University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

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

(USC Thesis Other)

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

PDF

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content
The Impact of the COVID-19 Pandemic on K–12 Public School Districts in Southern
California: Responses of Superintendents, Assistant Superintendents, and Principals
by
Christine N. Kim

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 Christine N. Kim 2022
All Rights Reserved

The Committee for Christine N. Kim 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 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.

v

Dedication

To my mom, who always recognized that I could strive for more.

To my friends, Michelle, Deborah, Yoolee, Sussan, Janet, Diana, Fiona, Sidney, and Mac. Thank
you for your words of encouragement and motivation.

To my church family, thank you for your constant prayers.

vi

Acknowledgement

This dissertation would not have been possible without the following people supporting
me throughout this educational journey.
I would like to extend my sincerest thanks to my dissertation chair Dr. Rudy Castruita
and committee members, Dr. David Cash and Dr. Brent Forsee for providing their time and
commitment to my doctoral journey. I am grateful for your insight and guidance, and for
providing me with the necessary support to get to where I need to be. I also want to acknowledge
all the individuals at the University of Southern California that were a part of my learning
journey the last several years. You have made an impact on me, for which I am truly thankful
for.
Additionally, I would like to acknowledge several instructional leaders who have guided
me throughout this doctoral program: Maggie Mabery, Dr. Kathy Estevez, and Gladys Diaz. The
ways in which you demonstrate your instructional leadership is something I admire and respect,
and will take with me in my own leadership journey. The time you took to guide and nurture me
in my goals and aspirations is something I will always be grateful for.
Lastly, I would like to thank all the members of my cohort who have contributed to
making the last three years a rich and insightful learning experience for all. I want to express a
special heartfelt thanks to Angela Dillman, Jorge Munoz, and Michelle Pierce. I am forever
thankful that our paths have crossed. The opportunity to work together was truly a gift for which
I will always remember, and I will cherish the friendships born from this dissertation journey.

vii

Table of Contents
Abstract ........................................................................................................................................... iv
Dedication ........................................................................................................................................ v
Acknowledgements ........................................................................................................................ vi
List of Tables ................................................................................................................................ xii
List of Figures .............................................................................................................................. xiii
Preface .......................................................................................................................................... xiv
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 .................................................................................................... 9
Chapter Two: Review of the Literature ......................................................................................... 10
Leadership During a Crisis ................................................................................................ 11
Definition of Crisis ................................................................................................ 11
Responses to Past Crises ....................................................................................... 11
Skills of a Crisis Leader .................................................................................................... 15
Leaders’ Responses to COVID-19 and Impact of School Closures .................................. 16
Preparation and Training of Organizations and Schools ....................................... 17
Nutrition ................................................................................................................ 19

viii

Communication ..................................................................................................... 20
Unions .................................................................................................................... 21
Governmental Supports ......................................................................................... 22
College Admissions and Testing ........................................................................... 24
Marginalized Groups ............................................................................................. 26
Social Emotional Health ........................................................................................ 28
Conclusion ......................................................................................................................... 29
Chapter Three: Methodology ........................................................................................................ 30
Overview of the Study ....................................................................................................... 30
Purpose of the Study .......................................................................................................... 30
Research Team .................................................................................................................. 31
Sample and Population ...................................................................................................... 31
Research Design ................................................................................................................ 35
Methodology ...................................................................................................................... 35
Instrumentation and Conceptual Framework .................................................................... 37
Quantitative Instrument ......................................................................................... 37
Qualitative Instrument ........................................................................................... 38
Conceptual Framework ......................................................................................... 38
Data Analysis ..................................................................................................................... 40
Ethical Considerations ....................................................................................................... 41
Summary ............................................................................................................................ 41
Chapter Four: Findings .................................................................................................................. 42
Participants ........................................................................................................................ 44

ix

Demographic Data ............................................................................................................. 45
Research Question 1 Findings ........................................................................................... 50
Funding Uncertainty .............................................................................................. 53
Flexibility and Accountability ............................................................................... 56
Safely Meeting the Needs of Students ................................................................... 59
Seizing Opportunities ............................................................................................ 60
Research Question 2 Findings ........................................................................................... 63
Collaboration ......................................................................................................... 66
Alignment .............................................................................................................. 71
Research Question 3 Findings ........................................................................................... 74
Safety ..................................................................................................................... 78
Online Instruction .................................................................................................. 81
Compensation ........................................................................................................ 84
Redefining Roles and Responsibilities .................................................................. 86
Research Question 4 Findings ........................................................................................... 89
Safety ..................................................................................................................... 92
Mental Well-Being ................................................................................................ 94
Learning ................................................................................................................. 97
Communication ..................................................................................................... 99
Home School Relationship .................................................................................. 100
Summary .......................................................................................................................... 102
Safety ................................................................................................................... 103
Collaboration ....................................................................................................... 103

x

Communication ................................................................................................... 104
Unions and Negotiations ..................................................................................... 105
Chapter Five: Discussion ............................................................................................................. 107
Statement of the Problem ................................................................................................ 107
Purpose of the Study ........................................................................................................ 108
Participants ...................................................................................................................... 108
Key Findings ................................................................................................................... 108
Findings for Research Question 1 ....................................................................... 108
Findings for Research Question 2 ....................................................................... 110
Findings for Research Question 3 ....................................................................... 111
Findings for Research Question 4 ....................................................................... 113
Implications for Practice .................................................................................................. 115
Recommendations for Future Study ................................................................................ 117
Recommendation 1 .............................................................................................. 118
Recommendation 2 .............................................................................................. 118
Conclusion ....................................................................................................................... 119
References ................................................................................................................................... 120
Appendices .................................................................................................................................. 142
Appendix A: Superintendent Survey ............................................................................. 142
Appendix B: Assistant Superintendent Survey ............................................................. 146
Appendix C: Principal Survey ...................................................................................... 150
Appendix D: Alignment of Survey Questions With Research Questions and
Conceptual Framework ........................................................................... 154

xi

Appendix E: Superintendent Interview Protocol .......................................................... 155
Appendix F: Assistant Superintendent Interview Protocol .......................................... 157
Appendix G: Principal Interview Protocol .................................................................... 159
Appendix H: Superintendent Letter of Invitation ......................................................... 162
Appendix I: Assistant Superintendent Letter of Invitation .......................................... 163
Appendix J: Principal Letter of Invitation ................................................................... 164

xii

List of Tables
Table 1: Participant Selection Criteria ....................................................................................... 32
Table 2: Demographic Information: School District Participants ............................................. 46
Table 3: Quantitative Survey: Superintendent Demographic Information ................................ 47
Table 4: Quantitative Survey: Assistant Superintendent Demographic Information ................ 48
Table 5: Quantitative Survey: Principal Demographic Information .......................................... 49
Table 6: Quantitative Survey: District and Site Leaders’ Perceptions of Financial
Implications of COVID-19 .......................................................................................... 51
Table 7: Quantitative Survey: District and Site Leaders’ Perceptions of the Impact of
Health and Safety Guidelines ...................................................................................... 65
Table 8: Quantitative Survey: District and Site Leaders’ Perceptions of the Impact of
Union Negotiation ....................................................................................................... 76
Table 9: Quantitative Survey: District and Site Leaders’ Perceptions of Parent
Concerns ...................................................................................................................... 91

xiii

List of Figures
Figure 1: Sequential Explanatory Design ................................................................................... 36
Figure 2: Kindergarten Through 12
th
Grade (K–12) School and District Leadership as
Crisis Management ...................................................................................................... 39

xiv

Preface

Some of the chapters of this dissertation were co-authored. While jointly authored dissertations
are not the norm of most doctoral programs, a collaborative effort is reflective of real-world
practices. To meet their objective of developing highly skilled practitioners equipped to take on
real-world challenges, the USC Graduate School and the USC Rossier School of Education have
permitted our inquiry team to carry out this shared venture.

This dissertation is part of a collaborative project between 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 thirty-six 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 more typically face which tend to be either immediate, like an
active shooter or persistent like underachievement (Gainey, 2009). The pandemic prompted
schools to close on very short notice under “hold harmless” guidelines from state agencies
overseeing education with the exception of school closures lasting several weeks (Fensterwald,
2021b). However, the school closures, whether full or partial, caused by COVID-19 have
continued to impact school districts for over a year. As the pandemic lasted, the issues facing
school leaders and their school communities became more complex (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], 2005). In 2009, the Swine Flu (another H1N1 virus similar to the Spanish Flu of 1918)
broke out worldwide, lasted just under 8 months, and caused an estimated 284,000 deaths
(Braunack-Mayer, 2013; Stern 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
up to fifteen weeks (Stern et al., 2009). What is different about the COVID-19 pandemic as it

2
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, Christensen, & Shurz,
2020; Malkus, Christensen, & West, 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 brings
to light the impact of the pandemic on students, families, leaders, schools, and districts. Most
importantly, this study examines how district and school leadership influences administrative

3
practices, student achievement, financial responsibility, union leadership, and community/parent
support as they responded to the COVID-19 crisis.
The following research questions will help 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, if any, have been the impact of federal, state and local health agencies on K–12
public school districts in Southern California, and what strategies have district
superintendents, assistant superintendents, and principals followed to address the
suggested guidelines?
3. How, if at all, have union negotiations played a role in K–12 Southern California
public school districts’ response to the COVID-19 pandemic?
4. How, if at all, have K–12 Southern California public school districts leadership teams
comprised of superintendents, assistant superintendents, and 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 shifted the roles and scope of schools
and school leaders, beyond instructional leaders by transforming them into “crisis managers.”

4
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 include: the ongoing disruptions caused by the
COVID-19 pandemic on public education; the participants are only from Southern California
public schools; self-reporting surveys are included; interview questions may contain researcher
bias; interviews conducted virtually; and the sample may not accurately represent all schools
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 provides $2 billion as an incentive for schools that
have not already done so to offer in-person instruction beginning April 1, 2021 starting with the
earliest grades. The legislation also allocates $4.6 billion for all school districts regardless of
whether they meet the timetable Gov. Gavin Newsom called for in his “Safe Schools for All”
plan (Jones & Freedburg, 2021).
Asynchronous learning: Asynchronous learning occurs without direct, simultaneous
interaction of participants such as videos featuring direct instruction of new content students
watch on their own time (California Department of Education [CDE], 2020b).
California Department of Education: 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, 2020b).
California Department of Public Health (CDPH): A public agency that focuses on
infectious disease control and prevention, food safety, environmental health, laboratory services,
patient safety, emergency preparedness, chronic disease prevention and health promotion, family
health, health equity and vital records and statistics (CDPH, 2021).
California School Employees Association (CSEA): The largest classified school
employees union in the United States, representing more than 250,000 school support staff

6
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, 2021a).
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, 2021a).
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention: Nation’s health agency that conducts
critical science, provides health information to the public, and responds to health crises (CDC,
2021b).
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.
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

7
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, 2020b).
Elementary and Secondary School Emergency Relief (ESSER): ESSER, established in
the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security (CARES) Act, and further funded under the
Coronavirus Response and Relief Supplemental Appropriations (CRRSA) Act and the American
Rescue Plan (ARP) Act, 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, 2021b).
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).
Hybrid (blended) learning: Combination of in-person and distance learning (CDE,
2020b).
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).

8
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,
para. 4).
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, 2020b).
Stakeholders: Refers to anyone who is invested in the welfare and success of a school and
its students, including administrators, teachers, staff members, students, parents, families,
community members, local business leaders, and elected officials such as school board members,
city councilors, and state representatives. Stakeholders may also be collective entities, such as
local businesses, organizations, advocacy groups, committees, media outlets, and cultural
institutions, in addition to organizations that represent specific groups, such as teachers unions,

9
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, 2021).
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, 2020b).
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, 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 a plan for data collections
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 on the study findings, implications, and considerations for future research on school
leadership in times of crises.

10
Chapter Two: Review of the Literature
According to the CDC (2012), a pandemic “refers to an epidemic that has spread over
several countries or continents, usually affecting a large number of people” (para. 3). As
concerning as this may sound, pandemics are not a novelty in our present world. The Spanish Flu
(1918 pandemic) took the lives of an estimated 50 million people worldwide, while infecting 500
million people, which roughly accounted for one-third of the world’s population (CDC, 2019a).
The 2002 to 2004 Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome (SARS) epidemic infected over 8000
people across 29 countries, killing 774 worldwide (CDC, 2013). Most recently, the H1N1
influenza virus, or also known as the 2009 Swine Flu pandemic contributed to 151,700 to
575,400 estimated deaths (CDC, 2019b).
As of February 25, 2022, the COVID-19 pandemic on a global scale had 430,257,564
confirmed cases with 5,922,049 million deaths (World Health Organization, 2022). In the United
States alone, as of February 25, 2022, there were 78,050,838 confirmed cases while reaching
935,093 deaths (World Health Organization, 2022). This pandemic has reached many parts of the
world and have contributed to disruptions and shifts in the education sector around the world.
This literature review will begin with exploring what leadership looks like in times of
crisis with examples of leaders managing past crisis. To better understand leadership, the
literature will also examine what skills crisis leaders have. Finally, topics related to the COVID-
19 pandemic will be explored: preparation and training of organizations and schools, nutrition,
communication, unions, governmental interventions such as financial support and agencies,
college admissions and testing, marginalized groups, and social emotional health.

11
Leadership During a Crisis
Definition of Crisis
Pearson and Clair (1998) define crisis 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). No
amount of plans can truly prepare leaders to deal with crises, but leaders need to be able to
respond and manage situations well so that there is less negative impact and can have a better
outcome (Bishop et al., 2015).
Responses to Past Crises
In response to a crisis, district and school leaders are responsible for the planning,
response, and implementation of plans in order to minimize the impact that crises has on areas
such as learning and mental health (Center for Mental Health in Schools at UCLA, 2016).
However, the challenges brought upon by the current COVID-19 pandemic have raised the level
of what is expected of school leaders. The required leadership characteristics and skills of school
leaders during a crisis is vastly different from what is expected during a typical school year
(Smith & Riley, 2012).
Camp Fire
In recent years, leaders dealt with natural disasters and their effects on education. On
November 8, 2018, a deadly fire known as the Camp Fire, started in Butte County, in Northern
California. This devastating crisis affected at least 3,800 students who lost their homes, while the
Paradise Unified School District sustained many structural damages, with multiple schools
destroyed (Washburn & Lambert, 2018). Lives were lost in the immediate vicinity of the fire but
the effects of the fire impacted local communities as well. Smoke from the fire forced 180 K–12

12
school districts to close, including higher education, affecting well over 1.1 million students
(Washburn & Lambert, 2018). California previously faced similar issues of relocating displaced
students after natural disasters. However, the scope of this fire was uncharted territory for Butte
County officials, as this fire was much larger and deadlier as it tore through an entire town, in a
county with limited resources.
According to Northouse (2019), every situation requires a different kind of leadership
and response, so leaders must adapt their own leadership style in order to meet the needs of that
particular crisis. In this particular crisis, students and district employees faced issues of housing,
schooling, and trauma. Through collaborative efforts, Superintendent Michelle John utilized
resources and relationships within her local, state, and national community to help meet some of
those basic needs. For example, displaced students either enrolled at neighboring Chico Unified
School District, attended schools that merged into one, or had instructional support temporarily
taking place at a hardware store, churches, and a shopping mall (Hanson, 2019; Tears, Hugs,
Anxiety, 2018). Counselors came from different parts of the country to help address the social
emotional needs of students (Tears, Hugs, Anxiety, 2018) and California Governor Newsom
assisted with cutting through red tape to help grant permission for a football field to be cleared of
debris, which the district encountered difficulties with FEMA. Additional collaborative efforts
led to the creation of a relief fund, using a federal grant program for the purchase of technology
devices for instruction, arranging mental health and counseling support for staff and students,
and ensuring that students would have the necessary access to school and food under the
McKinney-Vento Homeless Assistance Act (Washburn & Lambert, 2018). Her continued use of
relationships with various agencies led to partnerships with the Federal Aviation Administration
to use empty facilities near an airport and working with then-California Governor Jerry Brown in

13
waiving various school requirements. The coordinated responses with multiple agencies and
partnerships were necessary in order to respond to the new realities students faced brought upon
by the large-scale impact of wildfires on school closures.
In the case of Superintendent Michelle John, her comment to reporters indicated priorities
as a leader going forward:
I believe that the schools are the cornerstone. You are not going to have a town if you
don’t have families. And you are not going to have families if you don’t have good
schools. If you asked me, I think it’s everything. (Rainey, 2019, para. 5)
Towns, families, and schools were inextricably linked; as such, Superintendent John’s
response to the fire addressed those immediate needs. School and instruction were critical, but
she was acutely aware that without addressing the needs of families, the education component
would not be successful (Serrato, 2019).
Columbine High School Shooting
Other types of crises push leaders to address the idea of their “defined” roles. On April
20, 1999, a school shooting occurred at Columbine High School in Littleton, Colorado. Two
teenagers opened fire, resulting in 15 deaths (including the two teenagers), and injuring more
than 21 people (Columbine, 2021). Fein and Isaacson (2009) explored the experiences of school
leaders at seven sites where they confronted the aftermath of school shootings. They examined
the leaders’ responses, and found that leaders shaped and defined the role of a leader according
to their own definitions and perceptions (Fein & Isaacson, 2009). Researchers also found that
crises also spurred changes to their job descriptions as a leader, but leaders also experienced a
shift in their realizations that situations such as a school shooting could be possible at school
sites.

14
In the wake of the school shootings, leaders had a high responsibility of tapping into the
emotional aspects of leadership. Leaders used their own definitions of leadership to help guide
them through crises, and this “compass” helped leaders to use “self-talk” to reorient and remind
themselves of their highest priorities. In addition, leaders became aware of the possibilities of
school violence occurring at school sites, and thus pushed leaders to focus on proactive measures
(Fein & Isaacson, 2009). Instruction was not the only top priority but rather, leaders defined their
roles as needing to be more proactive and to frequently reassess which priorities should take
precedence over others.
A 2019 qualitative study (DeMatthews & Brown, 2018) examined how urban school
leaders can proactively respond to community violence. Through interviews with principals,
findings suggested that the following leader responses were important and effective practices:
community asset mapping, furthering partnerships with school resources and community
organizations involving mental health care, reframing the role of principals as community
leaders, rely on pre-established plans and routines, and be emotionally responsive and available
to all stakeholders.
To be effective in crisis situations, leaders respond uniquely to a given situation which
requires them to go beyond the scope of their own leadership responsibilities. A study in 2008,
examined the shifting roles and priorities of superintendents. Gouwens and Lander (2008) found
that leaders assumed a moral authority role and in addition to leading their school districts, they
also exercised their leadership responsibilities to their surrounding communities. Priorities
shifted from academics to the welfare of the students, families, and staff members they served. In
addition, superintendents did not operate in silos but rather leaned on each other and other
districts, which assisted in the decision-making processes. Overall, superintendents acted in a

15
decisive manner, while creatively tackling problems all throughout, not losing their role as
“healers.” They have had to act and lead in ways they never had to before, but crises have forced
their hand at reexamining the role of what it means to be a leader.
Skills of a Crisis Leader
Leaders possess key attributes to respond effectively to crises, not only to minimize harm
to the school organization, but also to deal with the immediate ramifications of crises (Smith &
Riley, 2012). The different crises showed leaders demonstrating strong leadership by making
decisive decisions, and their flexibility and creativity in their thinking and decision-making
processes. These challenges showed what was needed from a leader responding effectively to a
crisis: showing optimism and tenacity in their support to resolve conflict, maintain emotional
intelligence, and connect with their school community through strong communication and media
skills (Smith & Riley, 2012).
A crisis can be unexpected and unpredictable (Harwati, 2013). Crises require leaders to
not lose their focus among the chaotic scenes surrounding them. Leaders need to focus their
efforts on areas that can be controlled and rely on the information collected while using their
instincts and experiences (Bishop et al., 2015). Their leadership efforts must also be shared as
well. Shared or distributed leadership (Northouse, 2019) is when influence and leadership is
shared. This leadership model has been necessary in response to the challenges that the pandemic
has caused and school leaders have had to “connect, share, learn, and network” with other
leaders in order to solve problems (A. Harris & Jones, 2020).
In the context of COVID-19 and the constant changes and shifts in protocols and policies,
leaders worked to ensure consistent systems and coherence to ensure the smooth running of an
organization. Leaders relied on different frames of leadership (Bolman & Deal, 2017) when

16
building and using networks within their organization and outside communities to address the
many facets of this unique educational disruption. As routines from the initial responses became
more familiar, leaders sought to address the instructional needs of their staff and students by
creating specific professional learning opportunities for teachers in instruction, technology, and
mental health and trauma, thereby expanding teacher capacity (McLeod & Dulsky, 2021). Now
with instruction as their next priority, leaders worked to build consistent structures and best
digital instructional practices.
The fluidity of distance learning continued well into the fall and winter of 2020 as leaders
worked to transition into new instructional models (Varela & Fedynich, 2020), increase effective
teaching strategies and engagement in a digital environment (Metscher et al., 2021), while
incorporating social emotional learning into the learning environment (Katzman & Stanton,
2020). The speed at which changes occurred, required leaders to be engaged in a constant crisis
and change management (D. N. Harris, 2020). This essential leadership skill has pushed leaders
to continuously shift their practices and respond appropriately to the demands of their present
contexts (Australian Institute for Teaching and School Leadership, 2020).
While crises can look different, successful leaders who can manage, lead, and respond,
all share similar attributes such as making decisive decisions, being flexible and creative,
creating consistent structures, using the network of leaders, and responding quickly to situations
in a variety of roles.
Leaders’ Responses to COVID-19 and Impact of School Closures
The COVID-19 pandemic has brought about frequent changes to school procedures, and
leaders responded accordingly through phases during the early months of the COVID-19
pandemic (McLeod & Dulsky, 2021). At the start of the school closures, Phase 1 saw leaders

17
responding to meet the basic needs of students and their local communities, and in Phase 2,
eventually shifting their priorities to training teachers in effective technologies and pedagogies in
a remote instructional environment. Leaders delved deeper into more robust and deeper learning
opportunities for students in Phase 3, while in the last phase, leaders looked at future
opportunities to ensure a better response and preparedness for the possibilities of future school
disruptions.
Preparation and Training of Organizations and Schools
The school closures and shifts in the structures of student learning forced leaders to
prepare, train, and implement all staff, students, and the community in dealing with various
aspects of school. Diliberti et al. (2020) indicated that some school districts and schools were
better prepared and positioned to transition well if they had several preparedness indicators such
as having the appropriate devices available to students, having drafted plans for long term school
closures, and having to learn a learning management system (LMS). For schools that had little of
these indicators, organizations found themselves quickly mobilizing efforts to ensure access to
technology, deploy needs assessments to survey technology and internet needs (Diliberti et al.,
2020; Malkus, Christensen, & Shurz, 2020), and prioritize fiscal resources in order to provide
students with the necessary technology resources (such as devices and internet) for distance
learning (Malkus, Christensen, & Shurz, 2020). School districts responded to the changing
learning models from March 2020 and the fall of 2020, and quickly developed asynchronous
plans to send home with the students, while some districts employed the use of instructional
televised materials (Los Angeles Unified School District, 2020a). In addition, depending on how
quickly districts were able to deploy technology resources, some districts had resources like
Zoom and Google Meet to meet with students and provide synchronous instruction while other

18
districts struggled to meet the technological needs during the initial transition into distance
learning (Toner, 2020).
A new learning model in the midst of an evolving health crisis, required school leaders to
provide training for teachers in continuing instruction through digital platforms (Toner, 2020).
To address the immediate need of the “how,” school districts curated and provided instructional
training from their in-house trainers and some even hired outside consultants; however, a large
portion of those trainings were geared towards using educational platforms like Zoom and
Google Classroom (Lambert & Rosales, 2020). At the start of school closures in March 2020,
many educators sought out tips and ideas from various internet sources, utilized social media,
and watched videos from websites such as YouTube (Lambert & Rosales, 2020). Some districts
offered outside training for their staff while other training might have come from nonprofit
organizations, associations, or publications that supported the needs of administrators and
teachers (Castelo, 2020; Schwartz, 2020). The selection and availability of training was limited
at the start of the pandemic as educators quickly pivoted to remote teaching and leaders
responding to technological and instructional training challenges. In the COVID-19 survey from
the American Educator Panels Spring 2020, teachers and principals gave their perspectives on
the extraordinary circumstances to the start of the changes in their teaching and student learning.
The study found that teachers had some training made available to them but that there were gaps
in those training and in particular, teachers indicated a lack of training on how to support the
more vulnerable populations such as students with disabilities or homeless students (Hamilton et
al., 2020). Eventually, the “what” would come next as leaders prepared to train teachers in
effective pedagogical practices in a distance learning world. In addition to basic digital training,
leaders needed to ensure that their school staff members (in particular, those that needed to be on

19
campus) were trained on protocols to keep everyone safe. Guidance was received from the
federal, state, and local levels with regards to various protocols for decision-making at the
district and school sites (CDE, 2021b; CDC, 2022; County of Los Angeles Public Health, 2020).
The fall of 2020 saw a shift from fully in-person instruction to a blended usage of
synchronous and asynchronous work. Some districts were able to begin a hybrid model whereas
some other districts still remained in distance learning. Based on Senate Bill 98 (2020), school
districts now had guidelines to follow as to how much instructional minutes students needed. In
addition, the start of the school year required a shift in thinking about what the safe working
conditions meant. (EdSource, 2020). Frequent shifts in rules and guidelines as a response to the
COVID-19 pandemic, has made the leaders’ preparation and training for COVID-19 pandemic
more complex than ever.
Nutrition
Schools are a central hub to provide physical, mental, and emotional social welfare
services to students, with daily nutrition being one of those services (Fay et al., 2020). At the
start of the pandemic, leaders quickly addressed the need for student access to meals (Kinsey et
al., 2020). Some districts like Los Angeles Unified School District provided nutritional support
to their families, in addition to supporting the nutritional needs of only their students (Los
Angeles Unified School District, 2020b). The unprecedented school closures required leaders to
develop innovative methods in meal distribution in order to serve all nutritional needs of students
(Kinsey et al., 2020). A broad variety of delivery methods and schedules were developed,
ranging from daily to multi-day “grab-and-go” models to who the meals were available for, and
locations of food pickup (Kinsey et al., 2020). Households of color, in particular Black and

20
Latino families were deeply impacted by the COVID-19 pandemic in regards to their health and
employment and thus, were more likely to be in need of meal service (Kinsey et al., 2020).
Not only was student welfare a top priority, nutrition department leaders also needed to
address and maintain a safe working environment for employees. Training for employees
working in nutrition departments came from a variety of sources such as federal government
entities providing guidance on maintaining a safe environment (CDC, 2021a; Food and Nutrition
Services, n.d.; Knapp, 2020). In light of changing meal service practices, the U.S. Department of
Agriculture (2021) also provided guidance on safe meal pickup practices. Much of the training,
guidelines, and policies stemmed from a combination of federal, state, and local health entities.
Communication
During times of crises, keeping stakeholders informed of frequent changes to the school
structures, events, and policies at all levels was a critical component in staying connected to the
various community groups during times of uncertainty and anxiety (Heide & Simonsson, 2014;
McLeod & Dulsky, 2021). To maintain effective communication, crisis leaders share frequent,
up-to-date information while maintaining communication that is clear and simple, and utilizing
the appropriate communication tools to do so (Australian Institute for Teaching and School
Leadership, 2020). The focus on communication has prompted leaders to expand their current
use of their communication mediums such as social media and postings on websites. They
leveraged new communication mediums such as utilizing YouTube more frequently and holding
virtual meetings (Canlé, 2020; Herrmann, 2020). This expansion of communication methods
helped leaders to respond to the real-time needs of students, thereby creating an effective
communication response system over time.

21
Unions
Employees in public school districts are typically organized into three bargaining units:
administration, certificated, and classified. District administration is responsible for the
negotiations of collective bargaining agreements (CBAs) while the certificated and classified
employees are represented by their respective unions (Association of California School
Administrators, 2021; CSEA, 2021a; California Teachers Association, 2021).
Certificated unions can be traced back as far as 1857, with groups formed to protect the
interests of teachers and other staff members such as school counselors, psychologists, and
speech therapists (Mader, 2012; McCollow, 2017; Mertz, 2014). CSEA was formed in 1927 to
serve the interests of school janitors and to establish their retirement benefits. It has now evolved
into an union representing non-certificated school employees which includes paraprofessionals,
food/nutrition, transportation workers, custodial and maintenance, security, health and student
services, and technical and skill trade workers (CSEA, 2021a; Mahnken, 2020). Certificated and
classified unions have become a powerful bargaining group that is influential at the local and
state policy level (Mertz, 2014).
The COVID-19 pandemic forced a quick turnaround on creating agreements with both
unions on what working conditions would look like amidst the school closures such as
compensation, workload, non-teaching duties, evaluation, leave, and technology (Hemphill &
Marianno, 2021). Certificated employees encountered professional changes and challenges in
their roles and responsibilities due to school closures (Zaccoletti et al., 2020). At the start of the
school closures in March of 2020, many classified employees were designated as essential
workers which quickly created a need for return to work agreements (CSEA, 2021b). Unions and

22
districts entered negotiations to create memorandum of understandings (MOUs) to outline
agreements on the changes to their roles and responsibilities during this time (CSEA, 2021b).
Since the start of school closures and the reopening of schools, there have been many
arguments for and against the plans for reopening schools and the agreements for working
conditions but it was evident that school employee unions were an influential factor over how the
return to school procedures and policies and in-person instruction would look like (Blume, 2021;
Mays, 2021; Tapp, 2021).
Governmental Supports
Financial Support
In order to address the unprecedented financial challenges to public school districts
caused by the COVID-19 pandemic, the federal government stepped in in the form of financial
support to the public education sectors. Congress passed and signed into law on March 27, 2020,
the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security (CARES) Act, a $30.75 billion one-time
money distributed to states, to be spent to address the impact of COVID-19 has had and
continues to have on students (California Department of Education, 2020a). From the CARES
Act, Elementary and Secondary School Emergency Relief Fund (ESSER I Fund) and the
Governor’s Emergency Education Relief Fund (GEER I Fund) were the two main streams of
funding. California’s allocation from the ESSER I fund was $1,647,306,127 while the GEER I
Fund was $355,227,235 (California Department of Education, 2020a).
Adding to those funds was another stream of revenue through SB 86 from the State of
California but this was an incentive-based funding of $2 billion dollars tied to the reopening of
schools by April 15, 2021 (Mays, 2021). While the funding through the CARES Act was readily

23
accepted, this incentive-based funding caused disagreements in regards to the timeline of when
schools should reopen (Fensterwald, 2021b).
There have been past instances of federal and state government financial assistance to
support the needs of public school districts dealing with crises. The Camp Fire that started in
Butte County, Northern California, impacted the students and families of Paradise Unified
School District. The federal government stepped in through the form of financial grants to
support the instructional, mental health, and access to school and food for all students impacted
by the fire (Washburn & Lambert, 2018).
Agencies
The unprecedented challenges of the COVID-19 health crisis prompted many federal,
state, and local agencies to lend their support in many ways possible (California All, 2021;
USA.gov, 2022). This pandemic crisis was unique since this was, and continues to be, a long-
lasting crisis, while other crises like natural weather events or school shootings tend to be short-
term (Gainey, 2009). Not only did agencies step in to provide services and support, they also
created many blueprints, guidelines, and protocols to guide the State of California through this
time. In the early stages of the pandemic, the CDPH put forth a guideline called Blueprint for
Safer California, with the plan now referred to as the Beyond the Blueprint (CDPH, 2022), and
this has been used to assist in planning and making decisions. CDPH also created guidance for
K–12 schools with ensuring a safe in-person learning (CDPH, 2021). Local health agencies such
as the County of Los Angeles Public Health (LACDPH) have also issued protocols that schools
must comply with (LACDPH, 2021). In addition, financial support and guidance from
governmental agencies were necessary but were often confusing to navigate (D’Souza &
Marquez Rosales, 2020). Also, guidance that focused on high quality distance learning was

24
created by agencies such as the Los Angeles County Office of Education (Duardo, 2020).
Despite the large number of supports, many schools did not reopen, thus impacting the neediest
student groups for limited in-person learning and engagement opportunities (D’Souza &
Marquez Rosales, 2020).
College Admissions and Testing
The COVID-19 pandemic has also forced leaders in larger education-related
organizations to adapt and maintain flexibility when quickly responding to school closures in
March 2020, and subsequently, during the partial to full reopening, in the fall of 2020 (D. N.
Harris, 2020). In particular, high school students, higher education and non-profit/private
organizations faced shifts in college admissions and testing since March 2020, and high school
students faced a different college admissions process (Moody, 2021) during this time period. To
fully understand the complexities of students facing the current changing policies on college
admissions and testing due to the pandemic crisis, requires an understanding of how standardized
testing has evolved over time and its relationship to college admissions.
In the 1980s to early 2000s, there was an increased tension between institutions that
placed a higher emphasis on standardized test scores versus those that did not (Belasco et al.,
2015; Furuta, 2017). With an increased usage and high emphasis placed on standardized testing,
subjective test scores have stripped students of their student personhood (Furuta, 2017, p. 237),
while overlooking the unique individuality and identities, and dismissing factors such as race and
socioeconomic background. Despite colleges increasingly shifting their mandated standardized
testing requirements (National Center for Fair and Open Testing, 2021), certain constraints
continued to factor into their testing policies. Public universities have the most constraints as
they are held accountable by the public, states, and the lawmakers, versus the private colleges

25
that have larger endowments which allows for more risk taking when adopting test-optional
policies (Furuta, 2017).
Before the pandemic, some colleges and universities had test-optional policies already in
place but the pandemic pushed higher education colleges and universities to temporarily waive
standardized testing requirements, change admissions process, and also accelerate plans for a
test-optional policy (Smalley, 2021). With the sudden closure of schools in March 2020, the SAT
and ACT tests in April and June were canceled and/or rescheduled (ACT, 2020; College Board,
2020) along with canceling the SAT subject and writing tests (Fitzsimmons, 2021). Colleges
responded to this crisis by announcing shifts to their admissions requirements and recently,
leaders in the UC system announced that the public university system will no longer use
standardized test scores in their admissions process (Adams, 2021). Entrenched in these changes
left some wondering: are test optional policies increasing diversity? Is it increasing student debt?
Who is getting left behind (Bevers & Mulholland, 2020)?
How students are affected depends on how the early data is viewed. Those that believed
students were positively affected, referred to the increased number of applications, increased
numbers in early admissions, and aggressive college recruiting efforts (Elsesser, 2020; Jaschik,
2021b; Weissman, 2020). It appeared that elite colleges and Southwest schools benefited from
test-optional policies while the Midwest and Northeast struggled with lower application numbers
and concerns over not meeting target revenue and enrollment goals (Jaschik, 2021a). As students
applied to more colleges due to less restrictive requirements, higher education institutions saw an
increase in applications. Although these numbers indicated that students applied in larger
numbers, it didn’t necessarily translate into higher enrollment (Jaschik, 2021a). In addition,

26
schools appeared as if they were more selective with higher rankings but this was partly due to
students not submitting their low standardized test scores (Elsesser, 2020; Weissman, 2020).
Lastly, the pandemic has changed the depth, level, and style of outreach to prospective
students and in this situation, education leaders needed to shift the ways in which they recruited
students and how to proactively communicate with them (Jaschik, 2021c).
Marginalized Groups
Inequities were already largely present in education but the COVID-19 pandemic
exacerbated the struggles of marginalized groups. Marginalized students such as those from low-
income families, students of color, English language learners, and students with special needs
were largely and disproportionately affected than most (Arundel, 2020a; Arundel, 2020b;
Borman, 2020). The resulting gaps stemming from the COVID-19 pandemic have placed
vulnerable populations experiencing a greater negative impact in regard to health, economy, and
the work-force (Kantamneni, 2020). Not all impacts carried the same consequences and weight;
however, inequalities and gaps continued to grow (Devakumar et al., 2020).
Marginalized students shared some similar factors such as lack of a strong parental and
family support, presence, and knowledge to help support all aspects of learning (Fofaria, 2021;
Herold, 2020; Parent Institute for Quality Education, 2020). Black parents expressed concerns
with accessing resources and assisting their children with their academics (Gaylord-Harden et al.,
2020) while both families of color and English learner families held essential job occupations,
thereby increasing a higher health risk (physical, emotional, and psychological; Gaylord-Harden
et al., 2020; Migration Policy Institute, 2020).
The shift to remote learning exacerbated the digital divide and placed marginalized
students at a further disadvantage. English learners were most likely to reside in homes with little

27
to no devices and internet access, and factors such as a minimal parental assistance, language
barriers, and food insecurities compounded overall challenges (Arundel, 2020a). Students of
low-income families and rural areas were least likely to use the internet after school closures and
the districts that served them, also faced their own challenges as the lack of funding impacted
their ability to support all the digital needs of students (Modan, 2020).
In May of 2020, a survey by AASA (2020) showed that approximately three out of four
school districts found that implementing special education services for students with disabilities
has been the most difficult service to provide during the pandemic. As physical campuses were
not open for students, inclusion opportunities dramatically decreased with less interactions and
collaborations with peers (Parmigiani et al., 2020). Parents also struggled with suddenly
assuming the role of an educator, attempting to deliver and support services as outlined in their
child’s individualized education program (IEP; Arundel, 2020b). Remote learning has proven to
be a challenge for students that require extensive specialized services and have trouble with
accessing services remotely, but there were some students that have also flourished and thrived
in a remote learning environment (Arundel, 2020b) as conflicts that occurred on campus were no
longer factors in a remote learning environment.
Overall, individual schools and district organization’s response to the pandemic was not
even across the board for a myriad of reasons (Cano, 2020). Regardless, the widening
achievement gap of marginalized students continues to be an immediate and pressing concern as
students finish their 2020-2021 school year, and their return back to school in 2021-2022, having
lost a considerable amount of learning while returning with unique mental and social emotional
stressors (Early Edge California, 2020).

28
Social Emotional Health
COVID-19 pandemic produced higher rates of symptoms such as anxiety, depression,
and stress in the general population and students (Son et al., 2020; Xiong et al., 2020). With
school closures occurring worldwide, studies in the United Kingdom have shown that school
closures are not limiting the death rate of the virus in significant rates, but rather, the larger threat
of the COVID-19 pandemic was on the community’s nutrition, health care, and socialization
which contributed to the concerns of students’ health and wellbeing (“Pandemic School
Closures,” 2020).
Mitigation efforts such as school closures were actions designed to keep students safe;
however, it also set in motion the increased need for mental health support as students struggled
during school closures (Jones, 2020). Students faced overwhelming stressors such as the health
of loved ones, lack of interactions with friends, difficulties with academics, and concerns over
parent’s unemployment (Jones, 2020). Despite creative outreach and solutions to support
students, a survey created by the youth committee of the American Civil Liberties Union of
Southern California, found that students in California were not receiving the mental health
services they needed (Youth Liberty Squad, 2020). Mental health specialists, counselors, and
related staff members from a school or local community were reported to be a few of the top
mental health support services that students accessed during school closures (Young Minds,
2020).
Schools act as the hub for resources for students and families to access basic services in
ways such as meals, provide social welfare services, basic child care during the day (Fay et al.,
2020). Schools are one of the primary sources of support for students during the day, but
throughout school closures since March 2020, their family members have become the primary

29
sources of support (Minkos & Gelbar, 2020). The events of the pandemic likely caused
increasing hardships on families; especially those already burdened with stressors such as food
and financial insecurities, housing instability, and social isolation (Organisation for Economic
Co-operation and Development, 2020). With an increase in difficulties, it can lead to mental
health problems but the reactions to COVID-19 can differ per individual student and can appear
differently in social, emotional, and behavioral domains (Chafouleas & Marcy, 2020).
Conclusion
Maintaining order and control in the midst of confusion was the top priority in the early
stages of school closures due to the COVID-19 pandemic, and leaders responded and executed
their duties and responsibilities accordingly (Fein & Isaacson, 2009). Disruption to pre-pandemic
routines precipitated an urgency for leaders to be nimble in their leadership when tackling crisis
situations (Sider, 2020). In addition, leaders recognized the necessary evolution of their roles and
responsibilities as reframing their roles as community leaders and healers (Bishop et al., 2015;
DeMatthews & Brown, 2018). The literature suggests and proves that school leaders who engage
in crises, must adapt accordingly to their specific situation, environment, and relationships with
people and different organizations in and outside their organization. The research provides some
context for how leaders exhibit different leadership skills and the ways in which they navigated
the impact of COVID-19 on public school districts.

30
Chapter Three: Methodology
Overview of the Study
The COVID-19 pandemic created a sustained and ever-evolving crisis for districts,
schools, and leadership within (Malkus, Christensen, & West, 2020a). As the pandemic endured,
the issues facing school leaders and their school communities became more complex
(Harrington, 2021). This mixed-methods study will explore 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 is 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.
This study was guided by the following research questions:
1. What, if any, are the financial implications that the COVID-19 pandemic has had on
K–12 public school districts in Southern California and how have district
superintendents, assistant superintendents and principals addressed these
implications?
2. What, if any, has been the impact of federal, state and local health agencies on K–12
public school districts in Southern California, and what strategies have district
superintendents, assistant superintendents, and principals followed to address the
suggested guidelines?
3. How, if at all, have union negotiations played a role in K–12 Southern California
public school districts’ response to the COVID-19 pandemic?

31
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 twenty-
two 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 &

32
Tisdell, 2016). Participants were identified within geographically convenient counties in
Southern California and who also held key administrative positions in K–12 public school
districts (see Table 1). Maxwell (2013) shows 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 12
th
grade.

33
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 twelfth 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 twelfth
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 twelfth 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 grades kindergarten through twelfth grade (Ed-Data, 2021a).
The district has an average daily attendance of 9,038 (Ed-Data, 2021a). According to Ed-Data

34
(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 twelfth 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 twelfth 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 twelfth 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 twelfth
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 twelfth 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 twelfth grade (Ed-Data, 2021a).

35
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 twelfth
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 twelfth 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 & 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

36
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 (see Figure 1; 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).

Figure 1
Sequential Explanatory Design

Note. Adapted from Research Design: Qualitative, Quantitative, and Mixed Methods
Approaches (p. 209), by J. W. Creswell, 2009, Sage. Copyright 2009 by Sage Publications, Inc..

37
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: twelve
K–12 public school superintendents, twelve K–12 public school assistant superintendents, and
twelve K–12 public school site principals within 3 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
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. The following descriptors were used for each of the
26 survey items: 1 indicated Strongly Disagree, 2 indicated Disagree, 3 indicated Neither Agree
Nor Disagree, 4 indicated Agree, and 5 indicated Strongly Agree. The survey instrument was
web-accessible to all participants and was designed to capture the numeric description of the

38
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 adopted the conceptual framework in Figure 2, 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) four frames of 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

39
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 12 districts in Southern California: 12 K–12 public school district
superintendents, 12 assistant superintendents, and 12 site principals. Participants were informed
of the purpose of the study, and additionally informed of their right to remain anonymous during
all stages of the study. Participants were also presented with a clear “opt-out” at any point of the
survey. (see Appendices H-J)

Figure 2
Kindergarten Through 12
th
Grade (K–12) School and District Leadership as Crisis Management

40
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. 40 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,
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).

41
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 (IRB) 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 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.

42
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 4. 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 – twelve superintendents, twelve assistant superintendents, and twelve
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.

43
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 for responses to all
questions. The following descriptors were used for each of the 26 survey items: 1 indicated
Strongly Disagree, 2 indicated Disagree, 3 indicated Neither Agree Nor Disagree, 4 indicated
Agree, and 5 indicated Strongly Agree. The survey instrument was web-accessible to all
participants and 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?

44
2. What, if any, has been the impact of federal, state and local health agencies on K–12
public school districts in Southern California, and what strategies have district
superintendents, assistant superintendents, and principals followed to address the
suggested guidelines?
3. How, if at all, have union negotiations played a role in K–12 Southern California
public school districts’ response to the COVID-19 pandemic?
4. How, if at all, have K–12 Southern California public school districts leadership teams
comprised of superintendents, assistant superintendents, and principals addressed the
concerns of the parent community regarding safety, nutrition, distance learning, lack
of technology, academic standing, and how and when to re-open schools due to the
COVID-19 pandemic?
Participants
For this study, 36 Southern California K–12 public school district superintendents,
assistant superintendents, and principals across twelve 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.

45
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
116,866 students, with the smallest school district (District F) serving 2,506 students and the
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 twelve 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.

46
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 12
th
grade. Data reflect the
2019–2020 school year (Ed-Data, 2021a).
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.
As displayed in Table 3, three out of the twelve participating superintendents (25%), have
served in their role for just 1 to 2 years. In contrast, one participant (8%) has served in their role
for over ten years. The majority of participating superintendents (66%) have served in their role

47
for 3 to 10 years. Additionally, as can be seen in Table 3, the majority of participating
superintendents (75%) have served in their position in their current, respective districts for three
or more years. All 12 superintendent participants (100%) experienced leading through the
COVID-19 pandemic.

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

48
As shown in Table 4, six of the 12 participating assistant superintendents (50%) have
served in their position for 3 to 5 years. Four of the 12 assistant superintendents (33%) are newer
to the position, having served only 1 to 2 years. In contrast, two of the 12 assistant
superintendents (16%) have served in their position for ten or more years. All participating
assistant superintendents have served in their current position exclusively in their current,
respective districts. All 12 assistant superintendent participants (100%) experienced leading
through the COVID-19 pandemic.

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

49
As indicated in Table 5, three out of the twelve participating principals (25%), have
served in their role for just 1 to 2 years. In contrast, the majority of principals, nine out of the
twelve who participated (75%), have served in their role for 3 to 10 years. Ten of the 12
participating principals (83%) have 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, is new to their current school district, having served less than one year. All principal
participants (100%) experienced leading through the COVID-19 pandemic.

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

50
Research Question 1 Findings
Research Question 1 asked 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 highlights 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-10 pandemic. Furthermore, as Smith and Riley (2012) suggest, 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
through the CARES Act, ESSER, and GEER 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 et al., 2021). The literature further suggests 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, 2021a).
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

51
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 is in the area of
professional learning or training. While superintendent participants agreed, on average, that
CARES Act finding met district needs in the area of professional learning and/or training,
principal participants, on average, disagreed.

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 with possible responses of
1 (strongly disagree), 2 (disagree), 3 (neither agree nor disagree), 4 (agree), and 5 (strongly
agree).

52
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?
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 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.

53
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, trust their instinct
and experience which helps leaders make quick decisions during a time of uncertainty (Bishop et
al., 2015). Boin et al. (2013) discusses leadership intelligence which includes procedural,
intuitive, and creative intelligence as creative leaders go beyond problem solving. 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.
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:

54
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].
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:

55
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
twelve districts who participated in this research study reveal that the lack of information
regarding 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 like… It was 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:

56
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.
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 two
or three 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, 2021a). 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.

57
Superintendent B discussed funding and the accountability structures that are typically
attached when districts receive monies, noting specifically the impact accountability measures
have 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
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.

58
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 l was needed, sharing,
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.

59
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 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
schools to open, but in February of 2021 Governor Newsom signed SB 86 which ties funding to
reopening (Lambert & Fensterwald, 2020). 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.

60
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.
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 1
st

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) argues that every crisis should be viewed as an opportunity for
improvement. After the initial rush to purchase personal protective equipment and upgrade

61
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
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 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

62
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.
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 surveys and the interviews, 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 opportunity to innovate and improve
programs available to students. Additionally, a theme that permeated not just this research

63
question, but the entire study, was student and staff safety being 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, if any, have been the impact of Federal, State and Local
Health agencies 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
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 for small, in-person 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 can 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.

64
Research Question Two was designed to better understand the impact of health and safety
guidelines on school districts’ ability to reopen schools safely. Participants responded to three
survey questions related to health and safety guidelines, as seen in Table 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
extent of multi-agency collaboration and the degree of alignment that either did or did not exist
between agencies.

65
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 with possible responses of
1 (strongly disagree), 2 (disagree), 3 (neither agree nor disagree), 4 (agree), and 5 (strongly
agree).
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?

66
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
superintendent, 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.
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 and create
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

67
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
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

68
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
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.”

69
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 the positions we have taken, to lobbying on behalf of additional funding
and more flexibility with that funding.
Within 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

70
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.
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

71
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 reveals 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) show that successful leaders have 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 communication as 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

72
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.
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

73
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.
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,

74
[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 twelve districts felt frustration with the lack of alignment
among the various agencies issuing guidelines for schools. Participants from all twelve school
districts expressed that this lack of alignment and collaboration put more pressure on districts to
communicate rapidly changing guidelines to their stakeholders.
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

75
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
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.

76
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 with possible responses of
1 (strongly disagree), 2 (disagree), 3 (neither agree nor disagree), 4 (agree), and 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?

77
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, 2020b). 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.

78
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, 2021a). 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:

79
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 Memorandums of Understanding (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:

80
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
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

81
associations…We pretty much agreed to everything knowing that we had one goal, and that was
to reopen our schools and keep them open.”
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

82
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 the critical importance of union negotiations in the
planning of online learning:
[Negotiations were] integral 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:

83
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.
In addition to the negotiation of synchronous and asynchronous times within daily
teaching schedules, the use of learning management systems (LMS) 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.

84
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
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 was 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,

85
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
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 form 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

86
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.
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

87
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.
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.

88
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
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 the shift in employees’ roles and responsibilities,
especially classified workers:
[The shift required] 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

89
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 changing roles and responsibilities that resulted were compensated
accordingly.
Research Question 4 Findings
Research Question 4 asked how, if at all, your district addressed has the concerns of the
parent community regarding safety, nutrition, distance learning, lack of technology, academic
standing, and how and when to open schools due to the COVID-19 Pandemic.
In polls conducted in all fifty 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 actually available, particularly at the beginning of the pandemic. Among parents in all
states, there is a deep concern that their children are 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,

90
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
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.

91
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 with possible responses of
1 (strongly disagree), 2 (disagree), 3 (neither agree nor disagree), 4 (agree), and 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.

92
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,
2021a). 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 do 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:

93
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

94
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, 2021a).
Mental Well-Being
Student well-being is another top concern among parents during the pandemic. This is no
surprise as schools are “the de facto mental health system for many children and adolescents,
providing mental health services to 57 percent of adolescents who need care” (Golberstein et al.,
2020, para 5). 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. 3). There is a link between mental health and academic
achievement. Chronic stress, like what many children are experiencing during the pandemic,
“changes the chemical and physical structure of the brain, impairing cognitive skills like
attention, concentration, memory, and creativity” (Terada, 2020, para. 4). 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, 2021a).

95
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

96
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.
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 literally never…they 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.

97
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, 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:
I mean, I think we were just all concerned academically how students…what we were
going to see when they did come back to our school community. We tried to keep things
as normal as possible…So, each grade level met every six weeks to look at student data,

98
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 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 earning 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 believes recognizes the importance of addressing parent and
educator concerns for students’ social and emotional health:

99
[Social emotional health is] 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 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 (2018) emphasize 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…open 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:

100
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.
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: “OK, 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) identifies essential roles schools play in promoting community resilience including:
social welfare services, human development, child care, employment, and strengthening social
ties. As schools closed in response to the COVID-19 pandemic, superintendents, assistant

101
superintendents, and principals shifted resources to support families in an attempt to provide
these supportive services to parents (Garbe et al., 2020).
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.

102
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
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, 2020b).
Summary
Chapter Four reported the findings from 36 Southern California, K–12 educational
leaders in twelve school districts, including twelve superintendents, twelve assistant
superintendents, and twelve 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 bring 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

103
leadership of participating superintendents, assistant superintendents, and principals across all
twelve districts: safety, collaboration, communication, and unions and negotiations.
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 in respect to roles and
environments. There was a common response of leaders to remaining 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 twelve 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 twelve 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

104
otherwise. Overall, district and school leaders shared common challenges and frustrations with
not being able to provide input into the guidance for schools issued by their local health
agencies.
Findings from the data indicate that collaboration between these entities was primarily a
top-down, one way approach, with district leaders receiving information and implementing it
accordingly without being able to put much input into the protocols and guidelines put forth by
public health agencies. 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 twelve 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

105
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
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 points such as

106
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
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 the impact of
COVID-19 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.

107
Chapter Five: Discussion
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

108
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
Southern California K–12 school districts and understand what district and site administrators
have learned from their experiences and their decision-making responsibilities in managing the
crisis. This study brings to light the impact of the pandemic on students, families, leaders,
schools, and districts. Most importantly, this study examines how district and school leadership
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 is 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 twelve 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?”

109
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 include 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 in
regards to 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
Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security (CARES) Act, furnished states with federal
funds (CDE, 2020b), 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.

110
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 include: incentivized professional learning,
public health outreach, diverse and expanded learning opportunities, sustaining instructional
technology practices, 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.

111
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 researcher better understand the role of labor unions
in shaping districts’ responses to the COVID-19 pandemic. Superintendents, assistant

112
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 union 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

113
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.

114
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 instructions. 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

115
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 brings to light the impact of the
pandemic on students, families, leaders, schools, and districts. Most importantly, this study
examines how district and school leadership influences administrative practices, student
achievement, financial responsibility, union leadership, and community/parent support as they
responded to the COVID-19 crisis. 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 2) utilized for this research study was based on three theoretical frameworks. The three
frameworks assist in developing an understanding of the theories that impact school leadership
and how 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

116
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 which
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

117
possible for future 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 builds 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 to create 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 provides context for the study of school leadership during the
COVID-19 pandemic as traditional roles dramatically during the COVID-19 pandemic.
However, as 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

118
concerns that their children are falling behind and lingering fear about returning to 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
twelve 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 examining 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.

119
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.

120
References
AASA. (2020, May). School leader voices: Concerns and challenges to providing meaningful
IDEA-related services during COVID-19. https://aasa.org/uploadedFiles/
AASA_Blog(1)/Advocacy%20IDEA%20White%20Paper%20FINAL.pdf
ACT. (2020, March 16). ACT reschedules April 2020 national ACT test date to June.
https://leadershipblog.act.org/2020/03/act-reschedules-april-2020-national-
act.html?_ga=2.65633134.113186760.1584460776-440280745.1584460776
Adams, S. (2021, May 17). University of California eliminates the SAT and ACT while
hundreds of colleges stay test-optional. Forbes. https://www.forbes.com/sites/
susanadams/2021/05/17/university-of-california-eliminates-the-sat-and-act-while-
hundreds-of-colleges-stay-test-optional/?sh=4401c768ab93
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
Arundel, K. (2020a, November 2). Rubric for recovery: ELs face more hurdles amid lost in-
person learning. K–12 Dive. https://www.k12dive.com/news/schools-aim-to-get-english-
learners-back-on-track/586692/
Arundel, K. (2020b, November 4). Rubric for recovery: Tightening budgets, litigation add to
pandemic special ed pressures. K–12 Dive. https://www.k12dive.com/news/helping-
students-with-disabilities-access-services/586494/

121
Association of California School Administrators. (2021). About ACSA.
https://www.acsa.org/About-Us
Australian Institute for Teaching and School Leadership. (2020). The role of school leadership in
challenging times. https://www.aitsl.edu.au/research/spotlight/the-role-of-school-
leadership-in-challenging-times
Belasco, A., Rosinger, K., & Hearn, J. (2015). The test-optional movement at America’s
selective liberal arts colleges: A boon for equity or something else? Educational
Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 37(2), 206–223.
https://doi.org/10.3102/0162373714537350
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
Bevers, A., & Mulholland, S. (2020). Test-optional admissions and student debt. Social Science
Research Network. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3640403
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
Blume, H. (2021, April 13). LAUSD’s slow, cautious reopening shows the influence of teachers
union, but it has critics. Los Angeles Times. https://www.latimes.com/california/story/
2021-04-13/la-teachers-union-influences-reopenings-online-school
Boin, A., Overdijk, W., & Kuipers, S. (2013). Leadership in times of crisis: A framework for
assessment. International Review of Public Administration, 18(1), 79–91.
https://doi.org/10.1080/12294659.2013.10805241

122
Bolman, L. G., & Deal, L. G. (2017). Reframing organizations: Artistry, choice and leadership
(6
th
ed.). Jossey-Bass.
Borman, G. (2020). What can be done to address learning losses due to school closures? Center
on Education Policy, Equity and Governance, The Answer Lab. https://theanswerlab.
rossier.usc.edu/wp-content/uploads/2020/06/Answer-Lab-COVID-19-Slide-202006-
Final-1.pdf
Braunack-Mayer, T. (2013). Understanding the school community’s response to school closures
during the H1N1 2009 influenza pandemic. BMC Public Health, 13(1), 1-15.
https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2458-13-344
California All. (2021). California All. https://covid19.ca.gov/
California Department of Education. (2020a). Federal Stimulus Funding.
https://www.cde.ca.gov/fg/cr/
California Department of Education. (2020b). Distance learning instruction planning guidance.
Retrieved August 15, 2021, from https://www.cde.ca.gov/ls/he/hn/guidanceplanning.asp
California Department of Education. (2021a). California Department of Education.
https://www.cde.ca.gov/
California Department of Education. (2021b, September 3). Coronavirus response and school
reopening guidance. https://www.cde.ca.gov/ls/he/hn/coronavirus.asp
California Department of Public Health. (2020). K–12 Guidance 2021-22 School Year.
https://www.cdph.ca.gov/Programs/CID/DCDC/Pages/COVID-19/K–12-Guidance-2021-
22-School-Year.aspx
California Department of Public Health. (2021). About Us. Retrieved August 8, 2021, from
https://www.cdph.ca.gov/Pages/About.aspx

123
California Department of Public Health. (2022). Find All Guidance. https://www.cdph.ca.gov/
Programs/CID/DCDC/Pages/Guidance.aspx
California School Employees Association. (2021a). About us. https://www.csea.com/about-us
California School Employees Association. (2021b). COVID-19 FAQ. https://csea.com/issues-
and-advocacy/covid-19/covid-19-faq
California Teachers Association. (2021). About us. https://www.cta.org/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
Cano, R. (2020, April 10). California schools’ response to pandemic varies widely. Cal Matters.
https://calmatters.org/education/2020/04/california-schools-parents-coronavirus-remote-
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: Focus on K–12. https://edtechmagazine.com/k12/article/2020/04/how-prepare-
and-support-educators-teaching-home
Center for Mental Health in Schools at UCLA. (2016). Responding to crisis at a school.
http://smhp.psych.ucla.edu/pdfdocs/crisis/crisis.pdf
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. (2005) Severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS).
https://www.cdc.gov/sars/about/faq.html

124
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. (2012). Lesson 1: Introduction to epidemiology,
Section 11: Epidemic disease occurrence. https://www.cdc.gov/csels/dsepd/
ss1978/lesson1/section11.html
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. (2013). CDC SARS response timeline.
https://www.cdc.gov/about/history/sars/timeline.htm
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. (2019a, March 20). 1918 pandemic (H1N1 virus).
https://www.cdc.gov/flu/pandemic-resources/1918-pandemic-h1n1.html
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. (2019b, June 11). 2009 H1N1 pandemic
(H1N1pdm09 virus). https://www.cdc.gov/flu/pandemic-resources/2009-h1n1-
pandemic.html
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. (2021a). Cleaning and disinfecting your facility.
Retrieved September 10, 2021, from https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-
ncov/community/disinfecting-building-facility.html
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. (2021b). Mission, role and pledge. Retrieved
August 15, 2021, from https://www.cdc.gov/about/organization/mission.htm
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. (2022). Guidance for COVID-19 Prevention in K–
12 Schools. Retrieved January 20, 2022, from https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-
ncov/community/schools-childcare/K–12-guidance.html
Chafouleas, S. M., & Marcy, H. M. (2020). Responding to COVID-19: Planning for trauma-
informed assessment in schools. Collaboratory on School & Child Health.
https://csch.uconn.edu/wp-content/uploads/ sites/2206/2020/06/CSCH-Report-
Responding-to-COVID-19-Planning-for-Trauma-Informed-Assessment-in-Schools-Final-
June-2020.pdf

125
College Board. (2020, May 16). College board cancels May SAT in response to the coronavirus.
https://newsroom.collegeboard.org/college-board-cancels-may-sat-response-coronavirus
Columbine high school shooting fast facts. Retrieved May 3, 2021 from https://www.cnn.com/
2013/09/18/us/columbine-high-school-shootings-fast-facts/index.html
County of Los Angeles Public Health. (2021). TK–12 Schools COVID-19 Toolkit.
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.
DeMatthews, D., & Brown, C. H. (2018). 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
Devakumar, D., Bhopal, S. S., & Shannon, G. (2020). COVID-19: The great unequalizer.
Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine, 113(6), 234–235.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0141076820925434
Diliberti, M., Schwartz, 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

126
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
Duardo, D. (2020, June 8). Educators must address the trauma students have endured these past
weeks. EdSource. https://edsource.org/2020/educators-must-address-the-trauma-students-
have-endured-these-past-weeks/633137
Early Edge California. (2020). A vision for California’s schools this fall: Equity for dual
language and English learners in an unprecedented moment.
https://earlyedgecalifornia.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/07/A-Vision-for-Californias-
Schools-this-Fall.pdf
Ed-Data. (2021a). Fiscal, demographic, and performance data on California’s K–12 schools.
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
EdSource. (2020, September 10). The next big hurdle: California schools grapple with how,
when or if to reopen campuses. https://edsource.org/2020/the-next-big-hurdle-california-
schools-grapple-with-how-when-or-if-to-reopen-campuses/639797
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/

127
Elsesser, K. (2020, April 27). SAT, ACT policies may improve diversity at colleges and
universities. Forbes. https://www.forbes.com/sites/kimelsesser/2020/04/27/sat-act-
policies-may-improve-diversity-at-colleges-and-universities/?sh=21236cd33bd5
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. Edmond J. Safra Center
for Ethics. https://ethics.harvard.edu/schools-during-covid-19
Fein, A. H., & Isaacson, N. S. (2009). Echoes of Columbine: The emotion work of leaders in
school shooting sites. American Behavioral Scientist, 52(9), 1327–1346.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0002764209332549
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

128
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
Fitzsimmons, T. (2021). College Board drops SAT’s optional essay and subject tests to ‘reduce
demands on students.’ University of California Berkeley Center for Educational
Partnerships. https://cep.berkeley.edu/college-board-drops-sats-optional-essay-and-
subject-tests-to-reduce-demands-on-students
Fofaria, R. (2021). Virtual Color of Education event builds from hope to a call for action.
Source. https://www.ednc.org/2020-11-04-virtual-color-education-event-school-race-
equity-covid-pandemic-issues-solutions/
Food and Nutrition Services. (n.d.). Child nutrition program service during COVID-19. U.S.
Department of Agriculture. https://www.fns.usda.gov/tn/child-nutrition-program-meal-
service-during-covid-19?utm_source=website&utm_ medium=link&utm_ campaign=
prevent
Freedburg, L. (2021, February 12). 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

129
Fullan, M. (2014). The principal: Three keys to maximizing impact. Josey-Bass.
Furuta, J. (2017). Rationalization and student/school personhood in U.S. college admissions: The
rise of test-optional policies, 1987 to 2015. Sociology of Education, 90(3), 236–254.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0038040717713583
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), 45-65. https://doi.org/10.29333/ajqr/8471
Gaylord-Harden, N., Adams-Bass, V., Bogan, E., Francis, L., Scott, J., Seaton, E., & Williams, J.
(2020). Addressing inequities in education: Considerations for Black children and youth
in the era of COVID-19. Society for Research in Child Development.
https://www.srcd.org/research/addressing-inequities-education-considerations-black-
children-and-youth-era-covid-19
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
Gouwens, J., & Lander, D. (2008). School leadership in changing cultural contexts: How
Mississippi superintendents are responding to Hurricane Katrina. Journal of Education
for Students Placed at Risk, 13(2–3), 273–296.
https://doi.org/10.1080/10824660802350276

130
Great Schools Partnership. (n.d.-a). Cohort. In The glossary of education reform. Retrieved
August 25, 2021, from https://www.edglossary.org/cohort/
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/
Hamilton, L., Kaufman, J., & Diliberti, M. (2020). Teaching and leading through a pandemic:
Key findings from the American Educator Panels Spring 2020 COVID-19 Surveys.
RAND. https://www.rand.org/pubs/research_reports/RRA168-2.html
Hanson, N. (2019, November 8). Paradise schools fight to stay open after fire destruction. Chico
Enterprise-Record. https://www.chicoer.com/2019/11/08/paradise-schools-fight-to-stay-
open- after-fire-destruction/
Harrington, T. (2021, April 4). Quick guide: What California’s now defunct 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
Harris, A., & Jones, M. (2020). COVID 19—School leadership in disruptive times. School
Leadership & Management, 40(4), 243–247.
https://doi.org/10.1080/13632434.2020.1811479
Harris, D. N. (2020, April 24). How will COVID-19 change our schools in the long run?
Brookings Institution. https://www.brookings.edu/blog/brown-center-
chalkboard/2020/04/24/how-will-covid-19-change-our-schools-in-the-long-run/

131
Harwati, L. (2013). Crisis management: Determining specific strategies and leadership style for
effective outcomes. Asian Journal of Management Sciences and Education, 2(2), 170–
181. http://www.ajmse.leena-luna.co.jp/AJMSEPDFs/Vol.2(2)/AJMSE2013(2.2-17).pdf
Heide, M., & Simonsson, C. (2014). Developing internal crisis communication. Corporate
Communications: An International Journal, 19(2), 128–146.
https://doi.org/10.1108/CCIJ-09-2012-0063
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
Herrmann, Z. (2020, November 6). How to make the most of student feedback during distance
learning. Edutopia. https://www.edutopia.org/article/how-make-most-student-feedback-
during-distance-learning
Herold, B. (2020, April 1). The disparities in remote learning under coronavirus (in charts).
Education Week. https://www.edweek.org/ew/articles/2020/04/10/the-disparities-in-
remote-learning-under-coronavirus.html
Jaschik, S. (2021a, January 11). The admissions cycle favors institutions with prestige and
money. Inside Higher Ed. https://www.insidehighered.com/print/admissions/
article/2021/01/11/admissions-cycle-favors-Institutions-prestige-and-money
Jaschik, S. (2021b, January 25). Changes in SAT prompt discussion of future of the College
Board. Inside Higher Ed. https://www.insidehighered.com/print/admissions/
article/2021/01/25/changes-sat-prompt-discussion-future-college-board

132
Jaschik, S. (2021c, February 1). The full story on admissions isn’t just what you’ve been
reading. Inside Higher Ed. https://www.insidehighered.com/admissions/article/2021/
02/01/full-story-admissions-isnt-just-what-youve-been-reading
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
Jones, C. (2020, May 13). Student anxiety, depression increasing during school closures, survey
finds. EdSource. https://edsource.org/2020/student-anxiety-depression-increasing-during-
school-closures-survey-finds/631224
Jones, C., & Freedburg, L. (2021, March 4). California Legislature approves plan to encourage
schools to reopen for in-person instruction. EdSource. https://edsource.org/2021/
california-legislature-approves-plan-to-encourage-schools-to-reopen-for-in-person-
instruction/650493
Kantamneni, N. (2020). The impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on marginalized populations in
the United States: A research agenda. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 119 (2020),
Article 103439. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvb.2020.103439
Katzman, N. F., & Stanton, M. P. (2020). The integration for social emotional learning and
cultural education into online distance learning curricula: Now imperative during the
COVID-19 pandemic. Creative Education, 11(9), 1561–1571.
https://doi.org/10.4236/ce.2020.119114

133
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
Knapp, A. (2020, August 20). How the pandemic has changed cafeterias at Stark County
Schools. CantonRep.com The Repository. https://www.cantonrep.com/story/news/
local/2020/08/20/how-pandemic-has-changed-cafeterias-at-stark-county-
schools/42251173/
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., & 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/63074
Lambert, D., & Rosales, B. (2020, October 13). California school districts struggled to prepare
teachers for distance learning this fall. EdSource. https://edsource.org/2020/california-
school-districts-struggled-to-prepare-teachers-for-distance-learning-this-fall/641442
Lochmiller, C. R., & Lester, J. N. (2017). Studying education practice with research. In An
Introduction to Educational Research: Connecting Methods to Practice (pp. 2–19). Sage
Publications.

134
Los Angeles Unified School District. (2020a, March 12). Los Angeles Unified partnership with
PBS SoCal and KCET plans to provide educational content to students.
https://achieve.lausd.net/site/default.aspx?PageType=3&DomainID=4&ModuleInstanceI
D=4466&ViewID=6446EE88-D30C-497E-9316-3F8874B3E108&RenderLoc
=0&FlexDataID=86701&PageID=1
Los Angeles Unified School District. (2020b, November 9). Los Angeles Unified surpasses 75
million meals in COVID-19 relief effort. https://achieve.lausd.net/site/default.aspx?
PageType=3&DomainID=4&ModuleInstanceID=4466&ViewID=6446EE88-D30C-
497E-9316-3F8874B3E108&RenderLoc=0&FlexDataID=99679&PageID=0
Lozano Smith Attorneys at Law. (2020, April 23). Classified layoffs – in the age of COVID-19.
http://www.lozanosmith.com/news-clientnewsbriefdetail.php?news_id=2999
Mader, J. (2012, September 19). The rise of teacher unions: A look at union impact over the
years. Retrieved January 31, 2021, from http://hechingered.org/content/the-rise-of-
teacher-unions-a-look-at-union-impact-over-the-years_5601/
Mahnken, K. (2020). Half of all school employees aren’t teachers. This recession will endanger
their jobs. The74. 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

135
Malkus, N., Christensen, C., & West, L. (2020a). School district responses to the COVID-19
pandemic: Round 1, districts’ initial responses. American Enterprise Institute for Public
Policy Research. https://www.aei.org/research-products/report/school-district-responses-
to-the-covid-19-pandemic-round-1-districts-initial-responses/
Malkus, N., Christensen, C., & 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
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
McCollow, J. (2017, September 26). Teacher unions. In Oxford Research Encyclopedia of
Education. https://doi.org/10.1093/acrefore/9780190264093.013.201
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/

136
McLeod, S., & Dulsky, S. (2021, March 12). Resilience, reorientation, and reinvention: School
leadership during the early months of the COVID-19 pandemic. Leadership for
Educational Organizations, 6, Article 637075.
https://doi.org/10.3389/feduc.2021.637075
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? The Labor
and Working Class History Association. https://www.lawcha.org/century-teaching-
organizing/
Metscher, S. E., Tramantano, J. S., & Wong, K. M. (2021). Digital instructional practices to
promote pedagogical content knowledge during COVID-19. Journal of Education for
Teaching, 47(1), 121–124. https://doi.org/10.1080/02607476.2020.1842135
Migration Policy Institute. (2020, September). Educating English learners during the COVID-19
Pandemic. https://www.migrationpolicy.org/sites/default/files/publications/mpi-english-
learners-covid-19-final.pdf
Minkos, M. L., & Gelbar, N. W. (2020). Considerations for educators in supporting student
learning in the midst of COVID‐19. Psychology in the Schools, 58(2), 416–426.
https://doi.org/10.1002/pits.22454
Modan, N. (2020, November 3). Rubric for recovery: For rural communities, it’s all-hands-on-
deck to help low-income students. K–12 Dive. https://www.k12dive.com/news/rubric-for-
recovery-for-rural-communities-its-all-hands-on-deck-to-help/587684/

137
Moody, J. (2021, August 18). How recent events reshaped college admissions. US News.
https://www.usnews.com/education/best-colleges/articles/how-recent-events-reshaped-
college-admissions
The National Center for Fair and Open Testing (2021). 1,830+ accredited, 4-year colleges &
universities with ACT/SAT-optional testing policies. https://www.fairtest.org/
university/optional
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
Northouse, P. G. (2019). Leadership: Theory and practice. Sage.
Occupational Safety and Health Administration. (2021). Personal protective equipment—
Overview. U.S. Department of Labor. https://www.osha.gov/personal-protective-
equipment
Organisation for Economic Co-Operation and Development. (2020). COVID-19: Protecting
people and societies.
Pandemic school closures: Risks and opportunities [Editorial]. (2020). The Lancet Child &
Adolescent Health, 4(5), 341. https://doi.org/10.1016/S2352-4642(20)30105-X
Parent Institute for Quality Education. (2020). Survey results from CA families on education,
digital and health inequities. https://www.piqe.org/data/
Parmigiani, D., Benigno, V., Giusto, M., Silvaggio, C., & Sperandio, S. (2020). E-inclusion:
Online special education in Italy during the COVID-19 pandemic. Technology, Pedagogy
and Education, 30(1), 111–124. https://doi.org/10.1080/1475939X.2020.1856714

138
Pearson, C., & Clair, J. (1998). Reframing crisis management. The Academy of Management
Review, 23(1), 59–76. https://doi.org/10.2307/259099
Rainey, J. (2019, August 16). After the fire in Paradise, a bittersweet back-to-school for a town
still reeling. Los Angeles Times. https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2019-08-
15/bittersweet-back-to-school-in-paradise-reeling-from-camp-fire
S.B. 98, 2020 Cal. Stat. ch. 24. https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billText Client.xhtml
?bill_id=201920200SB98
Schwartz, S. (2020, March 25). Flood of online learning resources overwhelms teachers.
Education Week. https://www.edweek.org/teaching-learning/flood-of-online-learning-
resources-overwhelms-teachers/2020/03
Serrato, J. (2019). The future for schools on the ridge. Action News Now.
https://www.actionnewsnow.com/ content/rising-ashes-content/Rising-From-the-Ashes-
The-future-of-schools-on-the-ridge--564657861.html
Sider, S. (2020). School principals and students with special education needs in a pandemic:
Emerging insights from Ontario, Canada. International Studies in Educational
Administration, 48(2), 78–84. http://cceam.net/wp-content/uploads/2020/08/ISEA-2020-
48-2.pdf
Singer, B. J., Thompson, R. N., & Bonsall, M. B. (2021). The effect of the definition of
‘pandemic’ on quantitative assessments of infectious disease outbreak risk. Scientific
Reports, 11. Article 2547. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-021-81814-3
Smalley, A. (2021, April 8). States consider test-optional college admissions. National
Conference of State Legislatures. https://www.ncsl.org/research/education/states-
consider-test-optional-college-admissions-magazine2021.aspx

139
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
Son, C., Hedge, S., Smith, A., Wang, X., & Sasangohar, F. (2020). Effects of COVID-19 on
college students’ mental health in the United States: Interview survey study. Journal of
Medical Internet Research, 22(9), https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32805704/
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), 65-78 https://doi.org/10.1080/13632430802646404
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/
Tapp, T. (2021, March 5). UTLA members vote overwhelmingly not to return to classrooms
until demands are met. Deadline. https://deadline.com/2021/03/utla-vote-no-school-
1234708372/
Tears, hugs, anxiety as children return to school for first time since California wildfire. (2018,
December 3). CBS News. https://www.cbsnews.com/news/california-wildfires-children-
return-to-school-for-first-time-since-camp-fire-wildfire-swept-through-paradise-
california/

140
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
Toner, M. (2020, May 20). Pandemic exposes equity, access gaps in distance learning.
Governing. https://www.governing.com/next/pandemic-exposes-equity-access-gaps-in-
Distance-learning.html
U.S. Department of Agriculture. (2021). U.S. Department of Agriculture. https://www.usda.gov
U.S. Department of Education. (2021a). ED COVID-19 handbook: Strategies for safely
reopening elementary and secondary schools (Vol. 1).
https://www2.ed.gov/documents/coronavirus/reopening.pdf
U.S. Department of Education. (2021b). U.S. Department of Education. https://www.ed.gov/
USA.gov. (2022). Federal agencies responding to coronavirus (COVID-19). Retrieved February
27, 2022, from https://www.usa.gov/government-coronavirus-response
Varela, D., & Fedynich, L. (2020). Leading schools from a social distance: Surveying South
Texas school district leadership during the COVID-19 pandemic. National Forum of
Educational Administration and Supervision Journal, 38(4), 1–10.
http://www.nationalforum.com/Electronic Journal Volumes/Varela, daniella Surveying
South Texas School District Leadership NFEASJ V38 N4 2020.pdf
Washburn, D., & Lambert, D. (2018, November 16). After the fire, a school district gone.
EdSource. https://edsource.org/2018/after-the-fire-a-school-district-gone/605038
Weissman, S. (2020, March 23). Do test optional policies work? Depends on who you ask.
Diverse Education. https://diverseeducation.com/article/169246/

141
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
Xiong, J., Lipsitz, O., Nasri, F., Lui, L., Gill, H., Phan, L., McIntyre, R. (2020). Impact of
COVID-19 pandemic on mental health in the general population: A systematic review.
Journal of Affective Disorders, 277 (2020), 55–64.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jad.2020.08.001
Young Minds. (2020). Coronavirus: Impact on young people with mental health needs.
https://youngminds.org.uk/media/3708/coronavirus-report_march2020.pdf
Youth Liberty Squad. (2020). Summary of student mental health survey.
https://www.schoolcounselor-ca.org/Files/Student%20Wellness% 20Survey% 20
Summary%205-08-20.pdf
Zaccoletti, S., Camacho, A., Correia, N., Aguiar, C., Mason, L., Alves, R. A., & Daniel, J. R.
(2020). Parents’ perceptions of student academic motivation during the COVID-19
lockdown: A cross-country comparison. Frontiers in Psychology, 11, 1–13.
https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2020.592670

142
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.
The following section details each survey item and its response choices:
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 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
e. Over 10 years

143
The continuing survey items utilized a 5-point Likert scale (1 = strongly disagree to 5 = strongly
agree):
RQ1: Financial Implications
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.
RQ2: Health and Safety Guidelines
8. The federal, state, and local health guidelines were clear in providing information to
support the safe reopening of schools.
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 my district's return to school plan in the spring of 2021.
RQ3: 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.
13. Negotiations with the teacher's union impacted the quality of instruction offered to
students during distance learning.

144
RQ4: 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 & 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?
The remaining survey items were open-ended:
27. I recommend the following assistant superintendent from my district to participate in this
study:
28. I recommend the following principal from my district to participate in this study:

145
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.

146
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.
The following section details each survey item and its response choices:
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
e. Over 10 years

147
The continuing survey items utilized a 5-point Likert scale (1 = strongly disagree to 5 = strongly
agree):
RQ1: Financial Implications
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.
RQ2: Health and Safety Guidelines
8. The federal, state, and local health guidelines were clear in providing information to
support the safe reopening of schools.
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 my district's return to school plan in the spring of 2021.
RQ3: 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.
13. Negotiations with the teacher's union impacted the quality of instruction offered to
students during distance learning.

148
RQ4: 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 & 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?
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.

149
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.

150
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.
The following section details each survey item and its response choices:
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 a principal at your current district?
a. Less than 1 year
b. 1 to 2 years
c. 3 to 5 years
d. 6 to 10 years
e. Over 10 years

151
The continuing survey items utilized a 5-point Likert scale (1 = strongly disagree to 5 = strongly
agree):
RQ1: 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.
RQ2: Health and Safety Guidelines
8. The federal, state, and local health guidelines were clear in providing information to
support the safe reopening of my school.
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.
RQ3: 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 of my school effectively
responding to the COVID-19 pandemic for students and families.
13. Negotiations with the teacher's union impacted the quality of instruction offered to
students at my school during distance learning.

152
RQ4: Community Concerns
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?
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.

153
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.

154
Appendix D
Alignment of Survey Questions With Research Questions and Conceptual Framework
Research question Conceptual framework source
Item 1 2 3 4 Bolman & 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. Sources are Bolman and Deal (2017), Westover (2020), and Fullan (2014). A = aligned.

155
Appendix E
Superintendent Interview Protocol
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 have been the biggest financial implications of the pandemic on your district?
2. In what ways, if any, would more spending flexibility/structure have benefitted your
district?
3. In what ways has COVID-19 related funding been used to meet student needs in your
district?
4. To what extent, if any, did financial incentive influence your district’s reopening
plan/timeline?
5. In what ways did your district collaborate with federal, state, and local government
agencies and community organizations to support your school district during COVID?
a. PQ- What agencies or organizations?
6. To what degree, if any, did the various agencies align COVID-19 guidance for schools?

156
7. What strategies have been effective for your district in implementing health
guidelines/policies?
8. Who in your district was primarily in charge of interpreting and implementing the health
guidelines/policies?
9. What were the most important issues negotiated with your teachers union and how were
they resolved?
10. What were the most important issues negotiated with your classified union and how were
they resolved?
11. In what ways, if any, were instructional programs influenced by union negotiations in
your district?
12. In what ways, if any, were safety protocols influenced by union negotiations in your
district?
13. In what ways did your district gather input from and communicate to the community?
14. What were the biggest concerns from your district’s community and how were they
addressed?
a. PQ - Were there any safety concerns?
b. PQ - Were there any nutrition concerns?
c. PQ - Were there any academic concerns?
d. PQ - Were there any technology concerns?
e. PQ - Were there any re-opening concerns?
Conclusion
Thank you for your time and willingness to meet with me and for all the valuable
information you provided for this study.

157
Appendix F
Assistant Superintendent Interview Protocol
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 have been the biggest financial implications of the pandemic on your district?
2. In what ways, if any, would more spending flexibility/structure have benefitted your
district?
3. In what ways has COVID-19 related funding been used to meet student needs in your
district?
4. To what extent, if any, did financial incentive influence your district’s reopening
plan/timeline?
5. In what ways did your district collaborate with federal, state, and local government
agencies and community organizations to support your school district during COVID?
a. PQ - What agencies or organizations?
6. To what degree, if any, did the various agencies align COVID-19 guidance for schools?

158
7. What strategies have been effective for your district in implementing health
guidelines/policies?
8. Who in your district was primarily in charge of interpreting and implementing the health
guidelines/policies?
9. What were the most important issues negotiated with your teachers union and how were
they resolved?
10. What were the most important issues negotiated with your classified union and how were
they resolved?
11. In what ways, if any, were instructional programs influenced by union negotiations in
your district?
12. In what ways, if any, were safety protocols influenced by union negotiations in your
district?
13. In what ways did your district gather input from and communicate to the community?
14. What were the biggest concerns from your district’s community and how were they
addressed?
a. PQ - Were there any safety concerns?
b. PQ - Were there any nutrition concerns?
c. PQ - Were there any academic concerns?
d. PQ - Were there any technology concerns?
e. PQ - Were there any re-opening concerns?
Conclusion
Thank you for your time and willingness to meet with me and for all the valuable
information you provided for this study.

159
Appendix G
Principal Interview Protocol
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 have been the biggest financial implications of the pandemic on your school?
2. In what ways, if any, would more spending flexibility/structure have benefitted your
school?
3. In what ways has COVID-19 related funding been used to meet student needs in your
school?
4. To what extent, if any, did financial incentive influence your school’s reopening
plan/timeline?
5. In what ways did your school collaborate with federal, state, and local government
agencies and community organizations to support your school during COVID?
a. PQ- What agencies or organizations?

160
6. To what degree, if any, did the various agencies align COVID-19 guidance for your
school?
7. What strategies have been effective for your school in implementing health
guidelines/policies?
8. Who at your school was primarily in charge of interpreting and implementing the health
guidelines/policies?
9. What were the most important issues negotiated with your teachers union and how were
they resolved?
10. What were the most important issues negotiated with your classified union and how were
they resolved?
11. In what ways, if any, were instructional programs influenced by union negotiations at
your school?
12. In what ways, if any, were safety protocols influenced by union negotiations at your
school?
13. In what ways did your school gather input from and communicate to the community?
14. What were the biggest concerns from your school’s community and how were they
addressed?
a. PQ - Were there any safety concerns?
b. PQ - Were there any nutrition concerns?
c. PQ - Were there any academic concerns?
d. PQ - Were there any technology concerns?
e. PQ - Were there any re-opening concerns?

161
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 Christine Kim and I am currently completing my doctoral dissertation at the
University of Southern California’s Rossier School of Education under the guidance of Dr. Rudy
Castruita. I am writing to invite you to participate in a 15-minute survey and 35-minute virtual
interview. In addition, I am also requesting your permission to administer a survey and conduct
an interview with an assistant superintendent and principal in your district. Within the survey is a
place for you to recommend an assistant superintendent and a principal from your district to
participate in this research. Collecting data from highly effective leaders such as yourselves
would be greatly appreciated and is essential for the success of this study.
The ultimate purpose of the study is to analyze the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on
K–12 school districts. We aim to understand what district and site administrators have learned
from their experiences and their decision-making responsibilities in managing the crisis.
This research study has been reviewed and approved by the University of Southern
California Institutional Review Board for Human Subjects Research (IRB). The IRB believes
that the research procedures safeguard your privacy, welfare, civil liberties, anonymity, and
rights. Please be assured that your participation and answers will be kept confidential and
anonymous. The results will be analyzed solely for this dissertation and no identifying
information will be used.
Please click on this survey link to participate. If you have any questions, please feel free
to contact me at cnkim@usc.edu. Thank you very much for your time and assistance.

Sincerely,

Christine Kim
Doctoral Candidate
Rossier School of Education
University of Southern California

163
Appendix I
Assistant Superintendent Letter of Invitation
Date

Dear Assistant Superintendent ___________,

My name is Christine Kim 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 cnkim@usc.edu. Thank you very much for your time and assistance.

Sincerely,

Christine Kim
Doctoral Candidate
Rossier School of Education
University of Southern California

164
Appendix J
Principal Letter of Invitation
Date

Dear Principal ___________,

My name is Christine Kim 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 cnkim@usc.edu. Thank you very much for your time and assistance.

Sincerely,

Christine Kim
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 Kim, Christine (author)

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

School Rossier School of Education

Degree Doctor of Education

Degree Program Educational Leadership

Degree Conferral Date 2022-05

Publication Date 04/28/2022

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 cnkim@usc.edu,mschkim23@gmail.com

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-oUC111136585

Unique identifier UC111136585

Document Type Dissertation

Format application/pdf (imt)

Rights Kim, Christine

Type texts

Source 20220428-usctheses-batch-934 (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