The Principal: Three Keys to
Maximizing Impact provides a theoretical framework to understand principal leadership at the
site level through the roles of lead learner, district and system player, and change agent. The final
theoretical framework comes from Westover’s (2020) Districts on the move: Leading a coherent
system of continuous improvement. This work provides four aspects of creating coherent systems
for continuous improvement within school districts. These three theoretical frameworks combine
to provide a conceptual framework in which to comprehensively examine K–12 school district
leaders’ responses to the educational crisis that has resulted from the COVID-19 pandemic.
During phase one of quantitative data collection for this study, surveys were emailed to
all 36 selected participants in 9 districts in Southern California: 12 K–12 public school district
superintendents, 12 assistant superintendents, and 12 site principals. Participants completed a
consent form that outlined the purpose of the study, conveyed explicitly the right to remain
anonymous during all stages of the study, and presented a clear opt out of the survey at any
point. Appendices H–J include the email verbiage used in the recruitment of the superintendent,
assistant superintendent and principal participants.
47
Figure 1
Kindergarten Through 12th Grade School and District Leadership as Crisis Management
Phase two of data collection for this study focused on gathering qualitative data through
interviews with the same 36 participants who were surveyed in phase one. The researcher made
every effort to make participants feel at ease during the interviews, which were conducted
virtually due to in-person restrictions resulting from the COVID-19 pandemic. Forty minutes of
time was allotted for each interview, and an audio/video recording was collected of each
interview with participant consent. The researcher also took notes, and transcribed, reviewed and
coded all data collected during interviews.
Data Analysis
Data were collected in two phases with the quantitative survey being completed prior to
the qualitative interview. Survey responses were coded in a sequential method starting with open
coding, followed by axial coding, and concluded with selective coding (Creswell & Creswell,
48
2018). The analysis began with the numerical results of the survey being used to identify themes.
Emerging themes were further explored in the interviews through open coding. This allowed for
the identification of broad concepts in the data to help answer the research questions and to
identify the cogent data points which emerged (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). Next, the open codes
were gathered during axial coding to refine the broader categories found in the data to recognize
relationships between the codes (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). Finally, through selective coding the
researcher applied the main themes to assertions that pose answers to the research questions.
Both the quantitative and qualitative data were analyzed to develop these assertions. The
quantitative data provided general direction for themes and the qualitative data from interviews
provided richer, deeper meaning to understand how the themes applied to the research questions
(Creswell & Creswell, 2018).
Ethical Considerations
The research process requires researchers to navigate interactions with participants
respectfully and ethically (Denzin, 2016; Glesne, 2014; Lochmiller & Lester, 2017; Merriam &
Tisdell, 2016). During the design and implementation of this research study, all ethical
considerations were followed. All guidelines and procedures for the University of Southern
California Institutional Review Board were reviewed and implemented throughout the entire
research study. To ensure that the study was conducted in an ethical manner, all participants
were informed of the purpose of the study and it was clearly stated that their participation in the
study was voluntary. Participants were also informed that their identities and responses would be
kept secure and confidential and the data would be handled carefully and safely. During the
interviews, explicit permission was requested to record the sessions. The participants were made
49
aware of how the findings would be distributed as a dissertation in the doctoral program at the
University of Southern California.
Summary
This study employed a mixed-methods approach that garnered quantitative and
qualitative data. Surveys were administered to gather quantitative data, and interviews were
conducted to gather qualitative data. The data were analyzed to determine the impact of the
COVID-19 pandemic on K–12 school districts, school sites, and educational leaders. The
findings will be presented in Chapter Four and will be accompanied by a discussion in Chapter
Five.
50
Chapter Four: Findings
An analysis of the data collected for this mixed-methods study, The Impact of the
COVID-19 Pandemic on K–12 Public School Districts in Southern California: Responses of
Superintendents, Assistant Superintendents, and Principals is included in Chapter Four. Findings
will help to illuminate what district and site administrators learned from their lived experiences
and their decision-making responsibilities in managing the crisis. The conceptual framework
utilized for this research study was based on three theoretical frameworks: four frames, three
keys to maximizing impact, and coherent systems. The three frameworks assist in developing an
understanding of the theories that impact the leadership of district superintendents, assistant
superintendents, and principals and how it can be adapted to the current situation of managing
the COVID-19 pandemic crisis.
This study was designed as a mixed-methods study, utilizing both qualitative and
quantitative methods to collect and analyze data. A total of 36 Southern California K–12 district
and school leaders, 12 superintendents, 12 assistant superintendents, and 12 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 the collection of qualitative data from open-ended interview questions with
participants and quantitative surveys completed by the interviewees.
51
This study captured quantitative data utilizing three variations of the same survey (one
version for superintendents, one version for assistant superintendents, and one version for
principals), which was distributed to all 36 participants. All three forms of the survey each
contained a total of 26 closed-ended questions designed to address the study’s four research
questions in an effort to gather data that reflected the participating school and district leaders’
experiences, views, decisions, and knowledge about the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on
Southern California K–12 public school districts. The survey was formatted and uploaded using
Qualtrics online software and incorporated a five-point Likert scale (1 = strongly disagree to 5 =
strongly agree). The survey instrument was web-accessible to all participants and was designed
to capture the numeric description of the perceptions of district- and site-level administrators
regarding district- and site-level challenges related to the COVID-19 pandemic.
The quantitative findings, shown in tables throughout the findings sections, show the
average participant score for each survey question. Chapter Four presents the findings from the
research questions. The findings in this chapter are the results of the online surveys and
interviews. The following four research questions guided the study:
1. What, if any, are the financial implications that the COVID-19 pandemic has had on
K–12 public school districts in Southern California and how have district
superintendents, assistant superintendents and principals addressed these
implications?
2. What, if any, has been the impact of federal, state and local health agencies on K–12
public school districts in Southern California, and what strategies have district
superintendents, assistant superintendents, and principals followed to address the
suggested guidelines?
52
3. How, if at all, have union negotiations played a role in K–12 Southern California
public school districts’ response to the COVID-19 pandemic?
4. How, if at all, have K–12 Southern California public school districts leadership teams
comprised of superintendents, assistant superintendents, and principals addressed the
concerns of the parent community regarding safety, nutrition, distance learning, lack
of technology, academic standing, and how and when to re-open schools due to the
COVID-19 pandemic?
Participants
For this study, 36 Southern California K–12 public school district superintendents,
assistant superintendents, and principals across 12 districts were chosen. The participants met the
selection criteria which included the following: (a) traditional Southern California K–12 district
superintendent, assistant superintendent, or principal; (b) public schools; (c) the superintendent,
assistant superintendent, or principal must have worked in the current role for at least one year;
(d) the superintendents, assistant superintendents, or principals served in these positions during
the 2020–2021 school year; and (e) the student population of the district is at least one thousand.
All 36 school and district leaders selected that met the criteria agreed to respond to the survey
and participated in the interview. In an effort to protect the identities of the school and district
leaders involved and ensure anonymity, school districts and participants were assigned
pseudonyms.
Demographic Data
As shown in Table 2, 36 participants were chosen from 12 different K–12 public school
districts in Southern California. The 12 participating school districts served a combined total of
11,866 students, with the smallest school district (District F) serving 2,506 students and the
53
largest school district (District K) serving 22,101 students. An average of 28.8% of all enrolled
students across all 12 districts were identified as socioeconomically disadvantaged (SES), with
the smallest percentage of SES students (3.2%) in District A and the largest percentage of SES
students (60.7%) in District G. Of the total student enrollments in all 12 school districts, an
average of 25.8% of students were identified as English Learners (EL), with the smallest
percentage of EL students (4.4%) in District A and the largest percentage of EL students (77.3%)
in District J.
As part of the research process, two demographic questions were asked of all 36
participants:
1. How many years have you served in the leadership role?
2. How many years have you served in your current role within the school district?
It was critical to the study that all research participants had actual experience leading their
districts and schools during the COVID-19 pandemic.
54
Table 2
Demographic Information: School District Participants
District Student population
Average daily
attendance
Socioeconomically
disadvantaged English learners
A 4,131 97.5% 3.2% 4.4%
B 2,909 97.6% 7.4% 9.5%
C 5,574 85.8% 57.8% 19.7%
D 9,245 97.6% 25.9% 12.3%
E 10,580 95.6% 53.9% 7.2%
F 2,506 96.8% 38.0% 7.8%
G 3,564 91.1% 60.7% 17.0%
H 11,257 94.8% 7.9% 6.3%
I 5,767 94.7% 39.4% 18.8%
J 18,170 95.5% 28.8% 77.3%
K 22,101 96.1% 14.6% 68.3%
L 21,062 94.0% 8.2% 61.9%
Note. The grade levels for all participants were kindergarten through 12th grade. Data reflect the
2019–2020 school year (Ed-Data, 2021a).
As displayed in Table 3, three out of the 12 participating superintendents (25%) had
served in their roles for just 1 to 2 years. In contrast, one participant (8%) had served in their role
for over 10 years. The majority of participating superintendents (66%) had served in their role
for 3 to 10 years. Additionally, as can be seen in Table 3, the majority of participating
superintendents (75%) had served in their position in their current, respective districts for 3 or
more years. All 12 superintendent participants (100%) experienced leading through the COVID-
19 pandemic.
55
Table 3
Quantitative Survey: Superintendent Demographic Information
Superintendent Years in position Years in position at current district
A >10 >10
B 1–2 1–2
C 1–2 1–2
D 6–10 6–10
E 1–2 1–2
F 3–5 3–5
G 3–5 3–5
H 3–5 3–5
I 6–10 3–5
J 6–10 3–5
K 6–10 6–10
L 3–5 3–5
As shown in Table 4, six of the 12 participating assistant superintendents (50%) had
served in their position for 3 to 5 years. Four of the 12 assistant superintendents (33%) were
newer to the position, having served only 1 to 2 years. In contrast, two of the 12 assistant
superintendents (16%) had served in their position for 10 or more years. All participating
assistant superintendents had served in their current position exclusively in their current,
respective districts. All 12 assistant superintendent participants (100%) experienced leading
through the COVID-19 pandemic.
56
Table 4
Quantitative Survey: Assistant Superintendent Demographic Information
Assistant superintendent Years in position Years in position at current district
A 3–5 3–5
B >10 >10
C 1–2 1–2
D 3–5 3–5
E 3–5 3–5
F 1–2 1–2
G 3–5 3–5
H 1–2 1–2
I 1–2 1–2
J 3–5 3–5
K >10 >10
L 3–5 3–5
As indicated in Table 5, three out of the 12 participating principals (25%) had served in
their role for just 1 to 2 years. In contrast, the majority of principals, 9 out of the 12 who
participated (75%), had served in their role for 3 to 10 years. Ten of the 12 participating
principals (83%) had held the position of principal exclusively in their current, respective
districts. One principal (8%), while having 3 to 5 years of experience in the position of principal,
was new to their current school district, having served less than one year. All principal
participants (100%) experienced leading through the COVID-19 pandemic.
57
Table 5
Quantitative Survey: Principal Demographic Information
Principal Years in position Years in position at current district
A 6–10 6–10
B 1–2 1–2
C 1–2 1–2
D 6–10 6–10
E 3–5 3–5
F 6–10 6–10
G 3–5 3–5
H 3–5 3–5
I 3–5 <1
J 1–2 1–2
K 6–10 3–5
L 3–5 3–5
Research Question 1 Findings
Research Question 1 asked the following: What, if any, are the financial implications of
the COVID-19 pandemic on K–12 public school districts in Southern California and how district
superintendents, assistant superintendents, and principals addressed these implications?
The literature exploring leadership during a crisis situation has highlighted the necessity
to be flexible, creative, and adaptive (Stoll & Temperley, 2009). The participants in this study
confirmed that these skills were needed to navigate the financial implications brought on by the
COVID-19 pandemic. Furthermore, as Smith and Riley (2012) suggested, leaders looked for
opportunities within the crisis to improve their organizations to leave them in a better position
beyond the pandemic. The vast financial support from both the state and federal government
58
through the CARES Act, ESSER, and Governor’s Emergency Education Relief funds certainly
provided leaders with opportunities to not only meet the needs brought on by the pandemic, but
also to build new initiatives for future needs (Fensterwald, 2021a). The literature further
suggested the importance of continual reflection throughout any crisis when there is not a clear,
fixed end to the crisis (Gainey, 2009). The CDE reported that continual reflection on emerging,
on-going, and future needs was crucial to leaders as additional funding was made available
throughout the course of the pandemic (CDE, 2021).
The research participants answered five survey questions, shown in Table 6, related to
Research Question 1. These five survey questions were designed to provide insight into leaders’
perceptions regarding the COVID-19 funding provided through the CARES Act. Two questions
garnered the strongest agreement among superintendents, assistant superintendents, and
principals and revealed that the CARES Act funds were impactful in meeting the needs of
personal protective equipment (PPE) and technology. Survey responses also revealed two areas
where superintendents, assistant superintendents, and principals did not feel that COVID funding
was adequate in meeting their district and/or site needs: personnel and facility upgrades. It is also
interesting to note that the largest discrepancy in participants’ perceptions was in the area of
professional learning or training. While superintendent participants agreed, on average, that
CARES Act funding met district needs in the area of professional learning and/or training,
principal participants, on average, disagreed.
59
Table 6
Quantitative Survey: District and Site Leaders’ Perceptions of Financial Implications of
COVID-19
Item Superintendent Assistant superintendent Principal
The CARES Act met my district’s/school’s
funding needs in the area of personnel.
3.75 3.64 3.27
The CARES Act met my district’s/school’s
funding needs in the area of personal
protective equipment (PPE).
4.58 4.64 4.55
The CARES Act met my district’s/school’s
funding needs in the area of technology.
4.08 3.73 3.73
The CARES Act met my district’s/school’s
funding needs in the area of professional
learning and/or training.
4.25 3.55 2.73
The CARES Act met my district’s/school’s
funding needs in the area of facility
upgrades.
3.08 2.82 3.00
Note. The online Qualtrics survey incorporated 5-point Likert scales (1 = strongly disagree to 5
= strongly agree).
There were four interview questions that directly addressed Research Question 1:
1. What have been the biggest financial implications of the pandemic on your district?
2. In what ways, if any, would more spending flexibility/structure have benefitted your
district?
3. In what ways has COVID-19-related funding been used to meet student needs in your
district?
60
4. To what extent, if any, did financial incentive influence your district’s reopening
plan/timeline?
The questions were designed to provide researchers with an opportunity to learn more about the
financial implications school districts faced during the COVID-19 pandemic. According to the
superintendents, assistant superintendents, and principals who participated in this research,
financial implications were revealed across four major themes:
1. The lack of clarity regarding school funding in the initial stages of the pandemic
created a sense of uncertainty. Though when the governmental funding through the
CARES Act was made available, it was more than adequate to meet the basic needs
caused by COVID-19.
2. The funding provided by the CARES Act would have been more useful to leaders if
there was more flexibility in how it could be spent, with less rigid systems of
accountability.
3. While financial incentives were important, the primary factor which drove
superintendents, assistant superintendents, and principals to reopen schools in the
Spring of 2021 was safely meeting the needs of students.
4. Superintendents, assistant superintendents, and principals quickly recognized
opportunities to leverage these new one-time and ongoing funds.
Funding Uncertainty
It is important for leaders to collect as much information as they can and trust their
instinct and experience, which helps leaders make quick decisions during a time of uncertainty
(Bishop et al., 2015). Boin et al. (2013) has discussed leadership intelligence which includes
procedural, intuitive, and creative intelligence as creative leaders go beyond problem solving.
61
Creative leaders are able to examine their current situation and assess the challenges that need to
be addressed in order to prevent a derailment of efforts to move the school community forward
(Boin et al., 2013). Many leaders who participated in this research study confirmed that the
ability to be creative and find opportunities for growth within the uncertainty of funding during
the pandemic was crucial to successfully guide their organization through the pandemic.
Participants in this study noted the initial uncertainty at the beginning of the pandemic.
Superintendent B shared:
The immediate impact of the closure was a very early prediction of a loss of revenues to
the tune, I believe, of 10%, which is what the state was predicting back in March of 2020.
And what the state didn’t have a grasp on was the positive impact that the pandemic
would have on the California economy, right? So initially, we went into a significant
cost-cutting mindset because of the uncertainty (Superintendent B Interview, January 28,
2022).
Principal J discussed the funding uncertainty experienced at the site level as a result of
the pandemic, noting initial funding cuts that were later followed by allocations of COVID
dollars:
Our district did allocate an additional $10,000 in general funds to each site [during the
pandemic] to spend as they saw necessary, which was helpful but not because they [the
district] initially cut the general budget. It wasn’t that they gave us additional funds. They
just gave us what we had before. Although they attributed that spending to COVID, it
really wasn’t COVID. It really was just what they gave us from before [the cuts].
62
Uncertainty of funding that accompanied the sudden surge of need for personal protective
equipment (PPE) was also noted by superintendents and assistant superintendents.
Superintendent C explained,
I think at the beginning there was so much uncertainty about how are we going to be able
to afford all of the PPE equipment and the necessary staffing. When we went to distance
learning, the other financial piece that was a challenge were the programs we would need
to put in place so that kids would be successful in a virtual setting. So how would we be
able to, with our existing budgets at the time, be able to fund these needs?
Superintendent A also felt uncertainty at the beginning of the pandemic regarding how to
cover the new costs.
In the beginning, there was so much uncertainty about what type of funding we would
receive. So, there was really a fear of an immense budget shortfall in California because
of the loss of tax revenue. And then also just in those early days, the uncertainty of not
knowing how long we were going to be closed, not knowing what technology needs we
would have, not knowing if we would need an LMS or what investments would be
needed.
Superintendent E shared an experience about the uncertainty district leaders face with
one-time funding:
So, I even heard a superintendent say, “I used to be a CBO and I always said, ‘We cannot
spend one-time money on ongoing expenses. And here I am hiring all these people and I
know I shouldn’t be doing it.’” And so that does put us in a tough position, I think.
Reflections from superintendents, assistant superintendents, and principals throughout the
12 districts who participated in this research study revealed that the lack of information regarding
63
funding was of great concern at the beginning of the pandemic. Superintendents and assistant
superintendents, especially, noted the increased financial needs caused by the pandemic created a
feeling of uncertainty about how to cover the new costs. However, as the pandemic continued,
federal funds made available through the CARES Act were able to adequately meet the needs
and even created opportunities for growth.
Superintendent B shared sentiments about the positive impact of the CARES Act that
were consistent among the participants in this study:
When the CARES Act, when ESSER funds, etc., when they started coming through, it
was actually more than we were expecting. And it ended up being very, very helpful, not
just to meet the needs of the pandemic, but to meet whatever potential fallout we might
be continuing to deal with. So, I would say the net outcome was financially positive.
Assistant Superintendent L was also confident in the level of COVID funding, and stated,
“We’ve got more money than we can possibly spend over the course of this pandemic.”
Assistant Superintendent C elaborated on the ways in which the pandemic funding
presented opportunities:
Actually, in a weird way, the financial implications have been positive. The state of
California came up with “hold harmless” formulas for LCFF funding, so there wasn’t a
loss of revenue, really. And we received significant amounts of one time, federal and
state COVID money. We did have some additional expenditures related to COVID, but in
the end, it’s honestly been a gain for us for one-time money. We’ve been able to make
one-time purchases, like all of the classroom technology. We’ve been able to set aside
money into savings for future technology purchases and things like that.
64
In contrast, Assistant Superintendent J was cautious about funding surplus in the years
beyond the pandemic, and stated,
I think people are going to have to be creative as the pandemic wanes and you still have
the money that has to be related to learning loss mitigation, safety, and PPE. It will be
interesting as we move on. Similar to Title I, if you don’t monitor it, you end up with $2
or $3 million in carryover that has to be spent in a very specific way. We don’t want to
get to the end of this money and then now you are just doing things to spend money.
Flexibility and Accountability
The biggest source of financial support came from the federal government with the
Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security (CARES) Act, which was signed into law on
Friday, March 27, 2020 (CDE, 2021). The CARES Act furnished states with federal funds and
also implemented a waiver process which enabled educational institutions to more flexibly serve
vulnerable populations and operate in ways that differed from local guidelines. While the funds
were meant to provide the flexibility leaders would need to meet the unique needs of their
communities, the participants in this study expressed differing views on accountability and
flexibility in spending COVID dollars.
Superintendent B discussed funding and the accountability structures that are typically
attached when districts receive monies, noting specifically the impact accountability measures
have had on district departments:
My cynical view of the way California does things is they wrap things up in a pretty little
box and call it local control or flexible spending. But then the strings attached to it, the
accountability measures that go along with it are so constricting that they cause so much
additional work on the part of not just Fiscal Services, but Ed Services and Student
65
Services. So, I think flexibility means allowing us to use the money as we see fit within
our budget without attaching so many strings to it.
Assistant Superintendent E echoed the sentiments shared by Superintendent B:
To be honest, just managing that and managing plans was taking up a lot of human
capital, rather than being able to really focus on How can we best meet the needs of our
district? Flexibility on spending I think is going to be crucial as we move forward.
Superintendent C shared that accountability requirements attached to the numerous
pandemic-related government grants seems to be at odds with the intent of California’s Local
Control Funding Formula (LCFF).
We all want more flexibility in spending. And some of these governmental programs and
grants that we continue to have access to, they’re obviously anytime that your district is
receiving funds, it’s going to be a positive thing. But there have been so many programs
introduced over the last year and a half or during this time of COVID, that we’re starting
to go almost away from the LCAP model and local control or with the LCFF model and
local control, and back to categorical funding.
Assistant Superintendent B further summed up the frustration related to the many
additional layers of accountability:
The one thing that I wish were better is just the accountability that is required that goes
along with all of the one-time sources of revenue that we are receiving. We are calling
this period of time, instead of calling it a pandemic, we’re calling a “plandemic” because
we have to have plans for everything.
At the school site level, Principal J believed that greater levels of funding and flexibility
in spending was needed, sharing
66
We can’t choose to spend any allocated site funds to hire more people because of
COVID, we have to really think of how we are going to be able to spend that money to
best serve students. We just need a lot more support from the district.
Despite the challenges brought on by increased accountability demands that have
accompanied COVID dollars, participants did acknowledge adequate flexibility in spending.
Superintendent F expressed that, while challenges persisted in the form of accountability, their
district has had flexibility:
I mean, there was a lot of reporting mechanisms that we had to follow, a lot of reporting
requirements that we had to follow, and I understand that that’s important, and you can’t
just get millions of dollars and not report the money. So, I mean, I understand that. I think
sometimes they’re tedious, and sometimes, they seem overwhelming and you just have to
do it, because you have to account for money. But to kind of go back to your question,
flexibility of funds, really, I mean, I thought it was fairly flexible.
While discussing the element of flexibility in spending, Superintendent K shared that
District K “had and continues to have a pretty good flexibility to be able to do what we need to
do as a district to meet the needs of our students and staff moving forward.”
Principal F also expressed that, while there was not a challenge in spending flexibility,
other challenges did exist: “through COVID, there was a lot of flexibility. The challenge we had
was just not having enough staff.”
Safely Meeting the Needs of Students
While there will certainly be ongoing costs for schools associated with the pandemic, a
more immediate cost is the decision to open schools in the spring of 2021 to in-person
instruction. In California, a complicated mixture of safety guidelines and waivers have allowed
67
schools to open, but in February of 2021 Governor Newsom signed SB 86 which ties funding to
reopening (Fensterwald, 2021b). The controversial bill allocated an additional $2 billion to
schools who submitted reopening plans by April 1 and brought elementary students back by
April 15 along with other prioritized, high-needs students (Jones & Freedburg, 2021).
The controversy lies in the penalties schools faced for not reopening on time by having
their allocated grant reopening funding cut by 1% per day, rather than being ordered by the
governor to reopen (Jones & Freedburg, 2021). SB 86 required district plans to be approved by
local bargaining units, but it did not specify much sought-after union interests like staff
vaccinations prior to reopening (Mays, 2021). However, the participants in this study were not
influenced by the economic incentives or penalties to reopen schools in the spring of 2021.
Instead, it was a desire to bring students back safely to in-person learning that drove the
reopening timeline and plans of these leaders.
Three superintendents expressed their feelings that students are best served when they are
in school, but getting them back safely was at the center of their decision-making process.
When asked if financial incentive played a role in District J’s return to school in the fall
of 2021, Superintendent J answered with an emphatic, “No. Our goal was to reopen our schools
as soon as was safely possible and keep them open.”
Superintendent C shared a similar sentiment, stating,
From the very beginning, we said that our guiding principles would be to keep kids and
staff safe. Our deciding factor to go in person really stemmed from, could we do it in a
safe way? And what would that look like? And we felt strongly that getting kids back in
school was the right thing to do.
68
Similarly, Superintendent A agreed that in-person instruction was the best, and that the
decision to reopen was based more so on the guarantee of student safety rather than financial
incentives.
I know that the governor did provide financial incentives for reopening but really our
community was demanding more in-person opportunities long before the April 1st
deadline that the governor came out with. So, if the county was telling us it was not safe
to open, we didn’t open. When the county was telling us it was safe to open, we reopened
because our job is to provide an education for students. And we strongly believe that in-
person education is the best.
Principal L shared the extent to which student safety needs were addressed at the school
site level so that students could safely return in the fall of 2021, stating, “PPE has been really big
for us, providing masks, boxes and boxes of masks, and providing hand sanitizer.”
Seizing Opportunities
Covey (2004) has argued that every crisis should be viewed as an opportunity for
improvement. After the initial rush to purchase personal protective equipment and upgrade
ventilation systems, leaders looked for opportunities to slowly provide in-person experiences
while putting plans in place to manage and mitigate outbreaks (Jones & Freedburg, 2021). The
leaders in this study quickly recognized that the move to virtual instruction presented
opportunities for staff development and subsequently used the emergency funds to incentivize
staff.
Assistant Superintendent H described how their Local Education Agency (LEA) made a
commitment to improve the health outcomes of everyone in the community, not just the students
and staff. The funds were used to create ongoing vaccine events and continued testing for the
69
community: “We did vaccine events and we were doing testing and on an ongoing basis
continually, to do testing every single day here. And so, we’ve been utilizing some of those types
of funds to support those activities as well.”
When the instructional practices shifted to fully virtual, then to a hybrid format, and
finally back to socially distanced in-person instruction the teaching staff needed training.
Superintendent G leveraged emergency funds to provide the instructional training and build
political goodwill by using their own staff and compensation:
So, we used a lot of funding for leveraging and providing time, compensated time to
staff, to give them opportunities to train. And not only did we do that, didn’t we actually
leverage that even more by then using our resident experts.
Similarly, Principal L shared how their LEA seized the opportunity across the many
shifts in instructional delivery to create more robust expanded learning opportunities for
students:
After school, summer school, just really all kinds of creative ways to extend learning time
beyond the regular school day. Intersessions, summer school, after school types of
programs. In addition to that, a wealth of online platforms are available for kids to learn
at home in their own setting and in their own way just a wealth of different platforms that
are available to families that want more learning time on their own.
In looking beyond the pandemic, Superintendent I shared the need to make technologies
and practices sustainable:
So, we now have to be very strategic in how we organize our budget so we can keep
those things going into the future where they were immediate needs during the pandemic,
they will be a continual instructional tool for us in the future.
70
As the pandemic subsides, Superintendent G is using the lessons learned as an
opportunity to engage staff in discussion of equity:
What are the opportunities that are going to come out of this? What are we going to not
necessarily drift back towards, just what the status quo was before? Why are we in such a
hurry to get back to what we were doing before, when what we were doing before was
broken for a significant number of kids in communities and families?
From both the survey and the interview, the researchers found a great deal of similarities
among leaders in their perceptions and experiences dealing with the financial implications
brought on by the COVID-19 pandemic. Each district expressed that the early funding
uncertainty was eased with the various funding like the CARES Act. While superintendents,
assistant superintendents, and principals expressed that there was a certain degree of flexibility in
the spending, the unique needs of each community would have benefitted from spending the
funds beyond the strict guidelines attached to the funding. Despite any limits that may have been
placed on spending, some LEAs seized the opportunity to innovate and improve programs
available to students. Additionally, a theme that permeated not just this research question, but the
entire study, was that student and staff safety was a driving force behind all decision-making,
which will be further explained in the findings for Research Question 3.
Research Question 2 Findings
Research Question 2 asked, what impact, if any, have federal, state and local health
agencies had on K–12 school districts, and what strategies districts have followed to address the
suggested guidelines?
While school safety is always a priority, COVID-19 created an entirely new category of
student and staff safety. The CDPH created the Blueprint for Safer California aimed at reducing
71
COVID-19 cases through local partnerships (Harrington, 2021). This blueprint was a model for
all Californians to take part in safe practices and foster a mindset that each citizen can do their
part by wearing masks, social distancing, and staying at home when possible. The CDPH, along
with the governor’s office, created a “safe schools for all” plan to specifically focus on the
conditions in which schools could safely reopen (CDPH, 2020). This plan also gave valuable
guidance for schools to take steps toward opportunities for in-person learning at school with
small cohorts of students. This also included guidance and protocols for schools to manage,
report, and mitigate outbreaks along with instructions on how staff members could return to
work after a positive test or an exposure. All of these were crucial for schools trying to navigate
this new terrain and the expert health guidance helped schools provide in-person services in a
safe way (Freedburg, 2021). As the pandemic waged on, schools continued to look for assistance
from agencies to help create a pathway to safely navigate reopening schools. While this support
and guidance was very necessary, the agencies also created layers of confusion and bureaucracy
that could often add to uncertainty.
Research Question 2 was designed to better understand the impact of health and safety
guidelines on school districts’ ability to reopen schools safely. Participants responded to three
survey questions related to health and safety guidelines, as seen in Table 7. Participating
superintendents, assistant superintendents, and principals were aligned in their agreement that
health guidelines impacted their district’s/school’s return to school plan in the spring of 2021.
Similarly, superintendents and assistant superintendents were in alignment with their
disagreement that COVID-19 guidelines given to schools were clear. In contrast, principals were
more neutral; principals’ average response indicated principals neither agreed nor disagreed that
agency guidelines were clear. Interviews with all 36 participants revealed, in more detail, the
72
extent of multi-agency collaboration and the degree of alignment that either did or did not exist
between agencies.
Table 7
Quantitative Survey: District and Site Leaders’ Perceptions of the Impact of Health and Safety
Guidelines
Item Superintendent Assistant superintendent Principal
The federal, state, and local health
guidelines were clear in providing
information to support the safe
reopening of schools.
2.67 2.36 3.45
I understood how to safely bring back
staff during the fall of 2020 to work
sites based on the public health
guidelines.
3.17 3.55 3.55
The health guidelines impacted our
district’s/school’s return to school
plan in the spring of 2021.
4.42 4.45 4.00
Note. The online Qualtrics survey incorporated 5-point Likert scales (1 = strongly disagree to 5
= strongly agree).
73
There were four interview questions that guided Research Question 2:
1. In what ways did your district collaborate with federal, state, and local government
agencies and community organizations to support your school district during
COVID?
2. To what degree, if any, did the various agencies align COVID-19 guidance for
schools?
3. What strategies have been effective for your district in implementing health
guidelines/policies? Who in your district was primarily in charge of interpreting and
implementing the health guidelines/policies?
The questions were designed to provide researchers with an opportunity to learn more about the
impact of federal, state and local health agencies on K–12 school districts and what strategies
districts implemented to address the suggested guidelines. The superintendents, assistant
superintendents, and principals who participated in this research study expressed the challenges
of continually navigating guidance from county health departments, the CDE, the CDC and other
organizations. As conditions evolved over time, developing concrete, lasting plans was a
constant challenge as leaders dealt with inconsistent guidance (Strauss, 2020). The majority of
district and site leaders expressed being overwhelmed by the logistical challenges and pointed
out that lack of state and federal guidance has exacerbated the political pressures they faced
(Strauss, 2020). Two key themes emerged from Research Question 2:
1. County departments of public health issued the guidance that was most crucial to
leaders, and there were varying degrees of collaboration between district leaders and
county departments of public health.
74
2. The lack of alignment between the various organizations issuing COVID-19 related
guidance was very frustrating for leaders.
Collaboration
Open communication is crucial to make sure that district and site leaders have the most
accurate information for decision-making and helps keep misinformation, which can cause panic
and anxiety, at a minimum. This open communication helps to engage stakeholders, creates the
appropriate resources for community needs, and allows for decisive decision-making ability even
in times of limited and often unreliable information (Smith & Riley, 2012). The participants in
this study relied on collaboration and guidance from various agencies, including county
departments of public health, county offices of education, the CDE, the Commission on Teacher
Credentialing (CTC), and the CDC. Interviews with all 36 participants revealed wide-ranging
and differing perceptions regarding the adequacy of communication and level of collaboration
with local, state, and federal agencies.
While superintendents and assistant superintendents received and followed guidelines
from the CDPH, a state-level entity, superintendents, assistant superintendents, and principals
reported working more directly with local, city, and county-level organizations including county
departments of health, county departments of education, city councils, and local hospitals.
With regard to state agencies, Assistant Superintendent J explained that there wasn’t
necessarily a collaboration between districts and state and federal agencies. Rather,
communication was one-directional:
We never really worked much with the state other than referring to CDE and CTC for
information that we disseminated—the same with the federal level, like looking at the
75
CDE. We would look at their guidelines, but we really didn’t work in collaboration with
those groups.
Superintendent D shared a similar sentiment regarding the lack of collaboration that
existed with county and state agencies: “Well, the communication with the state and the county
is not a collaboration. It’s a one-way direction of information. I don’t think at any moment that I
feel like a partner in that.”
In contrast, Superintendent G shared District G collaborated regularly with state agencies,
sharing,
We started having weekly calls as superintendents. Weekly or biweekly calls at the state
level. Then when we brought it down to the regional level, [the county], [the director of
the county department of public health], and [the superintendent of the county office of
education], we were having weekly calls, all 80 superintendents were jumping on these
weekly phone calls.
While participants more frequently revealed a lack of district collaboration with state and
federal agencies, superintendent, assistant superintendent, and principal interviews revealed a
wide range in the level of collaboration that occurred with local and county entities, especially
county departments of public health.
Superintendent B revealed that there was little collaboration with the local county
department of public health, which was the organization that issued the most important guidance
to districts in the county:
The [local county department of public health] did make a concerted effort to provide
superintendents with access to senior leadership of the department. So, we were given a
special sort of preview to everything that came out, and that continues to today. But
76
again, even though they provided an opportunity for question-asking, it wasn’t exactly a
collegial, collaborative experience where what we felt should happen would happen,
right?
Superintendent A’s experience also confirmed a lack of collaboration with agencies,
particularly the county department of public health issuing guidance to schools: “I don’t know if
I would necessarily call it collaboration with these organizations. Different superintendents
interpreted the guidelines differently. And all of the 80 plus districts in [our county], we don’t all
have the same needs.”
In contrast, Superintendent I collaborated with the same county department of public
health and believed the agency “has been phenomenal. I think [the agency’s director] has been a
phenomenal resource.”
While interviews with superintendents and assistant superintendents revealed the level of
collaboration differed greatly between school districts and various county departments of public
health, participating superintendents and principals more frequently reported instances of
collaboration having occurred with county offices of education and community partners.
Superintendent J elaborated on the collaborative relationships that did exist between
District J and others, naming the county office of education (COE) as a primary collaborating
partner throughout the pandemic. Superintendent J stated the COE has,
worked closely with the district primarily on planning, on support for programs. They’ve
actually even dispatched substitute teachers to all of the schools. The County has also
served as our chief lobbyist. So, we have been able to lobby on behalf of the schools in a
more symbiotic way—everything from having resolutions necessary to support some of
77
the positions we have taken, to lobbying on behalf of additional funding and more
flexibility with that funding.
Within the District G’s County Office of Education, Superintendent G revealed regular
collaboration occurred with the local Special Education Local Plan Area (SELPA) and all
districts in the county:
We actually set up a weekly call between the 14 districts within our SELPA. And so, we
did a weekly call, just those 14 superintendents, which was more regionally and more
localized needs, where we were problem solving and thought noodling and all that good
stuff, which allowed all those different entities to provide us with a conduit of
information, to be able to make good decisions.
Interviews with participants also revealed that, in seeking support navigating the
challenges of the pandemic, superintendents and principals forged collaborations with
community partners that included city councils, hospitals, and fellow colleagues. Both
superintendents and principals noted collaborating with colleagues:
Superintendent D remarked on collaboration with fellow superintendents:
But so far as cooperation and collaboration, I think it was more between my colleagues,
meeting other superintendents, and taking what health orders we’ve been given and
trying to figure out the best way practically to implement that in our school districts.
Similarly, Principal F utilized a network of other administrators to collaborate with:
Okay, so basically, so as a school site, we weren’t directly meeting with the federal
government. However, there were different organizations that we, as administrators,
could participate in and many of us did. So locally, we started our own principal group
within the district where we collaborated regularly within [that] school district.
78
Participants also indicated partnerships with local, non-educational entities. Principal J
shared that, in need of reusable water bottles for students, a resource not provided by District J,
Principal J “reached out to the city councilman and he was able to get us refillable water bottles
for our students.”
Additionally, Superintendent K formed a two-way partnership with two local hospitals
and shared ways in which District K worked together with community entities:
We worked with [one hospital] particularly when the vaccines came out. We supported
each other, actually, in the beginning. We happened to have a lot of PPE that we shared
with [another hospital] because they were short in the very beginning.
Participants in this study frequently felt that there was a lack of collaboration with
various state and county departments of public health and this inhibited their ability to plan and
guide their organizations through the pandemic. Interviews also revealed that lack of alignment
between federal, state, and local health agencies often resulted in contradictory health and safety
guidelines issued by state and local agencies, which presented major challenges to
superintendents, assistant superintendents, and principals in this study.
Alignment
The literature on leading during a crisis has revealed that it is common for there to be a
lack of alignment among the agencies issuing guidance and that is certainly confirmed by the
experience of the participants in this study. Smith and Riley (2012) have shown that successful
leaders have a strong capacity in their synthesizing abilities to target key issues and interpret
messages from confusing and conflicting sources of information. The leaders in this study
certainly had to interpret and communicate complex, ever-changing information. The
participants also employed a similar strategy in implementing the guidelines by keeping
79
communication simple and straightforward by adhering to the given guidelines precisely and not
over-complicating things with locally created rules (Bishop et al., 2015).
Participants shared that lack of collaboration with state and county agencies, combined
with often contradictory safety guidelines and protocols from these same agencies, caused
confusion and frustration, especially with superintendents and assistant superintendents.
On the topic of agency guideline alignment, Superintendent L provided insight into the
cause of district leaders’ frustration and confusion:
That was a hot mess! And I understand in the middle of something serious, it takes a
while for an entire nation to kind of get a calibrated standpoint, right? So, the difficulties
were the CDC was coming out with something, the California Department of Public
Health had come out with something. Then your local county department of public health
would do something that would contradict the other two. And so it created a lot of
confusion at the beginning of, okay, well, and not only from a school district, but from
parents. Who do we listen to? Is it CDC? Is it the California Department of Education? Is
it the governor? Is it our county public health? So that was very frustrating, probably the
first year and a half of the pandemic.
Superintendent H elaborated on quarantine and COVID testing policies that were often
contradictory:
Sometimes they aligned well; sometimes they didn’t. For example, a lot of the policies
made it harder for us to keep our schools open, policies around quarantining kids, around
testing requirements for testing kids, policies around kids in quarantine, who needs to go
into quarantine, who needs to, who can come out.
80
Assistant Superintendent B also noted the inconsistency in guideline alignment and the
frustration that resulted:
Sometimes there was alignment and sometimes there wasn’t. And if you try to apply
guidelines for one group to another group, you’re always going to be in a situation where
you feel frustrated. But it did definitely take a lot of communication to help folks
understand that the guidelines in LA County might be different than the guidelines you
hear even from the governor of California.
Assistant Superintendent K shared the same sentiments regarding lack of agency
alignment and provided additional insight into the frustration:
There was some misalignment because there is a lot left to interpretation by each
individual county health department. We find ourselves making political decisions, not
scientific decisions, so many of the decisions were based on things other than the science
and that gets hard to defend, hard to understand, and hard to communicate out to families
when it’s a political decision that has nothing to do with the safety or the science.
The misalignment between state, county, and districts were difficult for district leaders to
explain to their parent community, which Superintendent D shared:
Our biggest problem was that [our] county did not align with the state often. So, whatever
we were being asked to do looked very different than everyone else in the state and
including the school districts right around us, that just right on the outside of [location]
county. And parents already don’t really understand the bureaucracy of education. They
don’t even understand. So, to try to explain to them why we’re following one rule, but
two towns over, they’re following a totally different rule, it’s just really difficult.
81
In an effort to minimize frustration and confusion regarding policies and guidelines,
district and site leaders devised ways to streamline and align communication to parent
communities. Superintendent A found that keeping District A’s communication to stakeholders
simple was the most effective way to deal with the lack of alignment in the governmental
guidelines:
I would say what we stuck to more than anything is our values are always putting student
safety first. We listen to the experts and we follow the guidelines and we don’t make up
additional regulations. So really just knowing what the guidelines were, keeping abreast
of all the changes, having a regular system of communication, and just sticking to the
guidelines.
Principal L shared District L minimized confusion and frustration resulting from
conflicting guidelines by ensuring communication followed,
a good chain of command. We would get our marching orders and information at
monthly principal meetings. It really was a top-down approach—mandates or guidelines
came from the state, that then went to the county, that then came to our superintendent,
that then went to principals.
Through survey and interview data, the researchers found that superintendents, assistant
superintendents, and principals in all 12 districts felt frustration with the lack of alignment
among the various agencies issuing guidelines for schools. Participants from all 12 school
districts expressed that this lack of alignment and collaboration put more pressure on districts to
communicate rapidly changing guidelines to their stakeholders.
82
Research Question 3 Findings
Research Question 3 asked how, if at all, union negotiations have played a role in K–12
district’s response to the COVID-19 Pandemic?
When schools closed due to the pandemic, district leadership had to quickly come to
agreements with teachers to determine how teaching and learning was going to continue while
both students and teachers were quarantined at home. State health and educational agencies
provided guidance which helped school leadership negotiate agreements, or Memorandums of
Understanding (MOUs) with teachers’ unions to determine new working conditions during the
pandemic. These agreements determined compensation, work hours, non-teaching duties,
evaluation, leave, and technology (Hemphill & Marianno, 2021). COVID cases peaked through
the beginning of 2021 and declined steadily through the spring. Schools began to re-open and a
new round of negotiations began to establish MOUs that outlined how students could safely
return to school. For teacher safety, unions advocated for distance learning until vaccinations
were made available for all teachers, which created a narrative that teachers did not want to go
back to work.
Classified employees in California are school employees that are not required to hold a
teaching credential. They are represented by the local labor unions, the largest being CSEA who
are the paraprofessionals, clerical and administrative services, transportation services, food and
nutrition services, custodial and maintenance services, security services, health and student
services, technical services, and skilled trades employees in a district. At the start of the
pandemic many of CSEA employees were designated “essential workers” and continued to work
on site. Negotiations between local CSEA chapters and districts resulted in most employees
being retained and some duties shifting to keep employees on the payroll. Cafeteria workers
83
began grab and go offerings, custodial staff and skilled trade employees were reassigned to
address deferred maintenance, security was retained to keep school premises clear, and other
employees were able to work virtually either at sites or from home (Mahnken, 2020).
Research Question 3 was designed to help the researcher 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 the 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. The
interviews further clarified the importance of relationships with these groups, with
superintendents and assistant superintendents placing a great deal of value on maintaining
positive relationships with all bargaining units.
84
Table 8
Quantitative Survey: District and Site Leaders’ Perceptions of the Impact of Union Negotiation
Item Superintendent
Assistant
superintendent Principal
Negotiations with certificated unions influenced
the way my district effectively responded to
the COVID-19 pandemic for students and
families.
4.17 4.09 4.11
Negotiations with classified unions influenced
the way of my district effectively responding
to the COVID-19 pandemic for students and
families.
3.92 3.64 4.00
Negotiations with the teacher’s union impacted
the quality of instruction offered to students
during distance learning.
4.17 4.55 4.18
Note. The online Qualtrics survey incorporated 5-point Likert scales (1 = strongly disagree to 5
= strongly agree).
There were four interview questions that guided Research Question 3:
1. What were the most important issues negotiated with your teachers’ union and how
were they resolved?
2. What were the most important issues negotiated with your classified union and how
were they resolved?
3. In what ways, if any, were instructional programs influenced by union negotiations in
your district?
4. In what ways, if any, were safety protocols influenced by union negotiations in your
district?
85
The questions were designed to provide researchers with an opportunity to learn more about the
role union negotiations may have played K–12 districts’ responses to the COVID-19 pandemic.
Throughout the pandemic, there were adults on sites continuing to maintain facilities,
offer meals to students, and assist in the logistics of distance learning. As schools began to
reopen, classified employees were the first to be called back into work to prepare schools to meet
new health and safety guidelines. New procedures for health screening, cleaning, movement,
personal safety, food preparation and distribution, isolation, and transportation had to be
developed and implemented by members of the classified staff (Hemphill & Marianno, 2021).
As part of California’s response to COVID-19 school closures, Governor Gavin Newsom’s
office facilitated an agreement among teachers’ unions, classified employees, school boards,
superintendents, and principals to use a specific framework to work together on matters of labor
and management to minimize any impact to students, including direction on implementation and
delivery of distance learning, special education, and meals through the end of the school year
(CDE, 2020). However, what became clear after the spring school closures was the need for
districts and unions to work together to set teacher expectations under changing circumstances
by proactively planning for multiple scenarios with labor partners involved in conversations.
Given these needs, four themes emerged from the participants regarding working with unions
during the COVID-19 pandemic:
1. The superintendents, assistant superintendents, and principals who participated in this
research study found that staff safety was the most important issue that arose in both
teacher and classified union negotiations.
2. Teacher union negotiations influenced the redesign of the online instruction model for
distance learning.
86
3. As the conditions of the pandemic changed, emergency funds were used to
compensate staff in accordance with the change in working conditions.
4. Superintendents, assistant superintendents, and principals were challenged to
temporarily redefine the roles of classified employees whose work was not needed
during distance learning.
Safety
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. As these rules and regulations
evolved, so too did the roles and expectations of district employees (Fensterwald, 2021b).
Unions renegotiated basic aspects of working conditions during this time to keep members safe
and to express how the pandemic impacted their work.
The superintendents, assistant superintendents, and principals in this study concurred that
safety was the most important topic addressed in union negotiations. Assistant Superintendent K
shared the extent to which negotiations informed safety procedures:
The teachers [union] had some strong feelings as to what they were going to be safe with
and not. So, all of those safety precautions, so we would go through the different
documents and, Do we have this? If we don’t, why not? That was a big part of teacher
concerns, making sure we had the proper PPE in place, access to masks, hand sanitizer,
one-way directionals all over the place to flow kids. There was a lot of time and energy
put into place, and the teachers had a lot of input as to what that would be.
Principal A echoed the role of negotiations in determining safety protocols and putting
personal protective equipment (PPE) in place:
87
When we then started talking about coming back and came back in April, then it was
about physical safety, making the facilities as safe as possible. The air conditioning, the
shields, the mask, the PPE, the hand sanitizer, and all that stuff.
Superintendent C outlined the critical need to negotiate safe working environments for
the classified workforce, who continued to report to work during school closures:
Our custodians work in teams. Our maintenance folks, they work in teams. Nutritional
staff, they’re still making food for the kids every day. They work in teams. So, we needed
to make sure that we could safely have these people continuing to do these vital jobs
during the pandemic while everybody else was working from home.
Superintendents and assistant superintendents iterated teacher and classified negotiations
were lengthy, often very detailed regarding safety procedures, and were formalized and
documented in MOUs. Superintendent E stressed safety as their number one priority, the details
of which required negotiation and were captured in an MOU:
Number one thing was safety. And as a superintendent, it was my number one topic as
well. I didn’t want anyone to come back to work in an unsafe environment. So, it took a
lot of planning and discussion. I mean, so number one was safety conditions for teachers.
I think those were the main pieces, I believe, conditions and the safety. And our MOU
was pretty long, but it was just detailed around the safety issues.
Similarly, Superintendent B also spoke of the role negotiations had in establishing a safe
return to in-person instruction for students and staff, which was not only formalized in an MOU,
but aligned to the district’s strategic plan for reopening:
I think the main concern was keeping people safe. Teachers were concerned about if kids
return in person, how are we going to keep staff safe and students safe. And we brought
88
in our negotiating teams to really think through the development of our MOU and the
details that we needed to align to our strategic plan for reopening.
As the pandemic continued to evolve, negotiations continued to influence working
conditions for staff and learning conditions for students. Assistant Superintendent K commented
on the sheer volume of time in which negotiating has occurred over the course of the pandemic:
So, we’ve never negotiated more than we have during the pandemic. I would say through
most of the pandemic, we were negotiating the whole time. So, whether it be remote
learning only, whether it be hybrid learning, whether it be the return, there was always
something that we were coming back and negotiating about.
The role of relationships in union negotiations was evidenced in superintendent and
assistant superintendent interviews. Regarding the ease with which some negotiations took place,
Assistant Superintendent I remarked, “We just worked through ‘What do we need to do to make
it safe for folks?’ And we would come to an agreement with them.”
Superintendent L shared similar experiences working with District L’s certificated
bargaining unit:
There was never a time where there was a “nay.” Everything drafted was agreed to,
signed off, and implemented. So, it created a lot of efficiency, a lot of good will, and it
maintained a positive climate throughout the district because of it.
The role of a collaborative negotiating climate was discussed by participants as well.
Superintendent J shared, “Well, believe it or not, we have had 100% support from both of our
associations. We pretty much agreed to everything knowing that we had one goal, and that was
to reopen our schools and keep them open.”
89
Superintendent K echoed a similar sentiment, stating, “We’re very fortunate to have a
collaborative partnership with our [certificated] association. We were able to work through
virtual learning and hybrid learning models.” Negotiations and collaborative relationships among
bargaining members were critical in determining protocols and procedures to ensure safe
working environments for classified and certificated during the pandemic. However, safety was
not the only topic of negotiations. As the pandemic evolved, so did instructional delivery models.
As a result, teachers’ changing working conditions required negotiation.
Online Instruction
When schools closed due to the pandemic, district leaders had to quickly come to
agreements with teachers to determine how teaching and learning was going to continue while
both students and teachers were quarantined at home. State health and educational agencies
provided guidance which helped district leadership negotiate agreements with teachers’ unions to
determine new working conditions during the pandemic. These agreements determined
compensation, work hours, non-teaching duties, evaluation, leave, and technology (Hemphill &
Marianno, 2021). The districts represented in this study addressed many important issues with
their teachers’ unions, though designing online instruction for distance learning was a common
theme.
At the outset of school closures, leaders shared concerns about basic instruction and how
to deliver it. Superintendent A shared how discussions regarding instruction during the pandemic
were framed in District A, “The bigger picture has always been, how do we provide a quality
instructional experience for students in an unprecedented tumultuous period of time?”
Assistant Superintendent J explained that union negotiations were,
90
integral [to the planning of online learning] as we started to talk about how much screen
time you need to be, how much live instruction needs to take place, what concurrent
learning is going to be. So, they were with us as a partner through the whole process. The
schedule was in an MOU; their agreement on it was in the MOU and then really just what
is asynchronous learning time and what is synchronous learning time and how we
decided it. So, the schedule was mutually agreed upon.
Superintendent K elaborated on all considerations that had to be taken regarding
negotiation of online learning, especially as it related to legislation and funding structures
attached to COVID dollars:
So, a big part of it was the schedule. How many hours really were they [students] going
to be on Zoom? How many hours can kids tolerate? Based on AB-130 and the different
laws, SB-98, that were coming out that was dictating funding and different things. It was
a balancing act between how do we ensure that we continue to get our funding but also
make sure that instructional days are not only efficient but are actually doable because
there was so much Zoom fatigue and just being. So, how do we break up the day, but
make sure we’re continuing with learning? If teachers are on campus, how are we going
to ensure accountability that they’re doing the things that they’re doing?
Principal G revealed some online teaching models included teacher planning time, time
for intervention, time to meet with parents, and specific amounts of synchronous learning time:
They negotiated the amount of live time that they had with their students. So that real live
interaction with students was negotiated. And so they had a lot more planning time, a lot
more just time to provide intervention or talk to parents.
91
In addition to the negotiation of synchronous and asynchronous times within daily
teaching schedules, the use of learning management systems (LMSs) was also a negotiable topic
related to online learning. Superintendents B and A shared how each respective district worked
with their teachers’ unions to design and implement online instruction.
When discussing negotiations surrounding online learning in District B, Superintendent B
explained.
I think it began to turn to how to deliver instruction and what would they be forced to do
versus what could they opt in to do? I know we had a pretty early win in getting the entire
teachers bargaining unit to agree to operate on a learning management system
universally, K–12.
Similarly, Superintendent A stated,
In the very, very beginning, the biggest issues negotiated were, what is online learning
going to look like? So, we really just needed to work with our union, our teachers’ union,
to work within these time constraints. How much synchronous learning will take place?
How much asynchronous learning can take place? Negotiating the use of an LMS that
everyone would use that everyone would be on board with.
As the pandemic evolved and working conditions for classified and certificated
employees were negotiated, the topic of compensation made its way to the bargaining table.
Compensation
In the spring of 2020 as schools were making plans for distance learning,
superintendents, assistant superintendents, and principals negotiated with unions on topics of
safety, working conditions, and of course compensation (Hemphill & Marianno, 2021).
Additional compensation took many forms: additional hours, incentive pay, hazard pay, COVID
92
leave provisions, and one-time bonuses (McGlone, 2021). Teachers requested pay for extra
duties, planning, and learning new ways of teaching. Classified staff earned additional
compensation for working on site during the height of the pandemic surges.
Principal A described that the higher risk associated with custodial work raised concerns
that this work should be compensated differently during the pandemic:
There was still a need to empty waste baskets and sanitize surfaces and clean common
areas. I think that, again, from the safety perspective, there was certainly more of an
argument that those people were at greater risk and that was a concern for additional pay.
Superintendent B revealed that specific amounts of synchronous learning time were a
negotiated requirement for teachers and went so far as to provide extra compensation to maintain
a high level of instruction. Superintendent B stated, “We negotiated compensation for teachers to
do live streaming. So, we did pay, we negotiated the impact of it, but we didn’t negotiate the
ability to do it.”
Superintendent H and Superintendent I explained that, while they did not agree to
designate extra pay as hazard pay, each respective district found other ways to use emergency
funds to compensate workers. Superintendent I explained,
In the very beginning of the pandemic, when classified staff had to come in and teachers
could stay home, we did give them overtime pay. We did give them extra things if you
did have to be on campus to do your job, conduct your job.
Superintendent H described how compensation in the form of overtime was negotiated
for classified employees and teachers in District H:
They’d sometimes work out of their classifications if need be. So, it was really like all
hands-on deck. And so, to negotiate flexibility in allowing for teachers or classified folks
93
to work outside of their work. And also, we didn’t negotiate hazard pay, but we did pay
extra for overtime and extra duties.
District G leaders and bargaining units also negotiated the use of emergency funds to
support COVID-19 medical leave. Superintendent G clarified that only vaccinated employees
received this benefit:
So, we’ve negotiated and mutually agreed to extend that COVID leave through, well,
indefinitely. Because it’s already bookmarked on our budget. So, we’ve just kept that in
place. It’s been a very, very valued piece that our employees really, really appreciate.
Assistant Superintendent G further clarified for whom COVID leave provisions were
made available, “But if you’re not vaccinated and you wanted to use it [COVID leave], if you get
sick, you had to use your own sick time. That was a negotiation that we did.”
Interviews with participants revealed not all districts negotiated differential pay for
employees during the pandemic. Superintendent E shared the impact that compensation could
have had on employees had District E included compensation in negotiations.
I think for them [classified], an element of recognition and even maybe some financial
recognition would’ve been really positive. We did not do that. We did a lot of other kinds
of recognition, but I think that was a big hope for them to get a higher compensation or
something.
Interviews with superintendents, assistant superintendents, and principals revealed not all
districts negotiated additional, differential pay for employees. The many forms of additional
compensation that did occur—additional hours, incentive pay, hazard pay, and one-time
bonuses—directly resulted from ever-changing working conditions that redefined employees’
roles and responsibilities.
94
Redefining Roles and Responsibilities
At the start of the pandemic, negotiations between local CSEA chapters and districts
resulted in most employees being retained and some duties shifting to keep employees on the
payroll (Lozano Smith Attorneys at Law, 2020). Cafeteria workers began grab and go offerings,
custodial staff and skilled trade employees were reassigned to address deferred maintenance,
security was retained to keep school premises clear, and other employees were able to work
virtually either at sites or from home (Mahnken, 2020). As schools began to reopen, classified
employees were the first to be called back into work to prepare schools to meet new health and
safety guidelines.
Superintendent H highlighted how employees worked out of class and job description
during the COVID-19 pandemic: “[Classified staff would] sometimes work out of their
classifications if need be. So, it was really like all hands-on deck. And so, to negotiate flexibility
in allowing for teachers or classified folks to work outside of their work.”
Principal A added a slightly different perspective by noting that when employees worked
outside of their classification, they were often getting paid a higher salary to do work that is
normally done at a lower classification and corresponding salary, which also ties into the
previous theme on compensation:
There was a pass-through expense, in terms of people who were paid to do other tasks,
oftentimes on a different pay scale. When you have your counselor making a counselor’s
wage and they’re doing locker room attendant, not only do you have that kind of realized
expense, but at the same time, there’s the opportunity cost of all the things your counselor
should be doing to support kids and families and staff.
95
Superintendent K shared negotiations had to address how employees were going to work
from home during initial school closures and subsequent distance learning:
Allowing people to work from home, we had to ask, what does that work look like? And
what do those home responsibilities look like? So, we worked collaboratively to figure
out what that model looked like because it’s not something we were ever used to in
education in the past.
Assistant Superintendent J elaborated on the impact changing roles and responsibilities
had on union negotiations:
Our classified MOU has a table of contents. It really was 50–60 pages and granted,
classified is a little more unique because each position has a completely different working
environment. So those working here at the district office have very limited concern for
safety versus a campus supervisor, health assistant, custodian who’s constantly in contact
with people. So, the bulk of our negotiations in 2020 were about essential duties,
essential work.
Principal K and Principal J and both explained the importance of MOUs and how the
negotiated documents captured and articulated classified employees changing work parameters.
Principal K shared,
You know, classified jobs are just different in general. Certain jobs didn’t have a
function, such as cafeteria workers, until we started giving out free lunches. Or bus
drivers were not bussing kids so we need to have a different conversation about, what are
those folks gonna do? Maybe they’re going to help grounds out, or they’re going to help
warehouse distribute, or they’re going to help serve meals. So, a lot of the same
96
conversations ended up in an MOU with trying to keep all employees working as long as
we could and doing what we could there until we did our full return.
Principal J added, “We had to be very careful as to what we asked different
classifications of classified staff to do based on their very specific MOU that they had with the
district.”
Assistant Superintendent L described redefining employees’ roles and responsibilities,
especially classified workers, as,
a balance of reallocating people, reassigning people, people working in areas that they’d
never worked before. There was a tremendous flexibility amongst people to either be
reassigned in person or to be online with teachers and supporting them in the classrooms.
Overall, the researchers found that the superintendents and other leaders who participated
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. It was found
that this value created a partnership to address the important concerns of both safety and
delivering online instruction. Additionally, district leaders and classified and teacher unions
negotiated throughout the duration of the pandemic to ensure that evolving working conditions
were not only safe, but that resulting changing roles and responsibilities were compensated
accordingly.
Research Question 4 Findings
Research Question 4 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?
97
In polls conducted in all 50 states, EdTrust (2020) found sweeping similarities among
parents across the nation, including the troubling reports of significant gaps in the access to vital
resources and increased stress levels, particularly among lower income families of color. While
parents reported overall general satisfaction with how school districts and schools have
responded during the pandemic, there is still a gap between what parents would have liked and
what was available, particularly at the beginning of the pandemic. Among parents in all states,
there was a deep concern that their children were falling academically behind with almost 90%
of parents reporting this as a worry (EdTrust, 2020). Aside from learning loss, parent concerns
included student well-being and safety.
Research Question 4 was designed to help the researchers better understand the
relationship between school districts and parents during the COVID-19 pandemic. Research
study participants responded to seven survey questions. As seen in Table 9, superintendents,
assistant superintendents, and principals strongly agreed that they were able to meet many of the
needs of students and families, especially in the areas of communication, nutrition, technology
devices, and health and safety. However, survey responses revealed that superintendents,
assistant superintendents, and principals felt their district/school did not meet students’ academic
and social emotional well-being needs.
There were two interview questions that directly addressed Research Question 4:
1. In what ways did your district gather input from and communicate to the community?
2. What were the biggest concerns from your district’s community and how were they
addressed?
The first question was designed to provide the researchers with an opportunity to learn more
about the relationship between the parent community and school districts during the COVID-19
98
pandemic. The second question allowed researchers to understand the breadth of parent concerns
district and school leaders were faced with addressing. Responses to the two questions provided
the researchers with information about district and school leaders’ perceptions of the types of
community concerns leaders were addressing during the COVID-19 pandemic and how leaders
were communicating with their respective communities.
99
Table 9
Quantitative Survey: District and Site Leaders’ Perceptions of Parent Concerns
Item Superintendent Assistant superintendent Principal
My district/school maintained good
communication with families during
the pandemic.
4.50 4.55 4.73
My district/school met the needs of
students and families in the area of
nutrition.
4.67 4.82 4.55
My district/school met the needs of
students and families in the area of
technology (computers/devices).
4.50 4.73 4.64
My district/school met the needs of
students and families in the area of
technology (internet service).
4.17 4.27 4.09
My district/school met the needs of
students and families in the area of
social emotional well-being.
3.00 3.36 3.18
My district/school met the needs of
students and families in the area of
health and safety.
4.25 4.18 4.27
My district/school met the academic
needs of students.
3.08 3.55 3.55
Note. The online Qualtrics survey incorporated 5-point Likert scales (1 = strongly disagree to 5
= strongly agree).
Five themes emerged during interviews:
1. Parents across the three districts all shared concerns about student safety as schools
moved to back to in-person learning opportunities
2. Parents were very concerned about the mental well-being of their students during
distance learning.
100
3. Parents shared concerns that their children were not learning as much in online
instruction as they would have in a normal school year.
4. Superintendents, assistant superintendents, and principals responded to community
needs and concerns through frequent and improved communication.
5. Schools played an increasingly important role in community resilience, strengthening
the home and school relationship.
Safety
A major aspect of student well-being is health and safety (U.S. Department of Education,
2021). Parents were very concerned about school districts’ ability to keep students safe as
schools planned to reopen. Though 90% of parents were concerned with learning loss, far fewer
parents were willing to have their children return to in-person learning even if it was offered by
their school district (Johnson, 2021). On one end of the spectrum, parents believed that all
teachers should be vaccinated before reopening schools and many also felt that students should
be vaccinated as well before in-person learning will be truly safe; on the other end of the
spectrum, parents who remember their children’s schools running out of soap and tissues did not
feel that there will be adequate sanitation (Johnson, 2021).
Participants’ interview responses revealed that parents brought forward concerns about
safely returning to in-person learning. Despite all safety measures taken, the COVID-19 virus
itself was always a lingering concern for parents. Assistant Superintendent E stated, “So I think
just the fear of the virus was present, always, no matter what we did.”
Superintendent B shared that overall safety of students and staff was the biggest concern
for parents as school districts prepared to return to in-person instruction.
101
Safety, I would say, is the biggest issue parents brought up. I think the voices that I heard
most were, “We need to do more to keep people safe, to keep teachers safe, to keep kids
safe.” I think parents really struggled with not being in control when their kids went back
to school.
Superintendent C provided examples of the questions parents were asking with regard to
student safety and the return to school.
It was all about safety. What are the rules going to be? How are they going to be
enforced? What do we do if a kid’s not wearing a mask? Will masks be required? Are we
going to have the upgraded filtration systems?
Principal L described the divide among parents, which has added to the challenge of
addressing parent safety concerns since students’ return to in-person instruction.
50% of our parents [are asking], “Why isn’t everyone wearing masks? 50% of our
parents are asking, “Why are you making everyone wear masks?” The seesaw of that
back and forth. Every time a rule changed or every time a safety procedure changed, it
was just bizarrely half and half. We’re going to be checking temperatures at the gate in
the morning. That was a rule at one point. “Why would you do that?” “That’s dumb.”
Then other parents would say, “You need to have licensed nurses and doctors at the gate
to give checkups to kids.” Everything was just a war when it came to the safety stuff.
Similar to Principal L, Assistant Superintendent L found the divide among parents to be
the most difficult challenge in continuing to navigate parent concerns regarding safety:
It was the divisiveness of all the different groups at that point concerning safety
measures, no safety measures, all those things you have the opposite ends of the spectrum
on, I would say, the ongoing thing ever since spring of last year, has been masking of
102
course. And you have the pros and cons, so you got both ends of the scale. Vaccinations,
masking and all the requirements that go along with expectations to go along with that
has bogarted the conversation.
While students’ physical health and safety has been a consistent parent concern since the
outbreak of the pandemic, concerns for students’ social and emotional well-being emerged
during distance learning (U.S. Department of Education, 2021).
Mental Well-Being
Student well-being is another top concern among parents during the pandemic. This is no
surprise as schools are the default source of mental health services for many adolescents,
providing care to 57% of children in need (Golberstein et al., 2020). School closures have been
even more disruptive for students from lower-income families, who are much more likely to
receive mental health services solely from schools (Terada, 2020). It is possible, if not likely,
that the pandemic may worsen existing mental health problems among students or create new
ones because of the combination of the economic impact on families, the feeling of social
isolation, and the overall fear of the pandemic. As most mental health disorders begin in early
adolescence, it is “essential that any mental health issues be identified early and treated as if left
untreated, they can lead to serious health and emotional problems” (Terada, 2020, para. 15).
There is a link between mental health and academic achievement. Chronic stress, like what many
children are experiencing during the pandemic, can hinder cognitive abilities such as attention,
concentration, memory, and creativity (Golberstein et al., 2020). In fact, student well-being is
such a concern that Social Emotional Learning (SEL) is part of the stronger together plan to
reopen schools in California (CDE, 2021).
103
Participants’ interview responses clarified growing parent concerns related to student
mental well-being. Principal B shared, “We had a growing number of parents that from early on,
and it kind of grew throughout, were very concerned about their mental health of their kids, their
social health.” Superintendent B, in the same district, framed the concern for students’ well-
being even further:
We have parents on both sides of the COVID issue. Some parents want their children to
wear masks while they’re sleeping and when they’re showering and other parents don’t
want kids to wear masks, but all parents are concerned about their social, emotional
wellbeing and their development.
Principal C added that social isolation as a result of distance learning has had an impact
on students’ social and emotional health:
We are not just looking out for our students’ well-being and engagement and academic
advancement. Those were concerns, but that social isolation that students were going
through was a big concern for parents. Parents got to see a lot more of the behavior
throughout the day, the way that their students interacted with their teachers. It was very
eye opening for all of us.
Superintendent J pointed to the cause of increased concern for students’ social and
emotional health:
Just the concern and the social emotional wear and tear of that year or so out of school,
because it was a year. It was March to March and that their children have fallen
hopelessly behind and just lost the experience—especially students who were
sophomores when this happened—they basically lost their junior year, senior year now.
So, I think just a general despondency over the impact of all of it on them.
104
Superintendent D described the unintended, long-term consequences of distance learning
on students:
And so, watching the damage being done to our students physically and mentally, and
what I mean physically is just not getting physical exercise, not physical abuse. Just so
many of our students … would tell their teachers they haven’t left the house in weeks,
and it was just devastating. So, I think really it’s that social-emotional, and I think we’re
going to be managing that for many, many, many years to come.
Superintendent K shared that parent concern for students’ social emotional well-being
was the primary driving force behind the return to in-person instruction:
[There was] absolutely a lot of concerns from parents and as time went on that became
more and more pronounced, which pushed the issue of, “We gotta get back. We gotta get
back. We gotta get back,” because parents started to realize that challenge of their kid and
the lack of motivation—we’ve heard this directly from our students as well—the
difficulty in just being virtual on the psyche as well, not just the camera, but the effect it
was having on our kids: being home, not being happy, being cooped up in their room or
in a living room or whatever, not being physically present with their peers, with their
teachers. You know, definitely a lot of concerns as time went on from parents and
students in relationship to that.
Interview responses in this study show that as parents’ concerns regarding students’
social and emotional well-being grew as the pandemic continued, so did their concerns about
students’ learning.
105
Learning
Learning loss is a current concern of parents, though the long-term results and impact of
the pandemic will not be fully understood or known for years to come (D’Souza & Marquez
Rosales, 2020). Early learning results do show drops in math scores, but not reading and one
year of data does not signify a trend in either direction (Fensterwald, 2020). According to a study
examining the magnitude and variability in summer learning loss for grades 1–8, students lost
17–34% of what they learned in prior years during the summer and for those students that
experienced summer learning loss, they were most likely to lose additional learning in future
summers (Kuhfeld, 2021). However, the pandemic-related learning loss, while it cannot be fully
understood at this time, is still a top concern for parents because most learning stops for most
children during summers so learning loss is much more uniform among students. However,
learning has been very uneven and sporadic during the pandemic “as some students have been
able to participate fully in online learning while others have faced obstacles—such as lack of
internet access—that have hindered their progress” (Terada, 2020, para. 6).
Participants in the study confirmed the literature as parents and educators brought
forward concerns about student learning. Superintendent E pointed to the difficulties of online
learning and maintaining learning, stating, “Students can’t learn online, and there’s actually a lot
of research that shows that students will learn at a higher level face-to-face.”
Principal D echoed sentiments similar to Superintendent E, noting the challenge of
continuing past practices during distance learning:
We tried to keep things as normal as possible. So, each grade level met every six weeks
to look at student data, and we continued this during the shutdown just to look at the
students that we were concerned about and [see] what else could we do with them. Even
106
during the shutdown. We did that, so we did have specialists working one-on-one with
students or in small groups virtually. Wasn’t ideal, but we still wanted to keep that up.
Superintendent C revealed efforts made in District C to address the parental concern of
learning loss through additional services: “Parents were definitely concerned about the child’s
academics and how virtual learning or hybrid learning, at-home learning, was negatively
impacting the child. And we tried to mitigate that with interventions after school, for those who
could participate.”
Principal C explained that both the shortened day and asynchronous instruction added to
parents’ learning loss concerns: “We had a lot of parents that were concerned about instructional
time and the instructional loss because we did have a reduced time schedule that used both
synchronous and asynchronous instruction.” Superintendent A explained that while parents were
very concerned with learning loss, it was important to actually assess learning gaps rather than
assume that students will come back with insurmountable gaps:
Learning loss. That’s all anybody could talk about was learning loss. I know internally
we were trying to message, let’s not assume learning loss, not saying there wouldn’t be,
but all this effort to predict, let’s see. Let’s not assume that kids are so unadaptable that
they’re going to have these cavernous gaps. Now we have kids with gaps, but we know
now they’re not cavernous.
Assistant Superintendent K believed addressing parent and educator concerns for
students’ social and emotional health was,
going to be the work for not only this year, probably for the next five years, is really
trying to figure out how do we address these gaps and these students, whether it be
107
social-emotional, whether it be academic. There are just huge, huge issues now, and I
think a lot of those issues were there [before the pandemic].
Communication
During a crisis, school leaders must provide certainty, cultivate hope and ensure open and
credible communication to all the affected members of their community (Smith & Riley, 2012).
In response to the COVID-19 pandemic, superintendents, assistant superintendents, and
principals became the interpreters of health and safety guidelines for their staff and communities.
DeMatthews and Brown (2019) emphasized that it is essential for leaders to assess community
needs and establish partnerships with community organizations. The research participants in this
study engaged with their communities using a wide range of methods and established meaningful
partnerships with their local community organizations.
Superintendent E shared various ways the district communicated with their community.
So, we gathered input, as always, in a lot of different forms … [a] COVID form for
questions that we have a system of monitoring. We did, at that time, almost weekly
updates to our community video as well as putting out written communication. We did a
pretty intense video that was quite a bit longer where we actually went in the classrooms
and showed them some of the cleaning strategies that we were going to be doing and how
we were going to provide a safe atmosphere and environment for our students.
Superintendent G also spoke to communication being crucial, particularly mentioning
that a variety of means of communication was necessary to meet the needs of the community.
A lot of what we did was making sure that all of our systems allowed us to be able to
properly support the community’s needs, properly respond and properly be in a situation
where we can mitigate all the challenges that happened with COVID.
108
Assistant Superintendent H described another method of gathering community input
through committees.
One of things that we did from the outset, which was, I think beneficial to us, is we had a
ton of committees where we had an academic committee, a medical committee, a
superintendent staffing committee. Every day of the week after three, there was at least
one committee that was meeting and they were composed of community members,
professionals, faculty, staff, in some cases, students. So, we really made sure that
everyone’s voice was heard.
Principal I summarized their strategy of providing as much information as possible to
their community: “I just inundated (them) with communication.” Principal K shared that the
growth in communication platforms has perhaps been one positive that has come out of the
COVID-19 pandemic: “Okay, so the pandemic wasn’t all bad, right. I mean, it wasn’t great at all
for anybody, but it did give rise to some new communication tools that maybe we never used
before or very, very minimally.”
Home School Relationship
Public schools have a unique role to play in the communities they serve. Aside from
providing learning opportunities, schools provide stability and resiliency in communities. Fay et
al. (2020) identified essential roles schools play in promoting community resilience including
social welfare services, human development, childcare, employment, and strengthening social
ties. As schools closed in response to the COVID-19 pandemic, superintendents, assistant
superintendents, and principals shifted resources to support families in an attempt to provide
these supportive services to parents (Garbe et al., 2020).
109
When speaking of internet capacity, Superintendent G justified using COVID relief funds
to provide as many hotspots to families as possible:
It’s an equity issue. When you are in a more remote portion of a community that doesn’t
have the robust infrastructure built up, you have an inherent inequitable circumstance
versus somebody who’s in a more suburban, much more developed, much more, let’s say
affluent community.
Assistant Superintendent H described the role their district fulfilled in providing food to
the community during the height of the pandemic above and beyond what their schools normally
served to students.
Our central kitchen and our director of nutrition and food services did an amazing job
because they turned out more food for the community. We had never served that many
kids—thousands of meals were served every day in excess of that number to the
community and it’s something that we’re all very, very proud of. We fed as many people
as possible.
Assistant Superintendent L shared the extent to which districts resourced the school
community’s nutrition needs.
Our food services director applied for that money that went to families that qualified for
financial need, but we did it across the district. So, every student in [the district] during
the 2020–2021 school year got in the mail an EBT card that has $1,600 on it. Every
student in [the district], no matter their financial need.
The main themes from Research Question 4 highlighted the consistency of parent
concerns across the districts represented in this study, both in what was and was not a concern.
For example, across all twelve districts, study participants encountered similar parent concerns in
110
the areas of learning loss, mental health, and student safety. However, there were little to no
concerns regarding nutrition as the federal and state government addressed and supported this
need very early in the pandemic (CDE, 2020).
Summary
Chapter Four reported the findings from 36 Southern California, K–12 educational
leaders in 12 school districts, including 12 superintendents, 12 assistant superintendents, and 12
principals. Each research study participant completed a survey which provided quantitative data
and participated in an interview which further provided qualitative evidence. The results from
this study have brought to light the impact of the pandemic on students, families, leaders,
schools, and districts. This study examined how district and school leadership responded to the
COVID-19 crisis by examining the financial implications brought on by the pandemic, the
impact of governmental agency guidelines, as well as what issues were most important to both
union members and parents within each district. Most importantly, the study provides insight
into superintendent, assistant superintendent, and principal leadership practices during a crisis.
The COVID-19 pandemic impacted public school districts on an extraordinary scale.
District and school leaders were responding to a health crisis that seemingly would have been
dealt with by health professionals, but with its impact on public school districts and students,
leaders were left with no choice but to respond swiftly and accordingly. 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
twelve districts: safety, collaboration, communication, and unions and negotiations.
111
Safety
Overall, district and school leaders from this study indicated the challenges of addressing
how different stakeholders viewed “safety” and navigating what a “safe” working and learning
environment and conditions would look like. Every leader surveyed and interviewed touched
upon the work of collaborating and negotiating with unions in creating an agreement to include
and account for safety concerns, and how that would be addressed with respect to roles and
environments. There was a common response for leaders to remain consistent and steadfast with
respect to following the required public health guidelines (despite the difficulties with
interpretation of said plans at times) and implementing local district and school safety plans.
Findings also indicated an enormous similar effort on the part of district and school leaders to
address the wide spectrum of parent concerns with the reopening of schools and topics such as
PPEs, facility upgrades, physical distancing, sanitation measures, masking, and such. Responses
from all 12 districts indicated that leaders put in a concerted effort to address requirements while
addressing opinions, fears, and concerns of their school community. Throughout this entire
crisis, students’ safety was at the forefront of leaders’ decision-making processes.
Collaboration
Collaboration was another common theme across the respondents of all 12 districts.
Every action taken by leaders, from initial school closures to the later process of reopening
schools, required navigating through various partnerships with different degrees of collaboration.
As the crisis was uniquely rooted in health and safety, a natural partnership of state and local
health agencies with public school districts emerged; however, the responses of leaders indicated
otherwise. Overall, district and school leaders shared common challenges and frustrations with
being unable to provide input into the guidance for schools issued by their local health agencies.
112
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. Responses showed that collaboration took the form of district leaders
frequently meeting with local health officials, but the overall sentiment from participants was
that it was one-directional. A common frustration reported among the districts was the
misalignment and contradicting directives which led to confusion, ambiguity, and struggles to
interpret the health and safety guidance. In the midst of frequently reported perceptions of a lack
of collaborative partnerships, a recurring theme of different collaborations emerged from this
crisis: a network of leaders from different districts working together, frequent collaboration
between unions and districts, and partnerships forged with non-educational entities. Overall,
findings indicated that collaboration was not as reciprocal as leaders wanted it to be. 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.
Communication
A third recurring theme among the 12 districts was regarding communication. Many
participants shared the critical role communication played between public school districts,
schools, and the parent community during the COVID-19 pandemic. The findings suggested
communication was one-directional from local health agencies to public school districts and
school sites, and then district and site leaders worked to interpret, clarify, simplify, and
communicate complex health and safety guidelines to their different stakeholders. Based on the
responses from the interviews and surveys, district and site leaders were the primary conduit for
113
information, communicating with their students, staff, and family partners about safety protocols
and procedures. All participants reported having utilized and/or increased a variety of current and
new communication and messaging platforms in order to gather input, disseminate information,
and engage with their local school community.
Data strongly suggested that participants employing different modes of communication
was essential to reaching their communities. Additionally, participants largely indicated an
increased frequency of communication with not only their family communities but also internally
with different union groups, between district office departments to school sites, and within
respective school sites. Findings also indicated the pandemic created ample opportunities for
reciprocal communication. 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.
Unions and Negotiations
Lastly, as the COVID-19 pandemic impacted on-campus learning, this in turn affected
the certificated staff, along with the operations and staffing of public districts and schools. Based
on the findings, there was a theme of the roles that unions played and the negotiations taking
place during the initial closures and the reopening of schools. Participants were largely in
agreement with points such as the financial impact of the pandemic on school districts.
Responses of district and school leaders spoke to the negotiations of MOUs with issues such as
safe working conditions, PPE equipment, online instruction, compensation, and shifts in roles
and responsibilities as few of the major points of consideration for negotiation. Additionally, the
state’s offer of financial compensation tied to the reopening of schools by a certain date, spurred
114
additional rounds of union negotiations for employees due to the changing of the school’s
learning model, which would impact the nature of the employee’s work location and job
responsibilities. Unions and the negotiations played a large role in all aspects of COVID-19’s
impact on districts and schools.
Overall, key findings from the responses indicated the importance of a strong relationship
between district and school leadership with all bargaining units, as this partnership would assist
with the rapidly changing impact of COVID-19 on districts and schools. Through the responses,
it was evident that the role of unions and negotiations was a critical and influential factor in the
many aspects of district and school operations that evolved during the heart of the COVID-19
pandemic. Chapter Five presents a summary of the findings, implications for practice, a
discussion of future research, and further conclusions.
115
Chapter Five: Summary, Implications, and Conclusion
The COVID-19 pandemic has been both a rapidly evolving and lingering crises, as its
impact on public school districts has persisted for more than two years. This is unusual as past
crises involving schools were typically short-term events like an active shooter, natural disasters,
or academic underachievement (Gainey, 2009). The COVID-19 pandemic prompted districts to
close schools on very short notice, with leaders facing uncertainty as to the timeline of when
schools could reopen. However, as the pandemic continued to impact districts and schools with
no concrete end date, superintendents, assistant superintendents, and principals faced
increasingly complex issues as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic on school districts.
As revealed in the data from this study, this health crisis had an extraordinary and
unprecedented impact on all facets of public education. Findings indicated the broad range of
leadership actions that took place on the part of superintendents, assistant superintendents, and
principals to address the ramifications of the shifts that took place in their districts and schools
since March of 2020. Examining the data explored the ways in which leaders became crisis
managers, to effectively lead and guide their organizations through this tumultuous time of the
COVID-19 pandemic. This chapter provides a summary of the key findings of each research
question, along with the implications of the study, recommendations for future research, and a
final conclusion.
Statement of the Problem
The COVID-19 Pandemic presented a disruption in Southern California K–12 school
districts, causing unforeseen consequences within the education system and highlighting
financial implications, the impact of agencies, negotiations with unions, and the impact on
116
students and community. COVID-19 shifted the roles and scope of schools and school leaders,
beyond instructional leaders and transforming them into “crisis managers.”
Purpose of the Study
The purpose of this study was to analyze the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on
Southern California K–12 school districts and understand what district and site administrators
have learned from their experiences and their decision-making responsibilities in managing the
crisis. This study has brought to light the impact of the pandemic on students, families, leaders,
schools, and districts. Most importantly, this study has 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.
Participants
The 36 research participants in this study consisted of 12 superintendents, 12 assistant
superintendents, and 12 principals across 12 unique K–12 public school districts in Southern
California. These research participants qualified if they held their current position for at least one
year, they served in their position during the 2020–2021 school year, and the student population
of their district was at least one thousand.
Key Findings
The following section presents the key themes of the four research questions that guided
this study, as found by the research team across all 12 participating school districts.
Findings for Research Question 1
Research Question 1 asked, “What, if any, are the financial implications that the COVID-
19 pandemic has had on K–12 public school districts in Southern California and how have
district superintendents, assistant superintendents and principals addressed these implications?”
117
This research question was designed to provide insight into participants’ perceptions regarding
the COVID-19 funding provided through the CARES Act. Responses to this research question
provided researchers with information about how school districts and sites met their financial
needs and obligations during the COVID-19 pandemic. According to the responses of
superintendents, assistant superintendents, and principals, the financial implications highlighted
four themes which included funding uncertainty, flexibility and accountability, safely meeting
the needs of students during a pandemic, and seizing opportunities created by the COVID-relief
funds.
Theme 1
The first theme identified was a general sense of uncertainty by research participants
regarding how the pandemic-related needs could be funded. Based on the responses, the
participants of this study collectively confirmed that the ability to be creative and find
opportunities for growth within the uncertainty of funding during the pandemic was crucial in
successfully guiding their organization through the COVID-19 pandemic.
Theme 2
Funding flexibility was the second theme identified. Large amounts of funding from the
CARES Act furnished states with federal funds (CDE, 2020), which also came with an
implementation waiver process which enabled educational institutions to flexibly serve
vulnerable populations and operate in ways that differed from local guidelines. While the funds
were meant to provide the flexibility to meet the unique needs of each community, the
participants in this study all expressed a desire for more flexibility and simpler ways to track
spending accountability.
118
Theme 3
The third theme identified was in the area of safely meeting the needs of students. The
findings showed that the study participants were guided more by their values and keeping
students safe and were not influenced by economic incentives or penalties to reopen schools in
the spring of 2021.
Theme 4
The fourth theme was seizing opportunities. Opportunities born from the shifts in public
education brought about by the COVID-19 pandemic included incentivized professional
learning, public health outreach, diverse and expanded learning opportunities, sustaining
instructional technology practices, and challenging the status quo in the pursuit of equity.
Research study participants largely shared that this particular crisis provided opportunities for
improvement.
Findings for Research Question 2
Research Question 2 asked, “What, if any, have been the impact of federal, state and
local health agencies on K–12 public school districts in Southern California, and what strategies
have district superintendents, assistant superintendents, and principals followed to address the
suggested guidelines?” This research question was designed to better understand the impact of
health and safety guidelines on school districts’ ability to reopen schools safely. While school
safety is always a priority, COVID-19 created an entirely new understanding and meaning of
student and staff safety. The research findings revealed that these guidelines were important in
assisting schools to reopen safely. Two key themes emerged from this research question: the
need for collaboration between governmental agencies and school districts and a lack of
alignment in guidance issued by various federal and state agencies.
119
Theme 1
The first theme among the respondents was a need for collaboration between
governmental agencies and school districts. Responses indicated that participants in this study
did not feel that there was adequate, open communication coming from their respective county
health departments, and this inhibited their ability to plan and guide their organizations through
the pandemic. The findings showed that there was a common belief that if the county health
departments had collaborated more with school leaders, then the guidance would have been
easier to understand and implement. Responses also indicated that collaboration was more one-
directional rather than reciprocal. Thus, respondents reported forging collaborative networks
with their fellow colleagues in roles with similar responsibilities. Additional collaboration with
non-educational agencies was also widely reported.
Theme 2
The second theme among the respondents was a lack of alignment between schools and
agencies issuing various health protocols and guidance. Guidelines were often misaligned with
information issued by several state and federal agencies, which caused much confusion. Study
participants commonly reported having to interpret and communicate complex, ever-changing
information from multiple sources, which in turn necessitated a strategy of implementing and
precisely adhering to the required guidelines.
Findings for Research Question 3
Research Question 3 asked, “How, if at all, have union negotiations played a role in K–
12 Southern California public school districts’ response to the COVID-19 pandemic?” The third
research question was designed to help the researchers better understand the role of labor unions
in shaping districts’ responses to the COVID-19 pandemic. Superintendents, assistant
120
superintendents, and principals felt very strongly that union negotiations with both certificated
and classified employees were critical in effectively responding to the COVID-19 pandemic. The
research participants emphasized the importance of relationships with these labor groups, with
many superintendents placing value on the importance of positive relationships with all
bargaining units. Given these needs, four themes emerged from the participants regarding
working with unions during the COVID-19 pandemic which included focusing on staff safety,
redesigning instruction for online learning, staff compensation, and redefining staff roles and
responsibilities during the pandemic.
Theme 1
The first theme that emerged from Research Question 3 was how staff safety was
addressed in union negotiations. As school districts received funding and health and safety
guidance from several state and federal agencies, labor groups met to negotiate new, safe
working conditions as set forth in agency guidelines. The participants in this study concurred that
safety was the most important topic addressed in union negotiations.
Theme 2
The second theme that emerged was the key role union negotiations had in redefining the
instructional day during distance learning. Consensus among study participants was that
negotiations with teachers’ unions was critical in defining the parameters of distance learning,
including daily and weekly schedules and the minimum number of minutes for synchronous and
asynchronous learning.
Theme 3
The third theme was employee compensation. Changing working conditions for teachers
and classified personnel prompted negotiation for additional compensation, which took many
121
forms: additional hours, incentive pay, hazard pay, COVID leave provisions, and one-time
bonuses.
Theme 4
The fourth theme that emerged was redefining employees’ roles and responsibilities. As
schools closed due to the COVID-19 pandemic, many employees’ work was not needed and
research participants indicated negotiations were key in temporarily redefining roles and
responsibilities as new working conditions demanded.
Findings for Research Question 4
Research Question 4 asked, “How, if at all, have K–12 Southern California public school
districts leadership teams comprised of superintendents, assistant superintendents, and principles
addressed the concerns of the parent community regarding safety, nutrition, distance learning,
lack of technology, academic standing, and how and when to re-open schools due to the COVID-
19 pandemic?” This research question was designed to help the researcher better understand the
relationship between school districts and parents during the COVID-19 Pandemic. The research
participants strongly agreed that they were able to meet many of the needs of students and
families, especially in the areas of communication, nutrition, technology devices, and health and
safety. One area, however, revealed research participants did not feel that they were able to meet
the emotional well-being needs as well as the other needs. These concerns were also reflected in
the five themes that emerged from the perceptions of the research participants which included
parent concerns about safety, mental well-being, learning, communication, and the home school
relationship.
122
Theme 1
The first theme from Research Question 4 revealed that the community was very
concerned about their school districts’ ability to keep students safe if and when schools
reopened. This concern was mitigated with a great deal of communication.
Theme 2
The second theme revealed that parents were very concerned about the mental well-being
of their children. This particular issue was identified by research participants as being
challenging to address, especially during the period of school closure when students were not on
campus.
Theme 3
The third theme that emerged was concerns over student learning while schools shifted to
online instruction. Learning loss is a current fear of parents, though the long-term results and
impact of the pandemic will not be fully understood or known for years to come.
Theme 4
The fourth theme identified was the tremendous increase in communication with the
community through a variety of methods. This increase in communication resulted in
strengthening meaningful partnerships with local community organizations that helped their
organizations navigate this pandemic.
Theme 5
The fifth was the strengthening of the home school relationship. Public schools have a
unique role to play in the communities they serve. Aside from providing learning opportunities,
schools provide stability and resiliency in communities. Throughout the pandemic,
superintendents, assistant superintendents, and principals retained their employees and used them
123
in a variety of capacities to fulfill the needs of their communities. Schools were central in getting
their communities through the COVID-19 pandemic.
Implications for Practice
This research study delved into the impact that the COVID-19 pandemic had on K–12
public school districts in Southern California. Through the surveys and interviews designed to
collect data for this study, the four members of this research team were able to better understand
what district and site administrators have learned from their experiences and their decision-
making responsibilities in managing the crisis. This study has brought to light the impact of the
pandemic on students, families, leaders, schools, and districts. Most importantly, this study
examined how district and school leadership influenced administrative practices, student
achievement, financial responsibility, union leadership, and community/parent support as they
responded to the COVID-19 crisis. The examination of relevant literature and subsequent data
collection for this study led to three implications regarding school district and site leaders
becoming crisis managers during the COVID-19 pandemic. The conceptual framework (see
Figure 3) utilized for this research study was based on three theoretical frameworks. The three
frameworks assisted in developing an understanding of the theories that impact school leadership
and how it can be adapted to the current situation of managing the COVID-19 pandemic crisis.
When compared to the findings of this study, the three theories used to develop the conceptual
framework present important implications for leaders and their changing roles throughout this
crisis.
The first implication for practice by superintendents, assistant superintendents, and
principals responds to the need to utilize appropriate leadership frames to enact unpredictable
guidelines during a crisis to keep the school community safe (Bolman & Deal, 2017). The four
124
frames described by Bolman and Deal (2017) are political, structural, human resources, and
symbolic. The four frames 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. The research findings in this study found that superintendents, assistant
superintendents, and principals were continually shifting between roles as they navigated
unpredictable and rapidly changing guidelines. In order to enact the necessary COVID-related
policies and guidelines, leaders went back to the basics of relying on the four frames to prevent
them from being quickly overwhelmed (Anderson, 2020). Having foundational leadership skills
that are regularly practiced and used allowed leaders to effectively respond to the challenges
presented by the pandemic. This is an important implication for aspiring, new, and veteran
leaders to focus on the skills that build a trusting, high-functioning organization.
The second implication which each of the four research team members found for
leadership practice during a crisis highlights the need for leaders to be learning leaders to help
their organizations best manage an unpredictable situation like the pandemic. The second
implication for leaders connects to Fullan’s (2014) The Principal: Three Keys to Maximizing
Impact, which explores specific leadership skills and strategies as they fall into three key
categories of learning leader, leader as district and system player, and leader as change agent. A
key finding in this study was the frustration superintendents, assistant superintendents, and
principals felt with confusing guidance regarding health, safety, and medical information; most
leaders did not feel they had the initial expertise to accurately share with their stakeholders. By
becoming lead learners and collaborating with colleagues from other districts, superintendents,
assistant superintendents, and principals were able to successfully communicate the important
information being issued by county and state agencies. Therefore, it may be possible for future
125
educational leaders to continue to build professional networks to prepare for future unforeseen
challenges. These interactions not only build rapport and facilitate the sharing of ideas, but also
build collective expertise. Moving forward, time with colleagues will need to be more intentional
and scheduled. Whether virtually or in-person, educational leaders must create dedicated time to
solicit feedback and input from their colleagues on specific, pre-communicated topics. Relying
on an informal exchange of information may not be sufficient anymore.
The third implication which the four research team members found for leadership
practice during a crisis highlights the vital importance of clear, coherent communication.
Westover’s (2020) framework provides the guiding principles that school districts can enact to
create an organization that can move together through change and systems for continuous
improvement, while leading as crisis managers. A focus on trust and dialogue will also be a
priority among educational leaders, staff themselves, and the broader community. Trust will be
an even more critical resource in school communities after the pandemic. Given how quickly
pandemic guidance can change, leaders won’t necessarily build trust on consistency. Rather,
leaders will need to build trust based on transparent, regular communication.
Recommendations for Future Study
The review of this literature has provided context for the study of school leadership
during the COVID-19 pandemic as traditional roles changed dramatically during the COVID-19
pandemic. However, the pandemic lingers on and is still impacting school communities and
educational leaders at the time of this study. Because of how current and ongoing the pandemic
is, there are many unknowns about the long-term impact on students, staff, and school leaders.
While parents have been generally supportive of school districts’ responses to the pandemic,
there are still concerns that their children are falling behind and lingering fear about returning to
126
school (EdTrust, 2020). These concerns present several opportunities for future research to
assess the degree to which the COVID-19 pandemic created lingering changes for students and
schools.
Recommendation 1
The first recommendation for future research is to examine the long-term effects of
students who remained in distance learning for the duration of the 2020–21 school year. The 12
districts at the core of this study are all located within Southern California. Nine of the districts
were located in Los Angeles County, which had the most stringent COVID-19 guidelines in the
nation. Because of this, most students whose districts were highlighted in this study spent the
entirety of the 2020–2021 school year in distance learning. This presents an opportunity for
future research to examine the long-term impact on learning between those who spent an entire
year in distance learning with students in other locations who attended school in person or in a
hybrid, partially in-person setting.
Recommendation 2
The second recommendation for future research will be to examine the long-term impact
on student, teacher, and educational leader mental health following the pandemic. The American
Psychological Association (2020) reports 81% of Gen Z teens (ages 13–17) have experienced
more intense stress during the COVID-19 pandemic. This presents itself in many ways including
increased diagnoses of anxiety and stress as well as increased reports of self-harm and suicide
(Golberstein et al., 2020). Future research can help determine if the isolation from school
closures as well as the stress of feelings of learning loss that have added to mental health
concerns will dissipate as the pandemic fades or remain present in those who experienced these
concerns.
127
Conclusion
The COVID-19 crisis is an opportunity to reimagine the role of superintendents, assistant
superintendents, and principals as true drivers of learning and change in their schools and
communities. This requires refocusing leader roles on evidence-driven instructional and
transformational leadership so they can support teachers and school-based learning teams to
ensure quality education for all students. The superintendents, assistant superintendents, and
principals who participated in this study recognized that through collaboration, they built
collective wisdom by connecting with colleagues and learning from each other to more
effectively plan and respond to the pandemic. The research participants relied on the power of
relationships, both new and those long established, to ground their decision making in empathy
and care for their staff, students, and parents. Additionally, superintendents, assistant
superintendents, and principals who strongly identified with their pre-pandemic core values had
a compass to drive their organizations through the crisis by keeping what is most important at the
heart of decision making. While leading through the COVID-19 pandemic, research participants
expressed the unique opportunities presented by this crisis and used it to drive long-wanted
change to build a more positive future for their 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.
128
References
American Psychological Association. (2020, April). Student mental health during and after
COVID-19: How can schools identify youth who need support?
https://www.apa.org/topics/COVID-19/student-mental-health
Anderson, J. (2020, April 16). School leadership during crisis [Podcast episode]. In Harvard
EdCast. Harvard Graduate School of Education.
https://www.gse.harvard.edu/news/20/04/harvard-edcast-school-leadership-during-crisis
Anderson, E., Hayes, S., & Carpenter, B. (2020). Principal as caregiver of all: Responding to
needs of others and self (CPRE Policy Brief No. 92). Publisher Name.
https://repository.upenn.edu/cpre_policybriefs/92
Association of California School Administrators. (2021). ACSA website. https://www.acsa.org
Berkman, B. E. (2008). Mitigating pandemic influenza. Journal of Public Health Management
and Practice, 14(4), 372–378. https://doi.org/10.1097/01.PHH.0000324566.72533.0b
Bishop, W. E., Fifolt, M., Peters, G. B, Gurley, D. K., & Collins, L. (2015). Perceptions and
experiences of K–12 educational leaders in response to the 27 April 2011 tornadoes.
School Leadership & Management, 35(2), 215–315.
https://doi.org/10.1080/13632434.2015.1041487
Boin, A., Overdijk, W., & Kuipers, S. (2013). Leadership in times of crisis: A framework for
assessment. International Review of Public Administration, 18(N), 79–91.
https://doi.org/10.1080/12294659.2013.10805241
Bolman, L. G., & Deal, L. G. (2017). Reframing organizations: Artistry, choice and leadership
(6
th
ed.). Jossey-Bass.
129
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.
https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2458-13-344
California Department of Education. (2020). Distance learning instruction planning guidance.
Retrieved August 15, 2021, from https://www.cde.ca.gov/ls/he/hn/guidanceplanning.asp
California Department of Education. (2021). CDE website. https://www.cde.ca.gov/
California Department of Public Health. (2020). Safe schools for all hub.
https://www.cdph.ca.gov/Programs/CID/DCDC/Pages/COVID-19/Education.aspx
California Department of Public Health. (2021). About us. Retrieved August 8, 2021, from
https://www.cdph.ca.gov/Pages/About.aspx
California School Employees Association. (2021). About us. https://www.csea.com/about-us
Canlé, A. (2020, June 17). Keeping lines of communication open during distance learning.
Edutopia. https://www.edutopia.org/article/keeping-lines-communication-open-during-
distance-learning
CA Safe Schools for All. (2021). Definitions. Retrieved August 28, 2021, from
https://schools.COVID19.ca.gov/pages/definitions
Castelo, M. (2020, April 14). How to prepare and support educators teaching from home.
EdTech Magazine. https://edtechmagazine.com/k12/article/2020/04/how-prepare-and-
support-educators-teaching-home
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. (2021a). Mission, role and pledge. Retrieved August
15, 2021, from https://www.cdc.gov/about/organization/mission.htm
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. (2021b). Vaccines and immunizations.
https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/COVID-19/categories-essential-workers.html
130
Cipriano, C., & Bracket, M. (2020, April 7). Teachers are anxious and overwhelmed. They need
SEL now more than ever. Edsurge. https://www.edsurge.com/news/2020-04-07-teachers-
are-anxious-and-overwhelmed-they-need-sel-now-more-than-ever
Coombs, T. W. (2012). Ongoing crisis communication: Planning, managing, and responding.
Sage.
County of Los Angeles Public Health. (2021). Tk–12 schools COVID-19 kit.
http://ph.lacounty.gov/acd/ncorona2019/EducationToolkit/tk12/
Covey, S. R. (2004). The 7 habits of highly effective people: Restoring the character ethic (Rev.
ed.). Free Press.
Creswell, J. W. (2009). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods
approaches (3
rd
ed.). Sage.
Creswell, J. W., & Creswell, J. D. (2018). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed
methods approaches (5
th
ed.). Sage.
Darling-Hammond, L., & Hyler, M. E. (2020). Preparing educators for the time of COVID …
and beyond. European Journal of Teacher Education, 43(4), 457–465.
https://doi.org/10.1080/02619768.2020.1816961
DeMatthews, D., & Brown, C. H. (2019). Urban school leadership and community violence:
Principal perspectives and proactive responses to student mental health needs. The
Educational Forum, 83(1), 28–43. https://doi.org/10.1080/00131725.2018.1506846
Denzin, N. K. (2016). Critical qualitative inquiry. Qualitative Inquiry, 23(1), 8–16.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1077800416681864
131
Diliberti, M., Schwartz, M., Hamilton, L. S., & Kaufman, J. H. (2020). Prepared for a
pandemic? How schools’ preparedness related to their remote instruction during
COVID-19. RAND. https://www.rand.org/pubs/research_reports/RRA168-3.html
D’Souza, K., & Marquez Rosales, B. (2020, November 11). Why Los Angeles County’s neediest
school districts don’t apply for waivers to reopen campuses: Few public schools have
received waivers: only one has a high number of low-income students. EdSource.
https://edsource.org/2020/why-los-angeles-countys-neediest-school-districts-dont-apply-
for-waivers-to-reopen-campuses/643453
Ed-Data. (2021a). Home page. http://www.ed-data.org/
Ed-Data. (2021b). Negotiating teachers’ contracts in California. http://www.ed-
data.org/article/Negotiating-Teachers%27-Contracts-in-California
EdTrust. (2020, April 8). Parents overwhelmingly concerned their children are falling behind
during school closures. https://west.edtrust.org/press-release/poll-ca-parents-concerned-
about-school-closures-caused-by-COVID-19/
Engzell, P., Frey, A., & Verhagen, M. D. (2021). Learning loss due to school closures during the
COVID-10 pandemic. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United
States of America, VV(N), PP–PP. https://www.pnas.org/content/118/17/e2022376118
Exceptional Lives. (2019, September 14). Special education: A glossary of terms and acronyms.
http://www.exceptionallives.org/blog/special-education-a-glossary-of-terms-and-
acronyms
Fay, J., Levinson, M., Stevens, A., Brighouse, H., & Geron, T. (2020). Schools during the
COVID-19 pandemic: Sites and sources of community resilience. Source.
https://ethics.harvard.edu/schools-during-COVID-19
132
Fein, A. H., & Isaacson, N. S. (2009). Echoes of Columbine: The emotional work of leaders in
school shooting sites. American Behavioral Scientist, 52(9), 1327–1346.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0002764209332549
Fensterwald, J. (2020, November 30). Early data on learning loss show big drop in math, but not
reading skills: big asterisk: many ‘missing’ low-income students didn’t take the test this
fall. EdSource. https://edsource.org/2020/early-data-on-learning-loss-show-big-drop-in-
math-but-not-reading-skills/644416
Fensterwald, J. (2021a, January 14). Newsom opens one-stop COVID information ‘hub’ on
reopening schools: Websites will provide data on COVID outbreaks for parents,
technical help for districts. EdSource. https://edsource.org/2021/newsom-opens-one-stop-
COVID-information-hub-on-reopening-schools/647075
Fensterwald, J. (2021b, January 20). More school organizations urge revising Gov. Newsom’s
reopening plan: They warn that districts will ignore offer as too burdensome for the extra
funding. EdSource. https://edsource.org/2021/more-school-organizations-urge-revising-
gov-newsoms-reopening-plan/647298
Fensterwald, J., Burke, M., Stavely, Z., & Johnson, S. (2021, June 26). Lawmakers, Newsom cut
deal on state budget: Record spending on pre-K through college. EdSource.
https://edsource.org/2021/lawmakers-newsom-cut-deal-on-state-budget-record-spending-
on-prek-through-college/657001
Fitzgerald, J. (2020, August 17). Federal government must ensure schools have funds to safely
re-open. EdSource. https://edsource.org/2020/federal-government-must-ensure-schools-
have-funds-to-re-open-safely/637737
133
Fotheringham, P., Thomas, H., Healy, G., Arenge, G., McGill, R., & Wilson, E. (2020).
Pressures and influences on school leaders as policy makers during COVID-19. SSRN.
https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3642919
Freedburg, L. (2021, February DD). CDC issues color-coded guide for school reopening but
could create more confusion in California. EdSource. https://edsource.org/2021/cdc-
issues-color-coded-guide-for-school-reopening-but-could-create-more-confusion-in-
california/64879
Fullan, M. (2014). The principal: Three keys to maximizing impact. Josey-Bass.
Fullan, M., & Quinn, J. (2016). Coherence: The right drivers in action for schools, districts, and
systems. Corwin.
Gainey, B. S. (2009). Crisis management’s new role in educational settings. The Clearing
House: A Journal of Educational Strategies, 82(6), 267–274. https://edtrust.org/parents-
overwhelmingly-concerned-their-children-are-falling-behind-during-school-closures/
Garbe, A., Ogurlu, U., Logan, N., & Cook, P. (2020). COVID-19 and remote learning:
Experiences of parents with children during the pandemic. American Journal of
Qualitative Research, 4(3), 45. https://doi.org/10.29333/ajqr/847
Glesne, C. (2014). Becoming qualitative researchers: An introduction (5
th
ed.). Pearson.
Golberstein, E., Wen, H., & Miller, B. F. (2020). Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) and
mental health for children and adolescents. JAMA Pediatrics, 174(9), 819–820.
https://doi.org/10.1001/jamapediatrics.2020.1456
Great Schools Partnership. (n.d.-a). Cohort. In The glossary of education reform. Retrieved
August 25, 2021, from https://www.edglossary.org/cohort/
134
Great Schools Partnership. (n.d.-b). Learning loss. In The glossary of education reform.
Retrieved August 25, 2021, from https://www.edglossary.org/learning-loss/
Great Schools Partnership. (n.d.-c). Stakeholder. In The glossary of education reform. Retrieved
August 25, 2021, from https://www.edglossary.org/stakeholder/
Harrington, T. (2021, April 4). Quick guide: What California’s color coded county tracking
system means for schools? EdSource. https://edsource.org/2021/quick-guide-what-
californias-color-coded-county-tracking-system-means-for-schools/639357
Hemphill, A. A., & Marianno, B. D. (2021). Teachers’ unions, collective bargaining, and the
response to COVID-19. Education Finance and Policy, 16(1), 170–182.
https://doi.org/10.1162/edfp_a_00326
Hermann, Z. (2020, November 6). How to make the most of student feedback during distance
learning. Edutopia. https://www.edutopia.org/article/how-make-most-student-feedback-
during-distance-learning
Honigsfeld, A., & Nordmeyer, J. (2020). Teacher collaboration during a global pandemic.
Educational Leadership, 77(N), 47–50. http://www.ascd.org/publications/educational-
leadership/summer20/vol77/num10/Teacher-Collaboration-During-a-Global-
Pandemic.aspx
Johnson, S. (2021, March 1). California parents continue to disagree on return to school as
COVID-19 cases decline. EdSource. https://edsource.org/2021/california-parents-
continue-to-disagree-on-return-to-school-as-COVID-19-cases-decline/650181
135
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
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/10.2W5/AJPH.2020.305875
Kuhfeld, M. (2021, June 1). Summer learning loss: What we know and what we’re learning.
NWEA. https://www.nwea.org/blog/2021/summer-learning-loss-what-we-know-what-
were-learning/
Lambert, D. (2020, June 1). Emotional schools chief Tony Thurmond vows to address racism in
public education. EdSource. https://edsource.org/2020/emotional-schools-chief-tony-
thurmond-vows-to-address-racism-in-public-education/632843
Lambert, D., & Fensterwald, J. (2020, May 4). 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
Lochmiller, C. R., & Lester, J. N. (2017). Studying education practice with research. In Name of
the book (pp. PP–PP). Sage Publications.
Los Angeles County Office of Education. (2021). Lacoe by the numbers.
https://www.lacoe.edu/About-LACOE
136
Lozano Smith Attorneys at Law. (2020, April 23). Client news brief (No. 31).
http://www.lozanosmith.com/news-clientnewsbriefdetail.php?news_id=2999
Mahnken, K. (2020). Half of all school employees aren’t teachers. This recession will endanger
their jobs. The74million.org. https://www.the74million.org/article/half-of-all-school-
employees-arent-teachers-this-recession-will-endanger-their-jobs/
Malkus, N., Christensen, C., & Shurz, J. (2020). School district responses to the COVID-19
pandemic: Round 6, ending the year of closures. American Enterprise Institute for Public
Policy Research. https://www.aei.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/06/School-district-
responses-to-the-COVID-19-Pandemic-Round-6.pdf
Malkus, N., Christensen, C., & West, L. (2020a). School district responses to the COVID-19
pandemic: Round 1, districts’ initial responses. American Enterprise Institute for Public
Policy Research. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED606200
Malkus, N., Christensen, C., & West, L. (2020b). School district responses to the COVID-19
pandemic: Round 2, districts are up and running. American Enterprise Institute for
Public Policy Research. https://www.aei.org/research-products/report/school-district-
responses-to-the-COVID-19-pandemic-round-2-districts-are-up-and-running/
Maxwell, J. A. (2013). Qualitative research design: An interactive approach (3
rd
ed.). SAGE
Publications.
Mayer, B. W., Moss, J., & Dale, K. C. (2008). Disaster and preparedness: Lessons from
Hurricane Rita. Journal of Contingencies and Crisis Management, 16(1), 14–23.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-5973.2008.00531.x
137
Mays, M. (2021, March 1). Newsom strikes school reopening deal with California lawmakers.
Politico. https://www.politico.com/states/california/story/2021/03/01/newsom-strikes-
school-reopening-deal-with-california-lawmakers-1366270
McGlone, A. (2021, April 14). Thanks, incentives, hazard pay: More COVID-19 funds are going
to school employees. Voices of San Diego.
https://voicesofsandiego.org/2021/04/14/thanks-incentives-hazard-pay-more-COVID-19-
funds-are-going-to-school-emplyees/
McLoughlin, G. M., Fleischhacker, S., Hecht, A. A., McGuirt, J., Vega, C., Read, M., Colon-
Ramos, U., & Dunn, C. G. (2020). Feeding students during COVID-19-related school
closures: A nationwide assessment of initial responses. Journal of Nutrition and
Education Behavior, 52(12), 1120–1130. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jneb.2020.09.018
Merriam, S., & Tisdell, E. J. (2016). Qualitative research: A guide to design and implementation
(4
th
ed.). Jossey-Bass.
Mertz, A. (2014, October 30). A century of teacher organizing: What can we learn? Labor and
Working Class History Organization. https://www.lawcha.org/century-teaching-
organizing/
National Conference for State Legislatures. (2021). COVID-19: Essential workers in the states.
https://www.ncsl.org/research/labor-and-employment/COVID-19-essential-workers-in-
the-states.aspx
National Parent Teacher Association. (2021). National Parent Teacher Association website.
https://www.pta.org
138
Occupational Safety and Health Administration. (2021). Personal protective equipment—
Overview. U.S. Department of Labor. https://www.osha.gov/personal-protective-
equipment
Pearson, C., & Clair, J. (1998). Reframing crisis management. The Academy of Management
Review, 23(1), 59–76. https://doi.org/10.2307/259099
Samuels, C. A. (2020, September 16). Do parents trust schools? Where the fault lines are during
COVID-19. Education Week. https://www.edweek.org/leadership/do-parents-trust-
schools-where-the-fault-lines-are-during-COVID-19/2020/09
Singer, B. J., Thompson, R. N., & Bonsall, M. B. (2021). The effect of the definition of
‘pandemic’ on quantitative assessments of infectious disease outbreak risk. Scientific
Reports, 11(N), 2547. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-021-81814-3
Smith, L., & Riley, D. (2012). School leadership in times of crisis. School Leadership &
Management, 32(1), 57–71. https://doi.org/10.1080/13632434.2011.614941
Sokol, R. L., Heinze, J., Doan, J., Normand, M., Grodzinski, A., Pomerantz, N., Scott, B. A.,
Gaswirth, M., & Zimmerman, M. (2021). Crisis interventions in schools: A systematic
review. Journal of School Violence, 20(2), 241–260.
https://doi.org/10.1080/15388220.2021.1879098
Stern, C., Cetron, M. S., & Markel, H. (2009). Closing the schools: Lessons from the 1918–19
U.S. influenza pandemic: Ninety-one years later, the evidence shows that there are
positive and negative ways to do it. Health Affairs, 28(Suppl. 1), w1066–w1078.
https://doi.org/10.1377/hlthaff.28.6.w1066
Stoll, L., & Temperley, J. (2009). Creative leadership: A challenge of our times. School
Leadership & Management, 29(1), 6376. https://doi.org/10.1080/13632430802646404
139
Strauss, V. (2020, April 19). Superintendents blast “inconsistent and incongruent” federal
guidance on reopening schools. The Washington Post.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/education/2020/04/19/superintendents-blast-
inconsistent-incongruous-federal-guidance-reopening-schools/
Terada, Y. (2020, June 23). COVID-19’s impact on students’ academic and mental well-being.
Edutopia. https://www.edutopia.org/article/COVID-19s-impact-students-academic-and-
mental-well-being
U.S. Department of Agriculture. (2021). U.S. Department of Agriculture website.
https://www.usda.gov
U.S. Department of Education. (2021). U.S. Department of Education website.
https://www.ed.gov
Westover, J. (2020). Districts on the move: Leading a coherent system of continuous
improvement. Corwin.
World Health Organization. (2021). Who we are. https://www.who.int/about/who-we-are
World Health Organization. (2022). World Health Organization coronavirus dashboard.
Retrieved February 20, 2022, from https://COVID19.who.int
140
Appendix A: Superintendent Survey
Thank you for participating in this research project. The goal is to understand how the
COVID-19 pandemic affected K–12 school districts, and in doing so, transformed the role of
district and school site leaders into crisis managers. You were chosen to participate in this survey
because you demonstrated leadership as a superintendent during the COVID-19 crisis.
Your participation in this study is entirely voluntary. Your identity, position, and any identifying
information about your district will be anonymized to secure confidentiality. Thank you again for
your participation. We also invite you to take part in a virtual 35-minute interview to be
scheduled at your convenience after the survey.
Survey Items
The following section details the survey items and response choices:
Demographic Items
1. How many years have you served as a superintendent?
a. Less than 1 year
b. 1 to 2 years
c. 3 to 5 years
d. 6 to 10 years
e. Over 10 years
2. How long have you been a superintendent at your current district?
a. Less than 1 year
b. 1 to 2 years
c. 3 to 5 years
d. 6 to 10 years
141
e. Over 10 years
Research Question 1: Health and Safety Guidelines
The following questions used a 5-point Likert scale (1 = strongly disagree to 5 = strongly
agree):
3. The CARES Act met my district’s funding needs in the area of personnel.
4. The CARES Act met my district’s funding needs in the area of personal
protective equipment (PPE).
5. The CARES Act met my district’s funding needs in the area of technology.
6. The CARES Act met my district’s funding needs in the area of professional
learning and/or training.
7. The CARES Act met my district’s funding needs in the area of facility upgrades.
8. The federal, state, and local health guidelines were clear in providing information
to support the safe reopening of schools.
9. I understood how to safely bring back staff during the fall of 2020 to work sites
based on the public health guidelines.
10. The health guidelines impacted our district's return to school plan in the spring of
2021.
Research Question 3: Union Negotiations
11. Negotiations with certificated unions influenced the way my district effectively
responded to the COVID-19 pandemic for students and families.
12. Negotiations with classified unions influenced the way of my district effectively
responding to the COVID-19 pandemic for students and families.
142
13. Negotiations with the teacher's union impacted the quality of instruction offered
to students during distance learning.
Research Question 4: Community Concerns
14. My district maintained good communication with families during the pandemic.
15. My district met the needs of students and families in the area of nutrition.
16. My district met the needs of students and families in the area of technology
(computers/devices).
17. My district met the needs of students and families in the area of technology
(internet service).
18. My district met the needs of students and families in the area of social emotional
well-being.
19. My district met the needs of students and families in the area of health and safety.
20. My district met the academic needs of students.
Overarching
21. The board of education supported my district’s response to the COVID-19
pandemic?
22. District administrators supported my district’s response to the COVID-19
pandemic?
23. District facilities and operations teams supported my district’s response to the
COVID-19 pandemic?
24. Teachers supported my district’s response to the COVID-19 pandemic?
25. Classified staff supported my district’s response to the COVID-19 pandemic?
26. Families supported my district’s response to the COVID-19 pandemic?
143
The following questions required an open-ended response:
27. I recommend the following assistant superintendent from my district to participate
in this study:
28. I recommend the following principal from my district to participate in this study:
Closing
We appreciate your willingness to participate in the survey. Your responses will help us
better understand the perspectives of district Superintendents during the COVID-19 Pandemic
and experiences as crisis-managers.
We will be in touch to invite you to take part in a virtual 35-minute interview to be
scheduled at your convenience.
Thank you for participating in this survey.
144
Appendix B: Assistant Superintendent Survey
Thank you for participating in this research project. The goal is to understand how the
COVID-19 pandemic affected K–12 school districts, and in doing so, transformed the role of
district and school site leaders into crisis managers. You were chosen to participate in this survey
because you demonstrated leadership as an assistant superintendent during the COVID-19 crisis.
Your participation in this study is entirely voluntary. Your identity, position, and any identifying
information about your district will be anonymized to secure confidentiality. Thank you again for
your participation. We also invite you to take part in a virtual 35-minute interview to be
scheduled at your convenience after the survey.
Survey Items
The following section details the survey items and response choices:
Demographic Items
1. How many years have you served as an assistant superintendent?
a. Less than 1 year
b. 1 to 2 years
c. 3 to 5 years
d. 6 to 10 years
e. Over 10 years
2. How long have you been an assistant superintendent at your current district?
a. Less than 1 year
b. 1 to 2 years
c. 3 to 5 years
d. 6 to 10 years
145
e. Over 10 years
3. Families supported my district’s response to the COVI-19 pandemic?
4. The CARES Act met my district’s funding needs in the area of personnel.
5. The CARES Act met my district’s funding needs in the area of personal
protective equipment (PPE).
6. The CARES Act met my district’s funding needs in the area of technology.
7. The CARES Act met my district’s funding needs in the area of professional
learning and/or training.
8. The CARES Act met my district’s funding needs in the area of facilities upgrades.
Research Question 2: Health & Safety Guidelines
9. The federal, state, and local health guidelines were clear in providing information
to support the safe reopening of schools.
10. I understood how to safely reopen work sites based on the public health
guidelines.
11. The health guidelines impacted the district’s return to school plan in the spring of
2021.
Research Question 3: Union Negotiations
12. Negotiations with certificated unions influenced the way my district effectively
responded to the COVID-19 pandemic for students and families.
13. Negotiations with classified unions influenced the way of my district effectively
responding to the COVID-19 pandemic for students and families.
14. Negotiations with the teacher’s union impacted the quality of instruction offered
to students during distance learning.
146
Research Question 4: Community Concerns
15. My district maintained good communication with families during the pandemic.
16. My district met the needs of students and families in the area of nutrition.
17. My district met the needs of students and families in the area of technology
(computer/devices).
18. My district met the needs of students and families in the area of Technology
(Internet Service).
19. My district met the needs of students and families in the area of social emotional
well-being.
20. My district met the needs of students and families in the area of health & safety.
21. My district met the academic needs of students.
Overarching
22. The board of education supported my district’s response to the COVID-19
pandemic?
23. District administrators supported my district’s response to the COVID-19
pandemic?
24. District facilities and operations teams supported my district’s response to the
COVID-19 pandemic?
25. Teachers supported my district’s response to the COVID-19 pandemic?
26. Classified staff supported my district’s response to the COVID-19 pandemic?
147
Closing
We appreciate your willingness to participate in the survey. Your responses will help us
better understand the perspectives of district assistant superintendents during the COVID-19
pandemic and experiences as crisis-managers.
We will be in touch to invite you to take part in a virtual 35-minute interview to be
scheduled at your convenience.
Thank you for participating in this survey.
148
Appendix C: Principal Survey
Thank you for participating in this research project. The goal is to understand how the
COVID-19 pandemic affected K–12 school districts, and in doing so, transformed the role of
district and school site leaders into crisis managers. You were chosen to participate in this survey
because you demonstrated leadership as a principal during the COVID-19 crisis.
Your participation in this study is entirely voluntary. Your identity, position, and any
identifying information about your school will be anonymized to secure confidentiality. Thank
you again for your participation. We also invite you to take part in a virtual 35-minute interview
to be scheduled at your convenience after the survey.
Survey Items
Demographics
1. How many years have you served as a
principal?
a. Less than 1 year
b. 1 to 2 years
c. 3 to 5 years
d. 6 to 10 years
e. Over 10 years
2. How long have you been principal at your current school?
a. Less than 1 year
b. 1 to 2 years
c. 3 to 5 years
d. 6 to 10 years
e. Over 10 years
149
Research Question 1: Financial Implications
3. The CARES Act met my school’s funding needs in the area of personnel.
4. The CARES Act met my school’s funding needs in the area of personal protective
equipment (PPE).
5. The CARES Act met my school’s funding needs in the area of technology.
6. The CARES Act met my school’s funding needs in the area of professional
learning and/or training.
7. The CARES Act met my school’s funding needs in the area of facility upgrades.
Research Question 2: Health and Safety Guidelines
8. The federal, state, and local health guidelines were clear in providing information
to support the safe reopening of my school.
9. I understood how to safely reopen my work site based on the public health
guidelines.
10. The health guidelines impacted my school’s return to school plan in the spring of
2021.
Research Question 3: Union Negotiations
11. Negotiations with certificated unions influenced the way my school effectively
responded to the COVID-19 pandemic for students and families.
12. Negotiations with classified unions influenced the way my school effectively
responded to the COVID-19 pandemic for students and families.
13. Negotiations with the teacher's union impacted the quality of instruction offered
to students at my school during distance learning.
Research Question 4: Community Concerns
150
14. My school maintained good communication with families during the pandemic.
15. My school met the needs of students and families in the area of nutrition.
16. My school met the needs of students and families in the area of technology
(computers/devices).
17. My school met the needs of students and families in the area of technology
(internet service).
18. My school met the needs of students and families in the area of social emotional
well-being.
19. My school met the needs of students and families in the area of health & safety.
20. My school met the academic needs of students.
Overarching
21. The board of education supported my school’s response to the COVID-19
pandemic?
22. District administrators supported my school’s response to the COVID-19
pandemic?
23. District facilities and operations teams supported my school’s response to the
COVID-19 pandemic?
24. Teachers supported my school’s response to the COVID-19 Pandemic?
25. Classified Staff supported my school’s response to the COVID-19 Pandemic?
26. Families supported my school’s response to the COVID-19 Pandemic?
151
Closing
We appreciate your willingness to participate in the survey. Your responses will help us
better understand the perspectives of school principals during the COVID-19 pandemic and
experiences as crisis-managers.
We will be in touch to invite you to take part in a virtual 35-minute interview to be
scheduled at your convenience.
Thank you for participating in this survey.
152
Appendix D: Alignment of Survey Questions with Research Questions and Conceptual
Framework
Research question Conceptual framework source
Item 1 2 3 4 Bolman and Deal Westover Fullan
Demographics
1
2
Section I
3 A A A A
4 A A A A
5 A A A A
6 A A A A
7 A A A A
Section II
8 A A
9 A A A A
10 A A
Section III
11 A A A A
12 A A A A
13 A A A A
Section IV
14 A A A
15 A A A A
16 A A A A
17 A A A A
18 A A A A
19 A A A A
20 A A A A
Section V
21 A A A
22 A A A
23 A A A A
24 A A A A
25 A A A A
26 A A A A
Note. Adapted from Bolman and Deal (2017), Westover (2020), and Fullan (2014). A = aligned.
153
Appendix E: Superintendent Interview Protocol
Interviewer: _____________________________________ Date: _________________________
Interviewee: _____________________________________ Location: _____________________
Job Title: _______________________________________ Contact Information: ____________
Length of Time in Your Position: __________________________________________________
Introduction
[Introduce yourself and your affiliation.]
During this conversation, we hope to learn more about the COVID-19 pandemic and your
experience as a superintendent during this time. The ultimate goal of this study is to better
understand leadership during a crisis.
Your comments will remain confidential. We would like to record this interview to
ensure the accuracy of our conversation. The recording will be used only by our research team to
review responses and to provide an opportunity to code themes between the various respondents.
The information recorded will remain secure and anonymous. Do we have your consent to
record?
This interview will last approximately 35 minutes. Do you have any questions before we
begin?
1. What, if any, are the financial implications that the COVID-19 pandemic has had on
K–12 districts and how have district leaders addressed these implications?
a. What have been the biggest financial implications of the pandemic on your
district?
b. In what ways, if any, would more spending flexibility/structure have benefitted
your district?
154
c. In what ways has COVID-19 related funding been used to meet student needs in
your district?
d. To what extent, if any, did financial incentive influence your district’s reopening
plan/timeline?
2. 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?
a. In what ways did your district collaborate with federal, state, and local
government agencies and community organizations to support your school district
during COVID?
i. PQ–What agencies or organizations?
b. To what degree, if any, did the various agencies align COVID-19 guidance for
schools?
c. What strategies have been effective for your district in implementing health
guidelines/policies?
d. Who in your district was primarily in charge of interpreting and implementing the
health guidelines/policies?
3. How, if at all, have union negotiations played a role in K–12 district’s response to
the COVID-19 Pandemic?
a. What were the most important issues negotiated with your teachers’ union and
how were they resolved?
b. What were the most important issues negotiated with your classified union and
how were they resolved?
155
c. In what ways, if any, were instructional programs influenced by union
negotiations in your district?
d. In what ways, if any, were safety protocols influenced by union negotiations in
your district?
4. 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?
a. In what ways did your district gather input from and communicate to the
community?
b. What were the biggest concerns from your district’s community and how were
they addressed?
i. PQ–Were there any safety concerns?
ii. PQ–Were there any nutrition concerns?
iii. PQ–Were there any academic concerns?
iv. PQ–Were there any technology concerns?
v. PQ–Were there any re-opening concerns?
Conclusion
Thank you for your time and willingness to meet with me and for all the valuable information
you provided for this study.
156
Appendix F: Assistant Superintendent Interview Protocol
Interviewer: _____________________________________ Date: _________________________
Interviewee: _____________________________________ Location: _____________________
Job Title: _______________________________________ Contact Information: ____________
Length of Time in Your Position: __________________________________________________
Introduction
[Introduce yourself and your affiliation.]
During this conversation, we hope to learn more about the COVID-19 pandemic and your
experience as an assistant superintendent during this time. The ultimate goal of this study is to
better understand leadership during a crisis.
Your comments will remain confidential. We would like to record this interview to
ensure the accuracy of our conversation. The recording will be used only by our research team to
review responses and to provide an opportunity to code themes between the various respondents.
The information recorded will remain secure and anonymous. Do we have your consent to
record?
This interview will last approximately 35 minutes. Do you have any questions before we
begin?
1. What, if any, are the financial implications that the COVID-19 pandemic has had on
K–12 districts and how have district leaders addressed these implications?
a. What have been the biggest financial implications of the pandemic on your
district?
b. In what ways, if any, would more spending flexibility/structure have benefitted
your district?
157
c. In what ways has COVID-19 related funding been used to meet student needs in
your district?
d. To what extent, if any, did financial incentive influence your district’s reopening
plan/timeline?
2. 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?
a. In what ways did your district collaborate with federal, state, and local
government agencies and community organizations to support your school district
during COVID?
i. PQ–What agencies or organizations?
b. To what degree, if any, did the various agencies align COVID-19 guidance for
schools?
c. What strategies have been effective for your district in implementing health
guidelines/policies?
d. Who in your district was primarily in charge of interpreting and implementing the
health guidelines/policies?
3. How, if at all, have union negotiations played a role in K–12 district’s response to
the COVID-19 Pandemic?
a. What were the most important issues negotiated with your teacher’s union and
how were they resolved?
b. What were the most important issues negotiated with your classified union and
how were they resolved?
158
c. In what ways, if any, were instructional programs influenced by union
negotiations in your district?
d. In what ways, if any, were safety protocols influenced by union negotiations in
your district?
4. 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?
a. In what ways did your district gather input from and communicate to the
community?
b. What were the biggest concerns from your district’s community and how were
they addressed?
i. PQ–Were there any safety concerns?
ii. PQ–Were there any nutrition concerns?
iii. PQ–Were there any academic concerns?
iv. PQ–Were there any technology concerns?
v. PQ–Were there any re-opening concerns?
Conclusion
Thank you for your time and willingness to meet with me and for all the valuable information
you provided for this study.
159
Appendix G: Principal Interview Protocol
Interviewer: _____________________________________ Date: _________________________
Interviewee: _____________________________________ Location: _____________________
Job Title: _______________________________________ Contact Information: ____________
Length of Time in Your Position: __________________________________________________
Introduction
[Introduce yourself and your affiliation.]
During this conversation, we hope to learn more about the COVID-19 pandemic and your
experience as a principal during this time. The ultimate goal of this study is to better understand
leadership during a crisis.
Your comments will remain confidential. We would like to record this interview to
ensure the accuracy of our conversation. The recording will be used only by our research team to
review responses and to provide an opportunity to code themes between the various respondents.
The information recorded will remain secure and anonymous. Do we have your consent to
record?
This interview will last approximately 35 minutes. Do you have any questions before we begin?
1. What, if any, are the financial implications that the COVID-19 pandemic has had on
K–12 districts and how have district leaders addressed these implications?
a. What have been the biggest financial implications of the pandemic on your
school?
b. In what ways, if any, would more spending flexibility/structure have benefitted
your school?
160
c. In what ways has COVID-19 related funding been used to meet student needs in
your school?
d. To what extent, if any, did financial incentive influence your school’s reopening
plan/timeline?
2. 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?
a. In what ways did your school collaborate with federal, state, and local
government agencies and community organizations to support your school during
COVID?
i. PQ- What agencies or organizations?
b. To what degree, if any, did the various agencies align COVID-19 guidance for
your school?
c. What strategies have been effective for your school in implementing health
guidelines/policies?
d. Who at your school was primarily in charge of interpreting and implementing the
health guidelines/policies?
3. How, if at all, have union negotiations played a role in K–12 district’s response to
the COVID-19 Pandemic?
a. What were the most important issues negotiated with your teachers union and
how were they resolved?
b. What were the most important issues negotiated with your classified union and
how were they resolved?
161
c. In what ways, if any, were instructional programs influenced by union
negotiations at your school?
d. In what ways, if any, were safety protocols influenced by union negotiations at
your school?
4. 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?
a. In what ways did your school gather input from and communicate to the
community?
b. What were the biggest concerns from your school’s community and how were
they addressed?
i. PQ–Were there any safety concerns?
ii. PQ–Were there any nutrition concerns?
iii. PQ–Were there any academic concerns?
iv. PQ–Were there any technology concerns?
v. PQ–Were there any re-opening concerns?
Conclusion
Thank you for your time and willingness to meet with me and for all the valuable
information you provided for this study.
162
Appendix H: Superintendent Letter of Invitation
Date
Dear Superintendent ___________,
My name is Angela Dillman and I am currently completing my doctoral dissertation at
the University of Southern California’s Rossier School of Education under the guidance of Dr.
Rudy Castruita. I am writing to invite you to participate in a 15-minute survey and 35-minute
virtual interview. In addition, I am also requesting your permission to administer a survey and
conduct an interview with an assistant superintendent and principal in your district. Within the
survey is a place for you to recommend an assistant superintendent and a principal from your
district to participate in this research. Collecting data from highly effective leaders such as
yourselves would be greatly appreciated and is essential for the success of this study.
The ultimate purpose of the study is to analyze the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on
K–12 school districts. We aim to understand what district and site administrators have learned
from their experiences and their decision-making responsibilities in managing the crisis.
This research study has been reviewed and approved by the University of Southern
California Institutional Review Board for Human Subjects Research (IRB). The IRB believes
that the research procedures safeguard your privacy, welfare, civil liberties, anonymity, and
rights. Please be assured that your participation and answers will be kept confidential and
anonymous. The results will be analyzed solely for this dissertation and no identifying
information will be used.
163
Please click on this survey link to participate. If you have any questions, please feel free
to contact me at adillman@usc.edu. Thank you very much for your time and assistance.
Sincerely,
Angela Dillman
Doctoral Candidate
Rossier School of Education
University of Southern California
164
Appendix I: Assistant Superintendent Letter of Invitation
Date
Dear Assistant Superintendent ___________,
My name is Angela Dillman and I am currently completing my doctoral dissertation at
the University of Southern California’s Rossier School of Education under the guidance of Dr.
Rudy Castruita. I am writing to invite you to participate in a 15-minute survey and 35-minute
virtual interview. Collecting data from highly effective leaders such as yourself would be greatly
appreciated and is essential for the success of this study.
The ultimate purpose of the study is to analyze the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on
K–12 school districts. We aim to understand what district and site administrators have learned
from their experiences and their decision-making responsibilities in managing the crisis.
This research study has been reviewed and approved by the University of Southern
California Institutional Review Board for Human Subjects Research (IRB). The IRB believes
that the research procedures safeguard your privacy, welfare, civil liberties, anonymity, and
rights. Please be assured that your participation and answers will be kept confidential and
anonymous. The results will be analyzed solely for this dissertation and no identifying
information will be used.
Please click on this survey link to participate. If you have any questions, please feel free
to contact me at adillman@usc.edu. Thank you very much for your time and assistance.
165
Sincerely,
Angela Dillman
Doctoral Candidate
Rossier School of Education
University of Southern California
166
Appendix J: Principal Letter of Invitation
Date
Dear Principal ___________,
My name is Angela Dillman and I am currently completing my doctoral dissertation at
the University of Southern California’s Rossier School of Education under the guidance of Dr.
Rudy Castruita. I am writing to invite you to participate in a 15-minute survey and 35-minute
virtual interview. Collecting data from highly effective leaders such as yourself would be greatly
appreciated and is essential for the success of this study.
The ultimate purpose of the study is to analyze the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on
K–12 school districts. We aim to understand what district and site administrators have learned
from their experiences and their decision-making responsibilities in managing the crisis.
This research study has been reviewed and approved by the University of Southern
California Institutional Review Board for Human Subjects Research (IRB). The IRB believes
that the research procedures safeguard your privacy, welfare, civil liberties, anonymity, and
rights. Please be assured that your participation and answers will be kept confidential and
anonymous. The results will be analyzed solely for this dissertation and no identifying
information will be used.
Please click on this survey link to participate. If you have any questions, please feel free
to contact me at adillman@ausd.net. Thank you very much for your time and assistance.
167
Sincerely,
Angela Dillman
Doctoral Candidate
Rossier School of Education
University of Southern California
Abstract (if available)
Abstract
The COVID-19 pandemic caused a major disruption to K-12 public school districts that shifted the roles of school and district leaders. This study seeks to understand the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on K-12 public school districts in Southern California through the responses of superintendents, assistant superintendents, and principals. The four research questions that guided this study were designed to capture the impact of finances, agencies, unions, and community concerns on research participants and their respective districts during the COVID-19 pandemic. This mixed-methods study utilized both quantitative and qualitative data to answer the four research questions. Thirty-six Southern California K-12 public school leaders responded to surveys that consisted of 26 close ended questions to collect quantitative data. A semi-structured interview protocol consisting of 14 questions was employed to collect qualitative data in one-to-one interviews. Data analysis revealed that the COVID-19 pandemic had extraordinary impacts on all facets of education and that leaders collaborated and leaned into relationships to lead and guide their communities through the pandemic.
Linked assets
University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses
Conceptually similar
PDF
The impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on K–12 public school districts in southern California: responses of superintendents, assistant superintendents, and principals
PDF
The impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on K–12 public school districts in southern California: responses of superintendents, assistant superintendents, and principals
PDF
The impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on K-12 public school districts in southern California: responses of superintendents, assistant superintendents, and principals
PDF
The impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on K-12 public school districts in southern California: responses of superintendents, assistant superintendents, and principals
PDF
The impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on K–12 public school districts in southern California: responses of superintendents, assistant superintendents, and principals
PDF
The impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on K–12 public school districts in southern California: responses of superintendents, assistant superintendents, and principals
PDF
The impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on K–12 public school districts in southern California: responses of superintendents, assistant superintendents, and principals
PDF
The impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on K–12 public school districts in southern California: responses of superintendents, assistant superintendents, and principals
PDF
The impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on K-12 public school districts in southern California: responses of superintendents, assistant superintendents, and principals
PDF
The impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on K–12 public school districts in southern California: responses of superintendents, assistant superintendents, and principals
PDF
Analyzing the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic On K-12 southern California public school districts and understanding what district and site administrators…
PDF
The impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on K-12 public school districts in southern California: responses of superintendents, assistant superintendents, and principals
PDF
The impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on K-12 public school districts in southern California: responses of superintendents, assistant superintendents, and principals
PDF
The impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on K-12 public school districts in southern California: responses of superintendents, assistant superintendents and principals
PDF
The impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on K-12 public school districts in southern California: responses of superintendents, assistant superintendents, and principals
PDF
The impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on K–12 public school districts in southern California: responses of superintendents, assistant superintendents, and principals
PDF
The impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on K–12 public school districts in southern California: responses of superintendents, assistant superintendents, and principals
PDF
The impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on K-12 public school districts in southern California: responses of superintendents, assistant superintendents, and principals
PDF
The impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on K–12 public school districts in southern California: responses of superintendents, assistant superintendents, and principals
PDF
The impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on K–12 public school districts in southern California: responses of superintendents, assistant superintendents, and principals
Asset Metadata
Creator
Dillman, Angela
(author)
Core Title
The impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on K–12 public school districts in southern California: responses of superintendents, assistant superintendents, and principals
School
Rossier School of Education
Degree
Doctor of Education
Degree Program
Educational Leadership
Degree Conferral Date
2022-05
Publication Date
05/02/2022
Defense Date
03/16/2022
Publisher
University of Southern California
(original),
University of Southern California. Libraries
(digital)
Tag
assistant superintendent,COVID-19,crisis management,leadership,OAI-PMH Harvest,pandemic,Principal,Public school,superintendent
Format
application/pdf
(imt)
Language
English
Contributor
Electronically uploaded by the author
(provenance)
Advisor
Castruita, Rudy (
committee chair
), Cash, David (
committee member
), Forsee, Brent (
committee member
)
Creator Email
adillman@usc.edu,angeladillman@gmail.com
Permanent Link (DOI)
https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-oUC111160247
Unique identifier
UC111160247
Document Type
Dissertation
Format
application/pdf (imt)
Rights
Dillman, Angela
Type
texts
Source
20220502-usctheses-batch-936
(batch),
University of Southern California
(contributing entity),
University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses
(collection)
Access Conditions
The author retains rights to his/her dissertation, thesis or other graduate work according to U.S. copyright law. Electronic access is being provided by the USC Libraries in agreement with the author, as the original true and official version of the work, but does not grant the reader permission to use the work if the desired use is covered by copyright. It is the author, as rights holder, who must provide use permission if such use is covered by copyright. The original signature page accompanying the original submission of the work to the USC Libraries is retained by the USC Libraries and a copy of it may be obtained by authorized requesters contacting the repository e-mail address given.
Repository Name
University of Southern California Digital Library
Repository Location
USC Digital Library, University of Southern California, University Park Campus MC 2810, 3434 South Grand Avenue, 2nd Floor, Los Angeles, California 90089-2810, USA
Repository Email
cisadmin@lib.usc.edu
Tags
assistant superintendent
COVID-19
crisis management
pandemic