Close
About
FAQ
Home
Collections
Login
USC Login
Register
0
Selected
Invert selection
Deselect all
Deselect all
Click here to refresh results
Click here to refresh results
USC
/
Digital Library
/
University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses
/
The impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on K–12 public school districts in southern California: responses of superintendents, assistant superintendents, and principals
(USC Thesis Other)
The impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on K–12 public school districts in southern California: responses of superintendents, assistant superintendents, and principals
PDF
Download
Share
Open document
Flip pages
Contact Us
Contact Us
Copy asset link
Request this asset
Transcript (if available)
Content
The Impact of the COVID-19 Pandemic on K–12 Public School Districts in Southern
California: Responses of Superintendents, Assistant Superintendents, and Principals
by
Krishna Darlene Spates
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 Krishna Darlene Spates 2022
All Rights Reserved
The Committee for Krishna Darlene Spates certifies the approval of this Dissertation
David Cash
John Roach
Rudy Castruita, Committee Chair
Rossier School of Education
University of Southern California
2022
iv
Abstract
The purpose of this study was to analyze the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on K–12 school
districts in Southern California and understand what district and site administrators learned from
their experiences and their decision-making responsibilities during the crisis. This study brings to
light the impact of the pandemic on students, families, leaders, schools, and districts. Most
importantly, this study examined how district and school leadership influences administrative
practices, student achievement, financial responsibility, union leadership, and community/parent
support in responding to the crisis. The research team was led by Dr. Rudy Castruita from the
University of Southern California Rossier School of Education. The dissertation group was
composed of 22 students with Dr. Castruita as the lead researcher and the supervisor for the
study. The research team, which began meeting in the spring of 2021, contributed to the
literature review bibliography, statement of the problem, purpose of the study, research
questions, conceptual framework, and data collection instruments. This study was designed as a
mixed-methods study, utilizing both qualitative and quantitative methods to collect and analyze
data. This study was conducted with school superintendents, assistant superintendents, and
principals of Southern California K–12 public school districts. This study involved the collection
of qualitative data from open-ended interview questions with participants and quantitative
surveys completed by the interviewees. Our group is made up of three researchers, each
researcher investigated three school districts we have given a unique pseudonym to ensure each
district’s anonymity.
Keywords: COVID-19 pandemic, crisis leadership, K–12 school districts, mixed
methods, superintendent, assistant superintendent, principal, district responses to COVID-19
v
pandemic, instructional core, unions, financial impact, Average Daily Attendance (ADA), fiscal
impact, COVID-19 guidance, health and safety, social-emotional, unfinished learning,
technology, nutrition, spending flexibility, CARES Act, ESSR Funding
vi
Dedication
To the people I love, who inspire me and have and continue to inspire me to be the best version
of myself; my two parents; my mother, Dr. Deborah Gene Blue and my father. Dr. Charles
Richard Spates, my stepfather Stanley Arterberry Senior and my children O’Czar Charles
Taylor-Spates, Brock Deborah Taylor-Spates and my husband, Frederick Emile Mouton. You all
are why I push myself and work so hard and also my fuel that propels me forward. I love you all
more than you will probably ever know. Thank you for helping me become better.
To my Mom, thank you for your encouraging words and text messages to push me through the
finish line. There is nothing like a “Go Girl” text from the woman I hope to become. Thank you
for showing me through your career as a California Community College President, then
Chancellor, that women can lead systems to improve outcomes for students. Growing up with
you was a life course in leadership. Thank you. I love you. To my Dad, an emeritus professor
who spent his career working with doctoral students—I remember all the stories, I was
incredibly nervous to send you my chapters one through three; it meant a great deal to me to
receive your feedback after your review. It was almost as if I had two dissertation chairs to make
proud. Thank you for your “stamp of approval.” I love you dearly. To my stepfather, Stanley
Arterberry Senior, thank you for always believing me. When you enrolled me in student
leadership, you changed my life. Thank you for all the life and leadership lessons you taught me
directly and indirectly watching you lead California Community Colleges as a President, then
Chancellor. I always thank God for you entering our lives. You made life even better. I love you.
vii
To my husband, who has supported me with words of encouragement, weekend getaways that
allowed me to focus on writing in beautiful spaces. I will never forget the look on your face
when I told you I was a teacher; it was as if I told you I was President of the United States.
Thank you for the admiration and respect you showed for teachers, for educators, for my passion
of educating and empowering children to exceed what they believe is their potential, because that
is what you did for me, in that moment you captured my heart. To my hearts, I love you. I would
not have completed this journey if it were not for you. Thank you.
viii
Acknowledgements
I will also remain incredibly grateful to the University of Southern California (USC)
Rossier School of Education for the education you have provided to me; while attending the
USC Rossier Leadership Academy to earn my administrative credential, I was struck by the USC
Rossier Alumni who were sitting or retired superintendents committed to educational equity and
excellence. It was during that program that I knew I had to apply to USC Rossier to earn a
doctorate degree in educational leadership to continue to learn how to transform educational
systems to ensure educational equity. I viewed and experienced USC Rossier as an educational
leadership incubator, preparing us all to become educational equity warriors to improve
educational outcomes for all students. Not only have the faculty inspired me, challenged my
thinking, empowered me with the knowledge, dispositions and confidence to do great things for
California’s students, my colleagues (love my Thursday Cohort), have had a powerful impact on
my development as an educational leader. I am also incredibly grateful for Dr. Escalante who
introduced our cohort to the idea of a group dissertation and our dissertation Chairperson, Dr.
Rudy Castruita who provided the perfect measure of pressure and support to carry our entire
cohort through to the finish line. Dr. Castruita, you are an inspiration and I have felt incredibly
honored to share space with you during class and learn from you. You are a powerful example of
the type of leadership that is possible and a leader I aspire to emulate. I would also like to thank
Dr. David Cash, if it were not for his encouragement and example I would not have had the
courage to pursue this degree. Thank you for letting me know it is possible. I would like to thank
Dr. Samkian; I was honored to learn from her during my first year and first semester of the
program – somehow she made our entire class cry on the first day, she captured our hearts and
pushed my thinking during each class session. Finally, I would like to thank Dr. Kathy Stowe;
ix
Dr. Stowe inspired me more than she will ever know. By her example, she reminded me of the
superpower that all educators have: our words. Thank you, Dr. Stowe for showing me a
reflection of myself that I had not seen. I learned so much from you about instructional
leadership that has already made a profound impact on my career. I am now proud to be a
member of the Trojan Family #Fight On!
x
Table of Contents
Abstract .......................................................................................................................................... iv
Dedication ...................................................................................................................................... vi
Acknowledgements ...................................................................................................................... viii
List of Tables ............................................................................................................................... xiii
List of Figures .............................................................................................................................. xiv
Preface ............................................................................................................................................xv
Chapter One: Overview of the Study ...............................................................................................1
Background of the Problem .................................................................................................2
Statement of the Problem .....................................................................................................3
Purpose of the Study ............................................................................................................3
Research Questions ..............................................................................................................4
Significance of the Study .....................................................................................................4
Limitations and Delimitations of the Study .........................................................................5
Definition of Terms ..............................................................................................................6
Organization of the Study ..................................................................................................11
Chapter Two: Literature Review ...................................................................................................12
COVID-19 Impact on Local Education Agencies .............................................................17
COVID-19 Impact on Instructional Core ..........................................................................23
COVID-19 Innovations and Lasting Transformations ......................................................32
Related Leadership Frameworks ........................................................................................39
Chapter Three: Methodology .........................................................................................................42
Overview of the Study .......................................................................................................42
Statement of the Problem ...................................................................................................42
Purpose of the Study ..........................................................................................................43
xi
Research Questions ............................................................................................................43
Research Team ...................................................................................................................44
Research Design .................................................................................................................44
Sample and Population ......................................................................................................46
Instrumentation and Conceptual Framework .....................................................................48
Data Collection ..................................................................................................................50
Data Analysis .....................................................................................................................51
Ethical Considerations .......................................................................................................51
Summary ............................................................................................................................52
Chapter Four: Results ....................................................................................................................53
Participants .........................................................................................................................54
Results for Research Question 1 ........................................................................................56
Results for Research Question 3 ........................................................................................68
Results for Research Question 4 ........................................................................................74
Summary ............................................................................................................................82
Chapter Five: Conclusions .............................................................................................................85
Purpose of the Study ..........................................................................................................86
Research Questions ............................................................................................................86
Methodology ......................................................................................................................87
Results and Findings ..........................................................................................................87
Comparative Analysis: Summary of Common Themes ....................................................93
Implications for Practice ....................................................................................................95
Recommendations for Future Research .............................................................................96
Conclusions ........................................................................................................................97
References ......................................................................................................................................99
xii
Appendix A: Superintendent Interview Protocol .........................................................................112
Introduction ......................................................................................................................112
Conclusion .......................................................................................................................113
Appendix B: Assistant Superintendent Interview Protocol .........................................................114
Introduction ......................................................................................................................114
Conclusion .......................................................................................................................115
Appendix C: Principal Interview Protocol ...................................................................................116
Introduction ......................................................................................................................116
Conclusion .......................................................................................................................117
Appendix D: Superintendent Survey ...........................................................................................118
Introduction ......................................................................................................................118
Closing .............................................................................................................................123
Appendix E: Assistant Superintendent Survey ............................................................................124
Introduction ......................................................................................................................124
Closing .............................................................................................................................129
Appendix F: Principal Survey ......................................................................................................130
Appendix G: Survey Question Results ........................................................................................136
Appendix H: Invitation Letter: Superintendent Research Participants ........................................142
Appendix I: Invitation Letter: Assistant Superintendent Research Participants ..........................143
Appendix J: Invitation Letter: Assistant Principal Research Participants ...................................144
xiii
List of Tables
Table 1: School District Participants: Demographic Information 55
Table 2: Quantitative Survey: Participant Demographic Information 56
Table 3: Quantitative Survey: Superintendent Perception of Financial Implications of
COVID-19 58
Table 4: Quantitative Survey: Superintendents’ Perception of the Impact of Health and
Safety Guidelines 64
Table 5: Quantitative Survey: Superintendents’ Perception of the Impact of Union
Negotiations 70
Table 6: Quantitative Survey: Superintendents’ Perception of Parent Concerns 76
Table H1: Survey Items 118
Table I1: Survey Items 124
Table J1: Survey Items 130
xiv
List of Figures
Figure G1: Quantitative Survey: Assistant Superintendent’s Perception of Financial
Implications (n = 3) 136
Figure G2: Quantitative Survey: Principal’s Perception of Financial Implications (n = 3) 137
Figure G3: Quantitative Survey: Assistant Superintendent’s Perception of Health and
Safety Guidelines (n = 3) 138
Figure G4: Quantitative Survey: Principal’s Perception of Health and Safety Guidelines
(n = 3) 139
Figure G5: Quantitative Survey: Assistant Superintendent’s Perception of Union
Negotiations (n = 3) 139
Figure G6: Quantitative Survey: Principal’s Perception of Union Negotiations (n = 3) 140
Figure G7: Quantitative Survey: Assistant Superintendents’ Perception of Community
Concerns (n = 3) 140
Figure G8: Quantitative Survey: Principals’ Perceptions of Community Concerns (n = 3) 141
xv
Preface
Some of the chapters of this dissertation were co-authored and have been identified as
such. While jointly authored dissertations are not the norm of most doctoral programs, a
collaborative effort is reflective of real-world practices. To meet their objective of developing
highly skilled practitioners equipped to take on real-world challenges, the USC Graduate School
and the USC Rossier School of Education permitted our inquiry team to carry out this shared
venture.
This dissertation is part of a collaborative project between two doctoral candidates:
Krishna Spates and Jason Olmstead. The two doctoral students each interviewed and surveyed
six superintendents, assistant superintendents and principals, totaling 12 system and school
leaders. However, the process for analyzing the data, interpreting data, and identifying themes
from research participants was too large for a single dissertation. As a result, the two
dissertations produced by our inquiry team collectively examined the impact of the COVID-19
pandemic on K–12 public school districts in Southern California via the responses of
superintendents, assistant superintendents, and principals.
1
Chapter One: Overview of the Study
School as we knew it changed within a week in March 2020. According to Reed (2021),
schools across the country discontinued in-person instruction and quickly pivoted their
operations and instruction to respond to new challenges presented by the COVID-19 pandemic.
Horrigan (2020) asserted that the COVID-19 pandemic caused a near-total shutdown of the U.S.
school system, forcing more than 55 million students to transition to home-based remote learning
practically overnight. During the initial closures, Viner et al. (2021 stated that evidence to
support the effectiveness of global school closures in controlling COVID-19 was sparse;
additionally, there was uncertainty about the degree to which school children were susceptible to
and could transmit COVID-19. School leaders were left to balance the potential benefits and
harms associated with closing schools (Viner et al., 2021). According to Jones (2020), school
leaders were facing a complicated array of health considerations.
COVID-19, also known as multisystem inflammatory syndrome in children, is a novel
disease, and much remains unknown about its impact and spread. Thus, school systems leaders
were left to make decisions without a complete understanding of the disease’s impact. School
leaders had to take extra precautions to ensure students, teachers, and staff remained healthy
(Jones, 2020). Adding to the complexity, in California, districts had to navigate health
precautions and other issues with guidance from county health departments, the California
Department of Education, teachers’ unions, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
(CDC), and other groups with daily changing conditions and guidance (Jones, 2020).
Without a playbook and with competing guidance, local education agencies (LEAs) were
forced to discern how to continue to meet their communities’ needs. In addition, initial school
closures and the push to reopen were politicized. During the summer of 2020, according to
2
Valant (2020), almost half of the funds for K–12 schools in the COVID-19 aid package were
available only to schools that opened with in-person learning. School leaders were left to make
consequential reopening decisions with insufficient information about the impact of the novel
coronavirus and few resources while facing the possibility that politics regarding safety could
affect their decision making (Valant, 2020). When thinking about the decisions school leaders
had to make, Valant noted a need to be mindful that national politics, and the strings attached to
federal resources, affected local and state leaders’ decisions.
While there is a dearth of research on crisis management, research on how to respond to a
public health crisis is minimal at best. Therefore, there is a need to investigate the ways in which
school systems and leaders responded to their students’ learning needs amidst the pandemic to
capture their successes and learnings related to how they might respond in the future.
Background of the Problem
Over the last century, schools throughout the United States have faced various public
health crises impacting schooling for K–12 students. According to Saunders-Hastings and
Krewski (2016) one of the deadliest pandemics in human history was caused by the Spanish flu
of 1918 (H1N1, Influenza A), which lasted 2 years, infected approximately 500 million people,
and left a death toll of an estimated 20 to 50 million. Approximately 80 years later, severe acute
respiratory syndrome (SARS) circled the globe from 2002 to 2004 and infected over 8,000
people from 29 countries and caused a death toll of 774 (CDC, 2005). Further, businesses and
schools temporarily shut down in many places, although those shutdowns were less stringent
than what occurred in the spring of 2020 (Beach et al., 2020).
3
As it relates to school closures, the difference with the COVID-19 pandemic is that these
occurred as a preventative public health measure and not as a response to massive community
spread (Stern, 2009).
The most recent and current pandemic, COVID-19, was first identified in December 2019
and has resulted in over 32 million confirmed cases and over 578,000 documented deaths in the
United States as of May 2021 (CDE, 2021). Worldwide, this pandemic has resulted in over 156
million confirmed cases and over 3.2 million documented deaths (WHO, 2021b). While COVID-
19 has yet to rival the statistics of the Spanish flu from 100 years ago, the U.S. education
system’s response to the crisis is unparalleled in history (Berkman, 2008; Malkus et al., 2020;
Stern et al., 2009).
Statement of the Problem
The COVID-19 pandemic disrupted K–12 school districts in Southern California, causing
unforeseen consequences within the education system. It also highlighted financial implications,
the role of agencies and labor unions, and the impact on students and communities. Thus,
COVID-19 shifted the scope of school leaders’ roles beyond instructional leadership and to crisis
managers.
Purpose of the Study
The purpose of this study was to analyze the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on K–12
school districts in Southern California and understand what district and site administrators
learned from their experiences and their decision-making responsibilities during the crisis. This
study brings to light the impact of the pandemic on students, families, leaders, schools, and
districts. Most importantly, this study examined how district and school leadership influences
4
administrative practices, student achievement, financial responsibility, union leadership, and
community/parent support in responding to the crisis.
Research Questions
The study was guided by four research questions:
1. What are the financial implications of the COVID-19 pandemic on K–12 public
school districts in Southern California, and how did district superintendents, assistant
superintendents, and principals address these implications?
2. What was the impact of federal, state, and local health agencies on K–12 public
school districts in Southern California, and what strategies did district
superintendents, assistant superintendents, and principals follow to address the
guidelines suggested by these agencies?
3. What was the role of union negotiations in K–12 Southern California public school
districts’ response to the pandemic?
4. How did K–12 Southern California public school districts leadership teams,
composed of superintendents, assistant superintendents, and principals address the
parent community’s concerns regarding safety, nutrition, distance learning, lack of
technology, academic standing, and how and when to reopen schools due to the
pandemic?
Significance of the Study
This study is significant as it adds to the body of knowledge about the evolving roles and
responses of California public K–12 school superintendents, assistant superintendents, and
principals during the COVID-19 pandemic. The pandemic shifted the roles and scope of schools
and school leaders to crisis managers. This unprecedented event forced educational leaders to
5
quickly make strategic changes 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 were made to support a myriad of student needs throughout school closures. By
analyzing the effective practices and shortcomings of superintendents, assistant superintendents,
and principals, we hope to gain insight into prevention and implementation during future crises.
If a pandemic arises again, this study will support addressing it through the systems in place by
school leaders, educators, boards of education, and community stakeholders.
Limitations and Delimitations of the Study
There are 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. Also, all participants work at Southern California public
schools and may not accurately represent all school districts in California. Data collection relies
on self-reporting surveys and questions that may contain researcher bias asked during interviews
conducted virtually. In addition, the delimitations of the study relate to the generalizability of the
findings and are associated with the availability of time and resources. To narrow the focus of
this study, the superintendents, assistant superintendents, and principals selected are current
leaders in large urban Southern California public school districts who were willing to participate
in the study.
6
Definition of Terms
The following is a list of key terms and definitions used throughout this research.
• Assembly and Senate Bill 86: provides $2 billion as an incentive for schools that have
not already done so to offer in-person instruction beginning April 1, 2021, starting
with the earliest grades. The legislation also allocates $4.6 billion for all school
districts regardless of whether they meet the timetable Governor Newsom called for
in the “Safe Schools for All” plan (Jones & Freedberg, 2021).
• Assembly and Senate Bill 129: a state budget agreement that adds a year of school for
all 4-year-olds, expands Cal Grants and middle-class scholarships for college students
and provides funding for pre-K–12 schools (Fensterwald et al., 2021).
• Asynchronous learning: occurs without participants’ direct, simultaneous interaction
through methods such as videos featuring direct instruction of new content that
students watch on their own time (California Department of Education [CDE], 2020).
• California Department of Education (CDE): governmental body overseeing the
state’s public school system responsible for the education of more than six million
children and young adults in more than 10,000 schools with 300,000 teachers. The
department enforces education law and regulations (CDE, 2020).
• California Department of Public Health (CDPH): a public agency focused 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).
7
• California School Employees Association (CSEA): the largest classified school
employees’ union in the United States, representing more than 250,000 school
support staff throughout California. Members perform a wide range of work in 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, and computer services (CSEA,
2021).
• CARES Act: The Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act (CARES Act)
was passed by Congress on March 27, 2020. This bill allotted $2.2 trillion to provide
fast and direct economic aid to people negatively impacted by the COVID-19
pandemic. Approximately $14 billion was given to the Office of Postsecondary
Education as the Higher Education Emergency Relief Fund (CSEA, 2021).
• Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC): Nation’s health agency that
“conducts critical science and provides health information” and responds to health
crises (CDC, 2021, para. 2).
• Cohort: “a group of individuals who have something in common” such as same grade
level, or specific student groups such as English learners” (The Glossary of Education
Reform, 2021 para. 1).
• Collective Bargaining Agreement: The primary activity of a union is to represent
members in negotiating the terms of employment contracts, called collective
bargaining. Under the Rodda Act, passed in 1975, school boards and unions must
review agreement terms at least once every three years. Relevant to this study, the
result of this negotiation determines the salaries and benefits, hours, calendar, and
8
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 in terms of new laws, such as those regarding COVID-19 safety
measures, school finance, or teacher training and evaluation. A district can implement
these laws only after engaging in collective bargaining (EdData, 2021).
• COVID-19: a novel strain of coronaviruses that shares 79% genetic similarity with
SARS-CoV from the 2003 SARS outbreak, declared in March 2020 by the World
Health Organization (WHO) as a global pandemic (WHO, 2021a; Xiong et al., 2020).
• Distance learning: Instruction in which the pupil and instructor are in different
locations and pupils are under the general supervision of a certificated employee of
the LEA (CDE, 2020).
• Elementary and Secondary School Emergency Relief (ESSER): Established in the
CARES Act and further funded under the Coronavirus Response and Relief
Supplemental Appropriations Act and the American Rescue Plan Act. The U.S.
Department of Education awarded emergency relief funds to address the impact of the
COVID-19 pandemic on elementary and secondary schools (U.S. Department of
Education, 2021).
• Essential workers: conduct a range of operations and services that are typically
essential to continue critical infrastructure operations (National Conference for State
Legislatures, 2021).
• Free and Appropriate Public Education: All students aged 3 to 22 receive a free
public education that meets their educational needs. They have a right to fully take
9
part in school life, including after-school activities. What is appropriate for each child
will be different because each has unique needs (Exceptional Lives, 2019).
• Hybrid (blended) learning: a combination of in-person and distance learning (CDE,
2020).
• In-person: Students receive in-person instruction for at least part of the instructional
day for the full instructional week (California State Government, 2021).
• Learning loss: “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” (The Glossary of Education Reform, 2021).
• Pandemic: The International Epidemiology Association’s Dictionary of
Epidemiology defines a pandemic as an epidemic occurring worldwide, or over a
very wide area, crossing international boundaries and usually affecting a large
number of people (Singer, et al., 2021).
• Personal protective equipment (PPE): 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 (U. S. Department of Labor, 2021).
• Social-Emotional Learning: reflects the critical role of positive relationships and
emotional connections in the learning process and helps students develop a range of
skills they need for school and life (CDE, 2020).
10
• Stakeholders: 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.
Stakeholders may also be collective entities, such as local businesses or organizations
that represent specific groups, such as teachers unions. In a word, stakeholders have a
personal, professional, civic, or financial interest or concern (The Glossary of
Education Reform, 2021).
• Synchronous learning: Takes place in real-time, with delivery of instruction and/or
interaction with participants such as a live whole-class, small group, or individual
meeting via an online platform or in-person when possible (CDE, 2020).
• Williams Compliance Act: The 2000 Eliezer Williams, et al., vs. State of California,
et al. (Williams) case was a class action suit against the state of California and state
education agencies. The plaintiffs claimed that these agencies failed to provide public
school students with equal access to instructional materials, safe and decent school
facilities, and qualified teachers. The case was settled in 2004, resulting in the state
allocating $138 million in additional funding for standards-aligned instructional
materials for schools and another $50 million for implementation costs. Now known
as the Williams Compliance Act, the settlement was implemented through legislation
adopted in August 2004: Senate Bills 6 and 550 and Assembly Bills 1550, 2727, and
3001. Up to 2.3 million California public school students may benefit from funding
from the Williams case settlement (CDE, 2020).
• World Health Organization (WHO): A team of professionals that includes the world’s
leading public health expert. Together, WHO coordinates the world’s response to
11
health emergencies, promotes well-being, prevents disease, and expands access to
health care (WHO, 2021a).
Organization of the Study
This study is organized into five chapters. Chapter One provides an introduction to the
study, statement of the problem, purpose of the study, the significance of the study, four research
questions, limitations, delimitations, and the definitions of key terms. Chapter Two reviews the
literature relevant to the problem. Chapter Three presents the methodology of the research
design, sampling and data collection procedures, instruments designed for data collection, and
data analysis procedures. Chapter Four details the findings and major themes of the data analysis.
Chapter Five provides a summary of the study’s findings, a conclusion, and an examination of
possible implications for further research, as well as recommendations for future research.
12
Chapter Two: Literature Review
During the COVID-19 pandemic school closures, while school leaders were navigating
guidance from multiple agencies and clear information about the impact on students and adults,
they had to determine if and/or how they would continue to meet students’ critical needs.
According to Malkus et al. (2020), between March and May of 2020, across the country, schools
quickly implemented systems to begin and sustain meal services for close to 30 million children
dependent on free or low-cost meals. According to Malkus et al., LEAs provided students and
families meals, technological devices, internet access, remote instruction, and plans for their
graduating seniors. Ninety-five percent of schools provided meals to students, 66% provided
devices, and 70% had plans to help provide internet access to students at home. Malkus et al.
further stated that 97% of schools provided some form of remote instruction, with the most
common format being asynchronous web-based platforms, followed by instructional packets for
students to complete, and then synchronous web-based platforms (Malkus et al., 2020, pp. 2–3).
Thus, LEAs served their communities without a playbook and with competing and conflicting
mandates from various government agencies and their stakeholders. School leaders often
described their work as trying to build a plane as it goes down the runway (Malkus et al., 2020).
The instructional core framework articulated by Cohen and Raudenbush (2003) can help
to better understand the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on K–12 education. The instructional
core consists of three parts: teachers’ knowledge and skill, students’ engagement in their own
learning, and academically challenging content (Cohen et al., 2003). While teaching during a
pandemic is new, the fundamentals of good teaching endure. Myung et al. (2020) noted that, in
times of disruption and uncertainty, it is helpful to return to the fundamentals of teaching and
learning (p. 5). The instructional core framework provides a lens to view what the literature
13
reveals about the fundamentals of good teaching and student learning to examine the impact of
the COVID-19 pandemic on students, teachers, and content. The pandemic has impacted each
element of the instructional core (Myung et al., 2020). According to a synthesis of close to
200,000 student survey responses, the students are really not alright (Chu & Lake, 2021). During
the spring school closures, students reported meaningful instruction was limited, and they were
unhappy with online classes. Mental health concerns became prevalent.
Despite the best efforts put forth by LEAs to continue educating students, Horrigan
(2020) noted that across all racial and ethnic groups, one in three Black, Latino, and American
Indian/Alaska Native households nationwide did not have the technological resources to
participate in virtual instruction. This lack of resources has come to be known as the homework
gap. Further, Horrigan asserted that 7.3 million children do not have a desktop, laptop, or tablet
computer, one in three families who earn less than $50,000 annually do not have high-speed
home internet, and two in five families in rural areas do not have high-speed internet at home.
While the COVID-19 pandemic negatively impacted all students, the disruptions harmed some
students more than others.
According to GENYOUth (2020), specific groups of students felt greater distress levels:
high school juniors and seniors, African American students, students living in urban areas, and
students living in households whose family income is at or below $50,000 per year. Additionally,
Asian students were reported as being more likely to feel disconnected from their school
communities than White, Black, and Latinx students. Latinx students reported feeling less
connected to both school adults and peers than either White or Black students (Margolius et al.,
2020). English learners and students receiving special education services continue to have less
positive experiences accessing their schoolwork compared to their peers (Chu & Lake, 2021).
14
The pandemic disproportionately impacted students of color, students from low-income
families, and those in rural communities. Leithwood et al. (2020) discovered that students
without high-speed internet service at home or who relied solely on a mobile phone for their
internet access spent more time completing assignments and had lower grade point averages. To
meet the needs of students locked out of virtual instruction, a national survey conducted by the
School Superintendents Association (AASA, 2020a), reported that 73% of school districts
indicated they would use book/paper-based learning for students living in homes without a
device or internet connectivity. Students without adequate technological resources were
completely locked out of virtual learning instruction. According to Goldstein et al. (2020), in
extreme cases, students did not have access to materials or synchronous instruction provided by
teachers. In addition, according to Educational Research Strategies (2021), while the pandemic
created challenges for all children, it also amplified and exacerbated existing educational
inequities.
Even without the challenges presented by the COVID-19 pandemic, Hill and Jochim
(2021) stated that the superintendency comes with a myriad of challenges. Superintendents are
pushed in contradictory directions by school board members and are often pressured by city and
state leaders. They are under constant threat of litigation by parents, in negotiations with
collective bargaining associations, and awaiting states’ funding decisions. However, the need for
superintendent leadership is amplified in times of crisis, as schools and communities need
someone to bring clarity to chaos, make decisions, and respond to surprises (Hill & Jochim,
2021). According to Kaiser (2020), in times of crisis, people look to leaders for hope and a way
forward. Superville (2021) noted that it has always been important for school leaders to be
adaptable to emergent situations as they occur. However, Superville asserted that the pandemic
15
required school leaders to be willing to pivot without notice and with rapidly changing
information. To better understand the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on schools, educational
leadership theories and frameworks were the lens used to view enacted leadership approaches
educational leaders used to successfully guide their systems through the pandemic. According to
Superville, while it is expected that school leaders adapt to change without notice, the COVID-
19 pandemic required school leaders to lead in a crisis with rapidly changing information.
Despite the pandemic, aspects of fundamental school leadership remain constant: having a clear
vision, developing others, managing people, building capacity, and being responsive to one’s
context (Harris & Jones, 2020). Achor (2020) stated that, although it may seem counterintuitive,
even in the most severe situations, positivity matters.
Romer (2004) stated, “A crisis is a terrible thing to waste” (as cited in Manzano, 2010, p.
19). The COVID-19 pandemic created a crisis in education. School systems pivoted and
reconceptualized educating students, which caused an almost total shutdown of the U.S. school
system as more than 55 million students were unable to leave their homes and participated in
school via remote learning (Horrigan, 2020). Between the spring closures and the fall, Chu and
Lake (2021) reported an increase in student learning, but that learning leveled off at 60% of
students indicating they were learning each day. This number is no different from pre-pandemic
levels, which means that 40% of students would not report they are learning each day prior to the
pandemic (Chu & Lake, 2021). Prior to and during the pandemic, school systems failed students.
Yet, some might consider the students who connected and logged in to remote learning with a
teacher as the lucky ones even though they did not self-report as learning (Chu & Lake, 2021).
Remote learning requires students to have a device and stable, high-speed internet
connectivity, and as schools pivoted to online learning, devices and an internet connection
16
became the digital school buses delivering students to their teachers (Bailey, 2020). According to
Horrigan (2020), 24.2 million students were unable to participate in synchronous instruction with
their teachers because of a lack of a high-speed internet device or any device at all. If online
learning devices and an internet connection were the digital buses that delivered students to their
teachers, many students were left at the bus stop and never picked up. According to Bailey
(2020), the inequities that persist in our educational system, like inequitable access to
technology, were not created by the COVID-19 pandemic, but they were exposed and
exacerbated. Horrigan stated the persistent educational inequities for low-income and
communities of color in the United States are rooted in
America’s racial inequities stem(ming) from 400 years of systematic racism and federally
sanctioned discriminatory policies born from our nation’s original sins [—] the
enslavement of Black people and the disenfranchisement and forced relocation of
American Indian/Alaska Native communities. The fact that Black Americans were not
allowed to read, immigrant children were denied equal access to a free public education,
and that Black, Latino, and American Indian/Alaska Native communities were excluded
from economic opportunities have had lingering effects on current generations: subpar
education, low-wage jobs, and the lack of available or affordable broadband options to
allow children to engage in distance learning. (p. 4)
Zhao et al. (2019) referred to a crisis as an opportunity to break from the past and to
create something new. The COVID-19 pandemic presented an opportunity for school systems to
hit the reset button and reimagine how to redesign systems to improve educational outcomes for
all students. Throughout the country, LEAs enacted innovations that may become lasting
transformations to address pre-existing inequities in education. The pandemic provided school
17
systems an opportunity and permission to rethink assumptions, structures, and systems (Bailey,
2020). Zhao (2020) encouraged educators to use the COVID-19 educational crisis as an
opportunity to reimagine education to create the best educational opportunities for all children
and encouraged educators to think beyond simply improving schools. Toch and James (2021)
reported some public school leaders responded boldly and imaginatively to the unprecedented
instructional challenges. The following sections include a review of suggested and implemented
innovations from school systems heeding the call to reimagine schools, innovate, and create a
new path forward.
COVID-19 Impact on Local Education Agencies
During the spring of 2020, schools rapidly closed their doors as a result of the COVID-19
pandemic (Garet et al., 2020). The rapid spread of the disease left many educators unprepared
(Malkus et al., 2020). Olson (2021) reported that close to 55 million U.S. students were no
longer allowed to attend schools in person and were required to engage in virtual instruction.
Schools hastily implemented remote learning plans, often from scratch or for the first time
(Malkus et al., 2020). According to Hurtt (2021), the changes to how most schools educated
students required dramatic shifts in school system operations.
Meeting Students Critical Needs
At the forefront of school system responses was an almost immediate focus on meeting
students’ most critical needs, including meals, technological devices, internet access, remote
instruction, and plans for graduating seniors (Malkus et al., 2020). When school buildings closed,
districts initially focused on meal distribution (Garet et al., 2020). According to the American
Enterprise Institute (2020), after the March 2020 closures, 95% of schools provided meals to
students. Also, nearly all districts communicated plans to meet students’ basic needs, including
18
providing free or reduced-cost meals (Malkus et al., 2020; Reed, 2020). Continuing to provide
students with access to nutritious meals was well-founded, as economic conditions placed
financial strain on families and reduced access to meals (Schanzenbach & Pitts, 2020).
Nationwide estimates indicated that nearly one-third of households with children were food
insecure in April 2020 (Schanzenbach & Pitts, 2020). School districts’ rapid policy and
implementation response to meet students’ nutritional needs reflects a deep-seated recognition of
the role schools play in meeting students’ most basic needs and reflects the strength of the
coordination across agencies (Reed, 2021).
However, it did take time for districts to develop and implement distance learning
approaches. Sixty-six percent of school systems provided devices to students, 70% developed
plans to provide internet access to students at home, and 97% provided remote instruction
(Malkus et al., 2020). The most common format for remote instruction was asynchronous web-
based platforms, followed by instructional packets for students to complete, and then
synchronous web-based platforms (Malkus et al., 2020).
Making Decisions Amidst Changing Information From Various Agencies
System leaders were forced to make constant decisions to keep their stakeholders safe
while simultaneously planning for the possibility of reopening schools amidst constantly
changing information and sometimes conflicting information from various agencies and
interests, including county health departments, departments of education, unions, the CDC, and
other interests (Jones, 2020). Valant (2020) reported that local and state policymakers faced
making decisions about whether, when, and how to open schools amid a dangerous and
unpredictable pandemic. In a report issued by the School Superintendents Association (AASA,
2020), system leaders shared the agencies they would take guidance from when deciding to close
19
or reopen schools: state health agency (84%), recommendations from state education agency
(82%), state policy (81%), recommendations from local health agencies (75%), and COVID-19
reported in their community (69%). System leaders were forced to make complex decisions that
involved considerable logistical and ethical questions that weighed public health risks against the
cost of closing schools; further, school system approaches to these questions varied between
cities (Valant, 2020).
The lack of clear guidance or plans from health agencies, the state and federal
government exacerbated political pressures that LEAs had to operate under as they worked to
create their own action plans, which created a leadership vacuum (Lake, 2021). The leadership
vacuum brought about by conflicting information, and a lack of clear guidance created space for
community stakeholders to also take an interest in participating in school system decision
making. The Southern California Chapter of the American Academy of Pediatrics (2020) issued
a statement explicitly requesting to be involved in school reopening decisions as experts in
children’s health and development. In California, school districts navigated issues stemming
from the pandemic by taking into account directives and guidance from the county health
departments, the CDE, teachers’ unions, the CDC, and other groups, and as conditions are
changed daily, few districts had concrete plans (Jones, 2020).
Conflicts With Teacher Unions
Among the groups school districts contended with were teacher collective bargaining
associations, commonly referred to as teacher unions. According to Hemphill and Marianno
(2020), collective bargaining agreements are negotiated between unions and district officials to
establish the working conditions and work rules for teachers in traditional instructional settings.
Collective bargaining agreements can shape students’ school experiences. In a study of 101 large
20
urban school districts, only 25 altered contract language to respond to the changing needs
brought on by the COVID-19 pandemic by signing memorandums of understanding (MOUs)
with their teacher unions. The MOUs can alter or suspend contract language allowing school
districts to be responsive to the COVID-19 crisis (Hemphill & Marianno, 2021). However, not
attending to the contract language established in collective bargaining agreements can lower
teachers’ morale, lead to unrest, and make it more difficult for districts to shift from in-person to
virtual instruction (Hemphill & Marianno, 2021). Marianno (2021) discovered that school
districts with lengthier collective bargaining agreements were less likely to start the fall 2020
semester with in-person instruction, were less likely to open at all for in-person instruction
during the fall semester, and spent more weeks overall in distance learning. Further, longstanding
union relationships reflected by lengthier collective bargaining agreements were also associated
with slowed reopening timelines (Marianno, 2021). The authors recommended districts and
teacher unions work together to establish expectations and amidst potentially rapidly changing
environments (Marianno & Hemphill, 2021).
According to Viner et al. (2021), without significant data to support school closures and
the degree to which COVID-19 impacts children’s health, school leaders had to decide whether
to reopen schools or leave them closed while considering the risks associated with both options
that would require mitigation. System leaders reported they were overwhelmed by the logistical
challenges they faced and the politics of school reopening decisions (Lake, 2021). Valant (2020)
reported reopening decisions were correlated with local political attitudes and that there was not
a strong relationship between districts’ reopening decisions and their counties’ COVID-19 cases
per capita. According to Marianno (2021), the strongest predictors of an in-person reopening
during fall 2020 included political partisanship as reflected by the number of Trump voters in the
21
county and the surrounding area’s demographics in terms of the percentage of White students in
the school district (Marianno, 2021). Hess (2021) also stated that the greatest predictors of a
school’s reopening were (a) its status as a private or public school, (b) its community’s political
partisanship, and (c) whether its public school system had a strong teacher union. Thus, politics
and not COVID-19 risk became a predictor of whether a school system reopened. According to
DeAngelis (2021), “school reopening has been more about political partisanship and power
dynamics than actual safety concerns and the needs of millions of families” (as cited in Hess,
2021, p. 3).
Declining Enrollment and Fiscal Impact
Compounding the challenges school system leaders faced amidst the COVID-19
pandemic were declining enrollment numbers. According to Bassok and Shapiro (2021), public
school enrollment dropped throughout the country, with the most pronounced declines in pre-
kindergarten and kindergarten. According to Belsha et al. (2020), about half of the states do not
mandate kindergarten enrollment. As districts moved to some form of remote instruction, many
families opted to delay school enrollment during the closures, while other families who were
economically advantaged opted to send their children to private schools or public schools
offering in-person instruction (Bassok & Shapiro, 2021). Nationally, with only 33 states
reporting, public K–12 enrollment during the fall of the 2020–2021 school year declined by more
than 500,000 students, or 2%, since the same time last year (Belsha et al., 2020). Declines in
enrollment can be attributed to factors brought about by the pandemic, parents opting not to
enroll their students in kindergarten, and to families leaving public schools to attend in-person
learning at private and charter schools (Belsha et al., 2020). However, other students did not
have access to the technology required to connect to virtual classrooms, and others struggled to
22
attend classes and fell off district attendance rolls (Belsha et al., 2020). Declining enrollment has
significant fiscal consequences for school districts. Jarmolowski and Roza (2021) indicated that
47% of school districts are state-funded based on student enrollment counts, so a decrease in
enrollment can also mean a decrease in funding. Research has noted that a 1% decrease in
enrollment can financially destabilize a school district, and the pandemic created a loss for most
districts between 2% and 5% (Jarmolowski & Roza, 2021). To buffer the potentially harmful
impact of declining enrollment, many states created policies that held school districts harmless
by guaranteeing them funding irrespective of enrollment numbers (Jarmolowski & Roza, 2021).
Even with hold-harmless policies, districts faced what Zhou et al. (2021) called the triple squeeze
of rising costs due to health and safety precautions, declining enrollment, and greater student
need.
To add to the fiscal complexity, educational leaders faced another pressure as it became
clear that reopening schools would be linked to economic recovery. If employees had to stay
home with their children, then reopening businesses and economic recovery would be delayed
(Bailey, 2020). As such, funding for schools from the COVID-19 aid package was only available
for schools that opened for in-person learning, leaving local decision makers in a precarious
position of making reopening decisions based on the politics of funding instead of their
communities’ health and safety (Valant, 2020). Economic recovery stemming from the COVID-
19 pandemic became increasingly important as it also coincided with a U.S. presidential election
year. According to Blinder and Watson (2015), extensive research indicates that positive
macroeconomic performance is a strong predictor of U.S. presidential election outcomes, and
better economic performance boosts the vote for the incumbent’s party. Per Valant (2020), “We
23
need to be clear-eyed that national politics—and the strings attached to federal resources—can
affect the decisions of local and state leaders” (p. 4).
COVID-19 Impact on Instructional Core
Myung et al. (2020) stated that it is helpful to return to the fundamentals of teaching and
student learning during times of crisis and disruption. The instructional core, a theoretical
framework developed by Cohen et al. (2003), helps understand the impact of the COVID-19
pandemic on students, teachers, and the content during distance learning. The instructional core
consists of teachers’ knowledge and skill, students’ engagement in their learning, and
challenging academic content (Cohen et al., 2003). The theoretical frame makes interaction
between teachers and students over content central to instruction and portrays teachers and
students as interdependent actors. Teachers’ effectiveness depends partly on how well they can
use students’ ideas and initiatives, and students’ effectiveness depends partly on how well they
can use the tasks their teachers set and the comments their teachers make (Cohen et al., 2003, p.
14). Educators and students in schools across the United States faced sweeping, unprecedented
changes to teaching and learning due to the COVID-19 pandemic, which effectively ended in-
person instruction and moved instruction to distance learning (Hamilton et al., 2020).
Taking a definition from California SB 98, distance learning is “instruction in which the
pupil and instructor are in different locations and pupils are under the general supervision of a
certificated employee of the local educational agency [LEA]” (Sect. 43500). There have not been
any rigorous studies documenting the most effective ways to transition all students from in-
person learning to distance learning quickly (Myung et al., 2020). Without a blueprint for action,
no rigorous studies have been conducted on the most effective ways to move all public schools
from an in-person to a distance- or blended-learning model over a short period (Myung et al.,
24
2020). Without a clear path forward, the COVID-19 pandemic indicated that schools sent 90% of
children, 1.6 billion in 195 countries, home to participate in some form of distance learning
(Hargreaves & Fullan, 2020). The pandemic caused the most widespread interruption to
instruction in K–12 education and impacted each element of the instructional core (Myung et al.,
2020).
Pandemic’s Impact on Academically Challenging Content
Along with teachers’ knowledge and skill, students’ engagement in their learning,
another piece of the instructional core is academically challenging content (Myung et al., 2020).
Cohen et al. (2003) asserted that for most of the history of U.S. public schools, conventional
educational resources were seen as the key to making schools work. However, several decades of
research indicate that while access is important, it is not sufficient to guarantee student learning.
When looking at standardized tests, students who made the most gains had more effective
teachers, which was a significant difference between these students and their peers; thus, the
teacher is the mediating difference (Cohen et al., 2003). Research has found that schools and
teachers with the same resources do different things with different results for learning (Cohen,
2003). These differences do not undermine the importance of content and student access to
content because if the students’ work is not paced to maintain cognitive demand, students may be
overwhelmed or bored, and learning will suffer. The content is more than a curricular resource; it
is not passed onto learners. Instruction, engaging with the content, is a stream, not an event, and
it flows in and draws on environments, including other teachers and students, school leaders,
parents, professions, local districts, state agencies, and test and text publishers (Cohen, 2003).
Using the instructional core theoretical frame and overlaying distance learning, we can
better understand the pandemic’s impact on the content teachers were responsible for teaching
25
students. School districts took varying approaches to content delivery. Some school districts
purchased digital tablets in bulk and transported them out to all their families. Others turned on
the Wi-Fi in their empty schools so people could drive their children to school parking lots to
download materials onto their devices, which they could work on back home. Some districts had
teachers deliver learning resources in plastic or wooden boxes to families’ doorsteps, and some
systems used their school buses to drop off materials (Hargreaves & Fullan, 2020).
According to Gewertz (2020), pandemic learning is complex and contradictory, as there
is less of it, and the children with the greatest need receive the least. Some students have live
video lessons for hours daily and stay in close contact with their teachers, while others get no
real-time instruction and hear from their teachers perhaps once a week (Gewertz, 2020). Garret et
al. (2020) report that, on average, districts expected students in early elementary grades (K–2) to
spend 2.2 hours each day on instructional activities. In contrast, districts expected high school
students (Grades 9–12) to spend 3.9 hours per day on instructional activities. These time
expectations are generally lower than the daily instructional hours that states require under
normal circumstances. With less time available for instruction, many teachers greatly reduced the
amount of instruction, practice, and assessment they gave their students, and the time that
students spent learning seems to be much less than it would have been if students were learning
in person (Wyse et al., 2020). In addition, some students are no longer connected to the content
because, as Goldstein et al. (2020) reported, in districts like the Los Angeles Unified School
District, about 13% of high school students had no online contact with teachers in the first 3
weeks of school closures, and one-third were not regularly participating in online learning.
Teachers reported they were spending more time on review and less time on instruction and
introducing new material. Teachers also reported they were working 2 fewer hours per day than
26
when they were in their classrooms, and they estimated that their students were spending half as
much time on learning, 3 hours a day, as they were before the coronavirus (Gerwertz, 2020). It
makes sense that amongst the challenges the pandemic created is unfinished learning (Goldstein
et al., 2020) because students will only learn what they are effectively taught (Myung, 2020).
Pandemic’s Impact on Teachers’ Knowledge and Skills
According to Hamilton et al. (2020), teachers navigated extensive challenges during the
school closures, as the buildings were closed, but school remained in session. According to
Kaden (2020), teachers were challenged to provide meaningful educational experiences to
students, were confined to their homes using lesson plans that did not fit their current teaching
context, and were challenged to quickly learn new technologies to do their work of connecting
and teaching students. Hargreaves and Fullan (2020) discussed the fundamental nature of
teachers’ work. They noted the importance of the apprenticeship teachers experience as students
on the other side of the desk in shaping how they view their work, the psychic rewards,
emotional satisfaction, and feedback they receive from teaching, and the conservative culture of
individualism. Teaching during the pandemic stands in stark contrast and undermines the
fundamental nature of a teacher’s work.
According to Kaufman and Diliberti (2021), teachers worked longer hours, had to learn
new technologies without time to prepare, experienced difficulty contacting all students and
making connections with students in a virtual setting while receiving varying degrees of support
from their LEAs. After the spring 2020 school closures and with summer to prepare for the
likelihood of rerouting to a virtual environment for the 2020–2021 school year, teachers’ work
did not get easier. Their workloads have not lightened from the spring 2020 closures (Kaufman
& Diliberti, 2021). All teachers working remotely, particularly those serving in high-poverty
27
schools, grapple with teaching in a virtual environment (Kaufman & Diliberti, 2021). They
continue to struggle with engaging all students and managing technology (Kaufman & Diliberti,
2021).
Hamilton et al. (2020) indicated that 62% of teachers received some training on how to
use learning management systems. Fewer than 30% of teachers reported receiving professional
development to ensure distance learning activities were accessible, engaging, differentiated to
support students’ unique learning needs, and responsive to students’ social-emotional needs and
well-being (Hamilton et al., 2020). Wyse et al. (2020) reported that teachers grappled with
instruction, communication with students, providing learning activities, and assessing progress
and learning. Per Gross and Opalka (2020), teachers reported limited student engagement and
being worried that students would fall behind academically. According to Chu and Lake (2021),
students reported meaningful instruction was limited, and they were unhappy with online classes.
As teachers missed the psychic rewards they typically experienced during in-person instruction,
76.8% of them reported not feeling the same emotional connection to their students as they did
prior to the pandemic (Hargreaves & Fullan, 2020). Teacher morale is low (Kaufman &
Diliberti, 2021). If teachers’ morale is low, they will be less likely to do the work required to
support students effectively as schools reopen (Kauffman & Diliberti, 2021). Kaden (2020) noted
that teachers experienced the single most traumatic and transformative event of the modern era.
Pandemic’s Impact on Students’ Engagement in Their Learning
Chu and Lake (2021) quoted a student as stating,
I think the biggest hardship with learning from home is that I find myself with absolutely
no desire to work. It’s habitual to get into my classes every day, but I find it hard to pay
attention, hard to focus, hard to care. (p. 3)
28
Due to the school building closures, 55 million students in the United States transitioned
from in-person to online learning. While some students experienced challenges with motivation
and engagement, others were unable to connect to online learning because they did not have a
device or a stable internet connection. According to the Alliance for Excellent Education (2020),
16.9 million children lack the high-speed home internet access necessary to participate in online
learning, 7.3 million children do not have a device, and one in three Black, Latinx, and Native
American families earning less than $50,000 per year do not have high-speed internet at home.
This disparity disproportionately impacts students of color, students from low-income families,
and students in rural communities (Alliance for Excellent Education, 2020). Further, students
who do not have home internet access or who rely on a mobile plan for it spend more time on
homework, have lower grade point averages, and have weaker internet skills (Alliance for
Excellent Education, 2020). The gap between students who are logged in and those who are
logged out could set back a generation of American students (Alliance for Excellent Education,
2020). The pandemic did not create these disparities, but because of it, schools now have
resources and an opportunity for a hard reset to address disparities in education and accelerate
efforts to close educational equity gaps (Alliance for Excellent Education, 2020).
According to America’s Promise Alliance (2020), students are increasingly anxious,
unable to concentrate, and feeling disconnected and isolated. According to Chu and Lake (2021),
while there was an increase in student learning between the fall and spring school closures, close
to half of all students surveyed reported feeling depressed, stressed, and/or anxious. There has
also been a marked increase in suicidal ideation and attempts, resulting in a matching increase in
mental-health-related emergency department visits. Students are missing personal connections
with their peers and adults. Fifty-eight percent of students surveyed by Challenge Success (2020)
29
indicated an adult never checked in with them in real-time. Forty-one percent of survey
respondents indicated they never had an adult, at home or school, to see how they were doing
(Chu & Lake, 2021).
The reported impact of the pandemic on student’s mental health and wellness helps to
understand why many students reported an inability to easily engage in remote learning. Students
who can connect to virtual learning reported motivation and the ability to engage in their
learning as a challenge (Chu & Lake, 2021). According to Challenge Success (2020), close to
half of survey respondents indicated they were not extending the same amount of effort in school
and were less engaged. While students reported that the amount of time spent in synchronous
learning sessions with teachers was appropriate, only 41% indicated their classes were actually
interesting (Chu & Lake, 2021). In another survey conducted by the Center for Promise at
America’s Promise Alliance (2020), 92% of students indicated they were participating in online
learning opportunities, yet 78% reported spending 4 or fewer hours each day in class or working
on assignments.
According to GENYOUth Insights (2020), the impact of COVID-19 on teens has been
significant. Youth are engaged in the crisis, as more than two-thirds of student survey
respondents indicated they monitored media outlets at least once per day to look for updates on
what was happening with the pandemic (GENYOUth, 2020). Teens were paying attention to
pandemic updates and experiencing anxiety related to the constant state of change. Students who
experienced disruptions from the pandemic were feeling high levels of distress, worry, and/or
sadness.
According to the GENYouth Insight Report (2020), without a clear sense of when
disruptions would end, students showed elevated levels of distress. Ninety-one percent of
30
students were impacted by their inability to maintain friendships, and 45% were really worried or
sad. Eighty-three percent had been impacted by their family’s inability to meet their basic needs
and were worried or sad, and 30% were really worried or sad about the change in their family’s
financial situation. Eighty-seven percent had been impacted by their inability to participate in
special moments and were worried or sad, and 45% were really worried or sad about that
inability. Twenty-seven percent of students reported their concern for their families’ well-being
as having a huge impact on their mental health (GENYOUth, 2020). Students witnessed and/or
experienced financial challenges brought about or exacerbated by the pandemic, which led to
food insecurity, housing instability, and unemployment for many families. More than half of
respondents to America’s Promise Alliance’s (2020) survey indicated they were more concerned
than usual about their own and their family’s physical and emotional health.
Young people are experiencing collective trauma and will need immediate and ongoing
support to meet their basic needs, physical and mental health, and learning opportunities.
Additionally, students’ levels of concern about the present and future have increased, and
indicators of their overall health and well-being have suffered. Per America’s Promise Alliance,
30% of respondents said they had more often been feeling unhappy or depressed and were
concerned about having their basic needs met (America’s Promise Alliance, 2020). Further, 29%
said they did not feel connected at all to school adults, classmates, or their school community
(America’s Promise Alliance, 2020).
Compounding reports of students’ mental health issues, 31% of students reported
concerns about their educational futures as having a significant impact on their well-being
(GENYOUth, 2020). Survey respondents expressed concerns about struggling not to fall behind
in school, not being academically ready for the next year, altered college exploration and
31
application processes, and their inability to position themselves as competitive applicants
because of their inability to participate in extracurricular activities (GENYOUth, 2020). Also,
according to Sawchuck (2020), students engaged in distance learning have documented increases
in failing or near-failing grades. Students’ grades and test performance markedly declined after
in-person instruction shifted online, especially for students who were learning online (Borter &
O’Brien, 2021; Gross, 2021). In New Mexico, more than 40% of middle and high school
students were failing at least one class as of late October, 2020. In Houston, Texas, 42% of
students received at least one F in the first grading period of the year in 2020. During the
COVID-19 pandemic, nearly 40% of grades for high school students in St. Paul, Minnesota,
were Fs, double the amount in a typical year. In California’s Sonoma County, 37% of students
across 10 districts had at least one failing grade, compared with 27% last year.
The increase in low grades provides evidence that students are struggling with extended
doses of remote learning. Factors affecting this struggle are a lack of reliable Wi-Fi access or
devices for students, sporadic attendance, and disengagement, leading to missing assignments
(Sawchuck, 2021, p. 2). Teachers grapple with how to continue to instruct and communicate with
students, provide them activities to help them practice what they were learning, and, in some
cases, try to assess what they may have learned at home (Wyse et al., 2020). The pandemic
interrupted many teachers’ ability to develop relationships with their students and left them
feeling frustrated with their inability to intervene and provide students with the support they need
to succeed (Sawchuck, 2021). As teachers grappled with assessing student progress and learning,
many assigned F grades that did not accurately reflect student comprehension. The impact on
students’ confidence, graduation timelines, and college acceptance prospects can lead to further
challenges (Borter & O’Brien, 2021). Students are experiencing challenges to their emotional
32
and cognitive health, as they report an increase in lost sleep because of worry, feeling unhappy or
depressed, constantly feeling under strain, or experiencing a loss of self-confidence (America’s
Promise Alliance, 2020). It is no wonder that, according to Horowitz and Igielnik (2020), most
parents with students in K–12 schools are concerned about their children falling behind in
schools because of the impact of the pandemic on their students’ school experiences.
COVID-19 Innovations and Lasting Transformations
While the COVID-19 pandemic created chaos, it led to a wealth of energy in innovative,
collaborative, and focused problem-solving (Hargreaves & Fullan, 2020). Zhou (2020) cautioned
educators not to treat the pandemic as a short-term crisis in education but, instead, to leverage the
crisis as an opportunity to reimagine schools for all children. Challenges and disruptions brought
about by the pandemic are forcing school leaders and communities to review every facet of
education, including the inequities that persist in the system (Bailey, 2020). Pillow and Dusseault
(2021) urged educators to use the current crisis to plant seeds of opportunity that grow
systematic transformation because the pandemic has forced a re-examination of existing
assumptions about the structure of traditional schools. Gross et al. (2021) encouraged educators
to view the COVID-19 pandemic crisis as an opportunity for districts to implement systems to
respond to students’ needs without opposition because these needs are present and pervasive.
However, Hargreaves and Fullan (2020) stated educators should be careful not to idealize
students’ pre-pandemic school experiences. The pandemic exposed and exacerbated what was
wrong with school systems (Fullan, 2020).
Fullan (2020) stated that for a period after the Second World War, education served
society as an agent of change, mobility, and development. However, since the 1980s, education
has become part of a system of stagnation and must now become an essential feature of the
33
solution as an agent of both individual and social development. According to Schleicher (2018),
prior to the pandemic and over the past decade, there has been virtually no improvement in
student outcomes in the Western world (p. 13). Malin (2018) further stated that numerous studies
found a significant loss in students’ interest in schooling as they transition to higher grades, with
only 20% showing a sense of purpose by the time they reach Grades 11 and 12. Over the last
decade, there has also been a steady increase in the level of anxiety and stress students
experience (Fullan, 2020). Long before the pandemic, America’s high schools struggled to meet
their students’ needs, and a third of the nation’s high schoolers scored below basic on national
math and reading assessments. Only about half of students find what they learn relevant and
enjoyable, and the U.S. Department of Education reported one in five high school students were
chronically absent during the 2015–16 school year, and schools faced a crisis of disengagement
(Gross et al., 2021).
In 2020, before the spring school closures, students viewed schooling as less and less
relevant and interesting compared to previous generations, and those who graduated did so
mainly for extrinsic reasons: to go to a good university and get a high-paying job (Hargreaves &
Fullan, 2020). Per Bailey (2020),
Too many of these young people were already struggling in a system that was not serving
them well. Sending these students back to “school as normal” will mean going back to
continually failing them. The rethinking of schooling that was forced by the pandemic
can serve as an opportunity to introduce some long overdue reforms and improvements to
better serve students, particularly students of color. The task ahead of us is not reopening
schools as normal but building an education system that is more resilient and equitable.
(Bailey, 2020, p. 1).
34
Olson (2021) indicated that some public school leaders responded boldly and imaginatively to
the unprecedented instructional challenges. Using the instructional core framework (Cohen et al.,
2003), the following sections discuss how schools and districts are using the COVID-19
pandemic as an opportunity to think about and address existing inequities. While the literature is
scant, research offers examples and suggestions for educational leaders as they begin
reimagining schools.
Innovations and Lasting Transformations in Content
The power of this moment resides in educational systems’ ability to imagine and
implement quality and relevant learning experiences, in and outside of the classroom, that
support students’ ability to apply what they learn to their lives and prepare them for the world
(Vegas & Winthrop, 2020). Districts are planning to offer students, especially high school
students in rural areas, expanded choice using virtual instruction as an opportunity to expand
options for courses that previously had low enrollment or were harder to staff (Lake, 2021).
Specifically, one school piloted a series of online college preparatory courses to high school
students who did not have access through their schools, and another school district launched a
hybrid model where students took dual credit courses at a university while still in high school
(Lake, 2021).
Instructional content is typically viewed as the curriculum that school systems adopt and
prescribe. Teachers are required to implement this content, but the practice of utilizing the same
content for all students has been challenged for a long time because the same content does not
meet all students’ needs, interests, and passions (Zhao, 2020). Content is often viewed as
disconnected from students’ lives and taught in a way that expects students to be passive
receivers of distant, irrelevant information taught without a clear sense of purpose. The move to
35
project-based learning is a clear signal that traditional methods of learning need to change (Zhao,
2020).
Innovations and Lasting Transformations for Teachers
System leaders express an interest in new approaches to teacher staffing and support,
such as anywhere, anytime professional development using synchronous virtual staff meetings
and asynchronous activities like recorded sessions and cyber committees to support the school’s
work (Lake, 2021). One school district tried rotating content-area teachers in grades K–12 to
help keep students engaged and provide consistency (Lake, 2021). Other districts are looking to
use non-certificated staff in new ways to support teachers and make family connections (Lake,
2021).
The COVID-19 pandemic compelled systems to rethink grading policies and practices
(Gross et al., 2021). In a study of 80 school district reopening plans, 41% reported they
recommended or required policy modification (Gross et al., 2021). One district indicated that a
positive related to grading that will persist when schools reopen is that the pandemic deepened
teachers’ understanding of the causes of failing grades as they explored disparities in the grades
they awarded and the instructional strategies they used to address them (Gross et al., 2021).
Leaders at the San Diego Unified School District (SDUSD, n.d.) used the pandemic as an
opportunity to rewrite their grading policy:
Over the past year, our students, staff, and communities have faced unexpected
challenges during a global pandemic and country-wide movement for racial justice. As a
district, we have listened to our stakeholders, researched equitable grading practices, and
revised our grading policy to best meet the needs of ALL students during this
36
unprecedented time while taking into consideration what our students will need to
prepare for life after graduation. (para. 1)
The SDUSD board approved a new grading policy that extends beyond the pandemic that gives
space for teachers to remove behavior, punctuality, attendance from considerations of whether
students have mastered grade-level standards. Nonacademic factors will be included as part of
students’ citizenship grades, and the grading policy requires teachers to give opportunities for
reflection, revision, and reassessment (Sawchuck, 2021).
Among the innovations districts might continue, they are preparing to continue virtual
learning communities for staff, adjusting instructional times, adopting more flexible staffing
models that adjust students’ assignments to teachers, and engaging in community partnerships to
offer virtual instruction (Schwartz et al., 2020). Additionally, school districts are partnering with
nonprofit organizations and using technology to extend the reach of highly skilled teachers, both
to provide high-quality virtual instruction to more students and to provide virtual professional
development and mentoring for other teachers (Olson, 2021). Campbell and Soifer (2021)
reported on an innovative approach to counter learning loss by providing under-served students
with in-person instruction in what they term a microschool that exists as a first-of-its-kind
partnership between the city of North Las Vegas and a nonprofit organization outside of the
school district.
Innovations and Lasting Transformations for Students
In a report issued by the Center for Reinventing Public Education, school districts were
asked to discuss innovations they were implementing moving forward (Lake, 2021). Several
districts are placing a more intentional and systematic focus on social-emotional health, mental
health, or racial identity to identify students struggling with non-academic issues and build
37
toward more humane communities and cultures (Lake, 2021). Some systematic approaches are
weekly surveys, daily wellness activities, strong adult-student relationships, and new
partnerships with community organizations (Lake, 2021). One school used the first weeks of
school to work with parents to develop individual student success plans (Lake, 2021). One
school district began using telemedicine to extend its ability to provide students with mental
health services by supplementing school nurses and counselors through virtual clinics (Bailey,
2020). For example, Hartford Public Schools partnered with the University of Connecticut to
have social work college students help with student risk assessments and counseling (Gross et
al., 2021).
Similarly, after surveying over 375 school districts, Schwartz et al. (2020) found that the
top-ranked professional development need was to learn how to address students’ social and
emotional well-being. A nonprofit organization, Educational Resource Strategies (2020),
encourages school leaders to focus on building and sustaining positive school and classroom
cultures, reevaluate scheduling and staffing models, proactively identify students who need
additional support, and rapidly connect students to resources. Research has found that young
people need the right supports to thrive, and it is important for educators to listen to understand
students’ concerns, prioritize social and emotional well-being to strive for equitable, universal
supports (Margolius et al., 2020).
The disruption in student learning brought about by the COVID-19 pandemic was
significant, and, especially for more vulnerable students, research suggests that many students
will begin the new school year far behind where they would normally be (Bailey, 2020). Vegas
and Winthrop (2020) offer strategies to help schools move to more equitable and relevant
learning systems: improve student agency by teaching students how to problem solve, empower
38
parents as students’ educational partners by teaching them how to navigate systems to support
their students’ educational journey, partner with community organizations to provide students
with mental health and wellness supports, and use educational technology to strengthen teachers’
pedagogical practices. Per Lake (2021),
Through Zoom, Facebook Live, and YouTube we have transitioned all events—from
parent coffees to town hall meetings to our Annual Community Fest—to be virtual. When
we return to in-person, these virtual opportunities will continue for families and the
community. (p.4)
Many districts plan to continue using technology to improve how they engage their
stakeholders by moving meetings online and using online communication and survey tools.
Other innovations that school systems would like to continue are virtual instruction partnerships,
tutoring support for students provided by outside organizations or people beyond teachers, and
virtual schooling options to meet students’ and families’ needs for more flexible schooling
options (Schwartz et al., 2020). Beyond technology but with the support of technology, school
leaders are encouraged to continue engaging parents as pivotal learning partners in students’
education by sharing student data throughout the year and beyond the standards conference dates
and report cards, as well as share strategies parents can use to support their students’ education
(Vegas and Withrop, 2020). Other school districts plan to use technology to provide students
with more individualized academic support from outside agencies and embed tutoring within the
school day (Lake, 2021). School leaders also indicated they stopped viewing learning loss and
mental health as separate challenges because they are closely related, so schools’ innovations
should meet students’ needs (Pillow & Dusseault, 2021). While some principals may not be clear
about what the innovations look like in practice, they are clear that they will be developing
39
innovative practices that prioritize emergency preparedness, academic disparities, and students’
social and emotional health (Hamilton et al., 2020).
While researchers and educational leaders tout innovation, it is important to be cautious
about negative change, such as a proliferation of technology without good pedagogical practices
or, worse, a move to privatize public education systems (Fullan, 2020). Education systems have
always been slow to change and more prone to tinkering than transformation, but the current
crisis allows districts to respond to students’ needs without opposition because the needs are
present and pervasive (Gross et al., 2021).
Related Leadership Frameworks
According to Kaiser (2020), in times of crisis, people look to leaders for hope and the
way forward. Fullan (2020) stated that COVID-19 has both exposed and exacerbated what was
wrong with the system and provided opportunities to make changes. Education systems were
stagnant before the pandemic and not serving most students’ needs (Fullan, 2020). In response to
the pandemic and the stagnation in education, Fullan et al. (2020) suggested a new model of
leadership, described as a deep learning framework that consists of (a) six global competencies
(character, citizenship, collaboration, communication, creativity, and critical thinking); (b) four
learning conditions: partnership, pedagogy, learning environment, and leveraging the use of
digital technologies; and (c) supportive conditions at the school, district, and policy levels. At the
heart of this new model of leadership is the leader’s ability to get at nuance, understanding
context. Leaders who understand nuance are especially skilled at understanding their
organization’s cultures (Fullan et al., 2020).
As society becomes more complex and non-linear, schools need new leaders who can
achieve greater specificity while having a system perspective and being involved by focusing on
40
four competencies of new leadership: expertise in context, engagement in joint determination
throughout the process, establishing a culture of accountability, and becoming a system player
(Fullan, 2020). Organizational complexity arose from rises in digital technology, economic
globalization, and diversity (Kaiser, 2020). These conditions create a more interconnected yet
turbulent context that calls for new leadership to respond to organizational complexities (Kaiser,
2020). Organizations are undergoing an accelerated pace of change, unexpected threats, shifting
market conditions, novel social dynamics, and unforeseen existential pressures (Kaiser, 2020).
Harris and Jones (2020) noted that while principles of good leadership are a constant, the
pandemic brought about other leadership concepts. These are modeling self-care, being
technologically savvy but discerning with technology purchases, developing trusting and
collaborative relationships with and amongst stakeholders, and engaging in distributive
leadership for staff members to learn from one another to respond to crisis situations effectively.
Similar to the new leadership is the coherence framework developed by Fullan and Quinn
(2016) that consists of four components: focusing direction, cultivating collaborative cultures,
deepening learning, and building capacity. At the center of the framework is leadership, as
leaders select the right combination of the four components to meet the needs of their changing
context (Fullan & Quin, 2016). The new leadership necessitates skills like (a) the ability to zoom
out and make sense of change in terms of the strategic big picture, (b) the ability to zoom in on
the tactical details for responding to it, (c) the ability to use decisive authority to establish clarity
and direction, and (d) the ability to use participation and empowerment to involve and motivate
others. However, Norton (2010) indicated what is important is the higher-order ability to
cultivate and utilize a differentiated yet tightly integrated repertoire.
41
Achor (2020) stated that positivity matters more than ever in times of crisis, as positive
and engaged members of an organization develop the best ideas during times of crisis and
suffering to create a path forward. Achor (2018) stated that the height of our potential is
predicted by the people who surround us, and if we cultivate positivity in organizations, we are
surrounded by more positive people, we create a culture where people work faster, are more
creative, and are more collaborative. With more people focusing on the challenges school
systems now face, school leaders can create a synergy from cognitive diversity leading to better
outcomes because it requires people to stretch out of their comfort zones and consider new
perspectives and ideas. The new synergy will give space for all people working in school
systems to lead with their ideas from any seat (Achor, 2018). As Harris and Jones (2020) stated,
Leading in disruptive times means being able to navigate a different course, to create new
pathways through the disruption. School leaders on this journey are defined by their
determination, their hope, and their unshakable belief that whatever happens, whatever
the cost, whatever the scale of the challenge, they will continue to do everything in their
power to safeguard the learning of all young people. (p. 5)
42
Chapter Three: Methodology
The preceding chapters provided an overview of the study, the research questions guiding
the study, and a review of the literature relevant to the topic under discussion. This chapter
reviews the statement of the problem, the purpose of the study, and the research questions. It
outlines the design of the study, summarizes the methodology, identifies the participants, and
explains the instruments used to conduct the research. It concludes with an explanation of how
the data were collected and analyzed and a brief summary of this chapter.
Overview of the Study
In March 2020, the nation’s schools pivoted to respond to challenges presented by the
COVID-19 pandemic (Reed, 2021), which caused a near-total shutdown of the school system.
More than 55 million students transitioned to home-based remote learning. School leaders
balanced the potential benefits and harms associated with closing schools as schools faced a
complicated array of health considerations (Jones, 2020; Viner et al., 2020). School leaders took
extra precautions to ensure students, teachers, and staff remained healthy (Jones, 2020). In
California, districts navigated daily changing conditions and guidance on health precautions and
other issues from several agencies (Jones, 2020). School leaders made consequential decisions
with insufficient information and resources while also navigating political debates over safety
(Valant, 2020).
Statement of the Problem
The COVID-19 pandemic had unforeseen consequences in the education system,
highlighting financial implications and the impact of agencies and unions on students and
communities. As a consequence, school leaders became crisis managers. Therefore, there is a
43
need to examine school systems and leaders’ successes and learnings to inform future responses
to crises.
Purpose of the Study
The purpose of this study was 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
practices, student achievement, financial responsibility, union leadership, and community/parent
support as they responded to the COVID-19 crisis.
Research Questions
The study was guided by four research questions:
1. What are the financial implications of the COVID-19 pandemic on K–12 public
school districts in Southern California and how did district superintendents, assistant
superintendents, and principals address these implications?
2. What was the impact of federal, state, and local health agencies on K–12 public
school districts in Southern California, and what strategies did district
superintendents, assistant superintendents, and principals follow to address the
guidelines suggested by these agencies?
3. What was the role of union negotiations in K–12 Southern California public school
districts’ response to the pandemic?
4. How did K–12 Southern California public school districts leadership teams comprised
of superintendents, assistant superintendents, and principals address the parent
44
community’s concerns regarding safety, nutrition, distance learning, lack of
technology, academic standing, and how and when to reopen schools due to the
pandemic?
Research Team
The research team was led by Dr. Rudy Castruita from the University of Southern
California (USC) Rossier School of Education. The dissertation group was composed of 22
students with Dr. Castruita as the lead researcher and the supervisor for the study. The research
team, which began meeting in the spring of 2021, contributed to the literature review
bibliography, statement of the problem, purpose of the study, research questions, conceptual
framework, and data collection instruments. Due to the many group aspects of the thematic
process, there may be some similarities in the dissertations.
Research Design
This study was designed as a mixed-methods study, utilizing both qualitative and
quantitative methods to collect and analyze data. A mixed-methods approach was selected to
establish triangulation for more accurate findings and make the study more holistic (Maxwell,
2013). Lochmiller and Lester (2017) stated that triangulation establishes evidence across
multiple data points to support the claims made in the study. Collecting data through interviews
and surveys enables triangulation between the results, which is crucial for cross-checking the
data collected and supporting the findings of the study (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). This study
was conducted with school superintendents, assistant superintendents, and principals of Southern
California K–12 public school districts. This study involved the collection of qualitative data
from open-ended interview questions with participants and quantitative surveys completed by the
interviewees.
45
Qualitative Methods
In qualitative research, the researcher is the primary instrument of data collection and
analysis, and the product is very descriptive. Qualitative researchers study things in their natural
settings and are often interested in comprehending how people interpret their experiences and
what meaning they attribute to their experiences. They use an inductive process to gain
understanding from the perspective of the participants of the study (Lochmiller & Lester, 2017;
Maxwell, 2013; Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). 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
consists of 25 questions and a series of follow-up probes. Separate interview protocols with
minimal vocabulary changes and very similar questions were used for superintendents, assistant
superintendents, and principals (Appendices A, B, and C). The interviews were conducted via
Zoom and lasted approximately 35 minutes. The interview protocol was followed consistently
throughout the interviews, and additional questions were asked when necessary. The interviews
served to gather data that reflect the participants’ opinions, decisions, and knowledge. The
overall purpose of qualitative research is to interpret how individuals make sense of a process
and describe how they interpret what they experience (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016).
Quantitative Methods
Quantitative research describes patterns, trends, and relationships using numerical data.
Quantitative research usually collects data using instruments such as assessments, surveys, and
existing datasets. The most commonly used protocol for gathering quantitative data is a survey.
Surveys allow the gathering of information from participants for easy conversion to quantitative
data to be analyzed (Lochmiller & Lester, 2017). For this study, quantitative data were collected
46
using a self-administered survey via Qualtrics (Appendices D, E, and F). The survey questions
were developed around the four research questions and designed to gather data that reflected the
school leaders’ experiences, views, decisions, and knowledge about the impact of the COVID-19
pandemic on California K–12 public school districts. Separate surveys with minimal vocabulary
changes and very similar questions were created for superintendents, assistant superintendents,
and principals. The surveys consisted of five 5-point Likert-scale questions using the following
responses: 1 (Strongly Disagree), 2 (Disagree), 3 (Neither Agree nor Disagree), 4 (Agree), and 5
(Strongly Agree). The surveys took an average of 35 minutes to complete. The survey link was
emailed to all nine California K–12 school district leaders: three superintendents, three assistant
superintendents, and three principals. The survey included a cover letter, the survey questions,
and final instructions. Participants completed the survey using Qualtrics, which tabulated the
number of responses returned.
Sample and Population
The participants for the study were leaders of Southern California K–12 public school
districts: superintendents, assistant superintendents, and principals. Convenience sampling and
purposeful sampling were utilized in selecting the participants. Convenience sampling happens
when the researcher selects individuals based on their proximity and accessibility rather than for
specific criteria. Purposeful sampling occurs when the participants are selected on the basis of
specific criteria (Lochmiller & Lester, 2017; Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). This study included
purposeful selection to ensure that all participants worked in public Southern California K–12,
K–8, elementary, and high school districts in the roles of superintendent, assistant
superintendent, or principal. The selection criteria included the following: (a) traditional
California public K–12, K–8, elementary, and high school district superintendent, assistant
47
superintendent, or principal; in the current role for at least a year; (b) having served in these
positions during the 2020–2021 school year; and (c) with a district-wide population of at least
1,000. The sample size for the interviews and surveys was set at nine. Participants selected for
this study played a role in supporting school districts and sites during the COVID-19 pandemic.
The results from the interviews and surveys were compared to the results collected by other
research team members. Our group is made up of three researchers, each researcher was
investigating three school districts we have given a unique pseudonym to ensure each district’s
anonymity. Researcher 1 investigated the following three school districts: District A, District B
and District C. Researcher 2 investigated District G, District H, and District I.
Researcher One: School Districts Demographic Data
School District A serves approximately 1,600 students in grades preschool through
eighth. Nearly 32% of the student population are identified as socioeconomically disadvantaged,
less than 1% of students are identified as homeless, nearly 6% are identified as English learners,
and nearly 12% are identified as students with disabilities. School District B serves
approximately 13,000 students in preschool through eighth. Nearly 90% of the student
population are identified as socioeconomically disadvantaged, nearly 5% of students are
identified as homeless, nearly 14% are identified as English learners, and nearly 13% are
identified as students with disabilities. School District C serves approximately 6,131 students in
preschool through eighth. Approximately 32% of the student population are identified as
socioeconomically disadvantaged, less than 1% are identified as homeless, nearly 6% are
identified as English learners, and less than 15% are identified as students with disabilities.
48
Researcher Two: School District Demographic Data
District G serves approximately 13,000 students in preschool through adult school.
Approximately 73% of the student population are identified as socioeconomically disadvantaged,
nearly 4% are identified as Homeless, nearly 10% are identified as English learners, and nearly
11% are identified as students with disabilities. District H serves approximately 22,000 students
in grades preschool through adult. Nearly 80% of the student population are identified as
socioeconomically disadvantaged, nearly 6.5% of students are identified as homeless, nearly
20% are identified as English learners, and nearly 12% are identified as students with disabilities.
District I serves approximately 7,500 students in preschool through adulthood. Nearly 70% of
the student population are identified as socioeconomically disadvantaged, nearly 3% of students
are identified as homeless, approximately 10% are identified as English learners, and nearly 14%
are identified as students with disabilities
Both the survey and interview protocols included an explanation of the purpose of the
study. The participants were informed that the process was voluntary and that confidentiality
would be maintained throughout the entire process. The names of the school districts, schools, or
participants were not utilized in the study.
Instrumentation and Conceptual Framework
After analyzing the current literature and identifying gaps in research, an interview
protocol and a survey were designed to address the research questions guiding this research. The
interview questions and the survey questions were field-tested beforehand to ensure they were
concise and that the results generated addressed the research questions. Interviews took place
virtually because of safety and out of consideration to the time constraints of the participants
who were still leading schools through a pandemic. All the interviews were recorded with
49
participants’ permission, and notetaking were also used.. The survey instruments were
administered via a link emailed to the participants.
The conceptual framework (Figure 1) utilized for this study is based on three theoretical
frameworks. The three frameworks assist in developing an understanding of the theories that
impact school leadership and in the current situation of managing the COVID-19 pandemic
crisis. The four frames, political, structural, human resources, and symbolic, described by
Bolman and Deal (2017), provide school leaders at both site and district levels the roadmap to
navigate the different aspects of leadership and how leader actions and habits can impact the
organization. Fullan (2014) delved into the specific role of principals as enacting change at the
site level through being a lead learner, district and system player, and change agent. Westover et
al. (2020) framework provides the guiding principles that districts can enact to create an
organization that can move together through change and create systems for continuous
improvement. These three frameworks together provide K–12 school districts with the steps to
persist, at all levels of leadership; even through a crisis like the COVID-19 pandemic.
50
Figure 1
Conceptual Framework
Data Collection
Data collection began during the fall 2021 semester after approval from the USC
Institutional Review Board (IRB). District superintendents were contacted via a formal email
request, followed by a phone conversation to obtain permission for the study and gain access to
assistant superintendents and principals. Once permission was granted, participants were
contacted for participation in the study via email. The email included a summary of the study, a
request to participate, and a link for the survey. In addition, participants were contacted by phone
to encourage responses to the surveys and to request interviews.
51
The surveys were conducted through an online format, Qualtrics, so participants can
complete it on their own time and discretion. Participants spent an average of 35 minutes
completing the online survey. The semi-structured interviews took place via Zoom and take an
average of 40 minutes to complete. All interviews were recorded with participants’ permission.
The recordings from the interviews were transcribed by a professional transcriber.
Data Analysis
This mixed-methods study used qualitative data from interviews and quantitative data
from surveys. After the data were collected, they were analyzed separately based on the four
research questions. The qualitative data were organized and analyzed to identify common
themes. I read through the interview transcripts and make notations using open coding followed
by axial coding, concluding with selective coding. Common themes and patterns were identified
to gain an understanding of the pandemic’s impact on schools, students, and leaders and how
school leaders managed the crisis.
The quantitative data were compiled and analyzed using Qualtrics. Each participants’
responses were separated and organized using the Likert-scale values 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5. The
average score from each question was calculated for each participant and included one overall
average score across all questions for each participant. Responses were evaluated to determine
commonalities and differences.
Ethical Considerations
The research process demands that researchers think cautiously about the interaction with
others and the consequences of those interactions. Likewise, ethically responsible agents place
the voice of the oppressed at the center of inquiry and use that inquiry to reveal the change and
activism needed to help people. Therefore, an important aspect of ethical research is the focus on
52
respect for the individuals and the community (Denzin, 2016; Glesne, 2011; Lochmiller and
Lester, 2017; Merriam and Tisdell, 2016). All ethical considerations were followed throughout
the design and implementation of this research. All guidelines and procedures for USC’s IRB
were reviewed and implemented throughout the research. To ensure that the study was conducted
in an ethical manner, all participants were informed of the purpose of the study and that their
participation in the study was voluntary. Participants were informed that their identities and
responses would be kept secure and confidential, and the data were 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 for the doctoral
program at USC.
Summary
This chapter restated the statement of the problem, the purpose of the study, and the
research questions. It also presented the research design, which included details of the research
methods, including the sample and population, instrumentation, data collection, and data
analysis. The data collection began after I obtained approval from IRB. This study used
appropriate tools and followed all ethical standards to ensure its validity and reliability. The
findings and in-depth analysis will be presented in Chapter Four.
53
Chapter Four: Results
The purpose of this study was to analyze the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on K–12
Southern California school districts and understand what district and site administrators learned
from their experiences and their decision-making responsibilities in managing the crisis.
Specifically, the topic is impact of the COVID-19 Pandemic on K–12 public school districts in
Southern California and the responses of superintendents, assistant superintendents, and
principals. This study brings to light the impact of the pandemic on students, families, leaders,
schools, and districts. Most importantly, this study examined how district and school leadership
influences administrative practices, student achievement, financial responsibility, union
leadership, and community/parent support as they responded to the COVID-19 crisis.
This study was designed as a mixed-methods study, utilizing qualitative and quantitative
methods to collect and analyze data. Three Southern California school superintendents, assistant
superintendents, and principals of K–12 public school districts participated in the study, totaling
nine participants. A mixed-methods approach was selected to establish triangulation for more
accurate findings and a more holistic study (Maxwell, 2013). Qualitative methods allowed for
examining how participants 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 25 questions and a series of follow-up probes. The interviews served to
gather data that reflected the participants’ opinions, decisions, and knowledge. This study
involved collecting qualitative data from open-ended interview questions with participants and
quantitative surveys completed by the interviewees.
The survey questions were also developed around the four research questions and
designed to gather data that reflected the participants’ experiences, views, decisions, and
54
knowledge about the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic. The surveys consisted of 5-point
Likert-scale questions. Chapter Four presents the findings from the research questions. Four
questions guided the study:
1. What are the financial implications of the COVID-19 pandemic on K–12 public
school districts in Southern California, and how did district superintendents, assistant
superintendents, and principals address these implications?
2. What was the impact of federal, state, and local health agencies on K–12 public
school districts in Southern California, and what strategies did district
superintendents, assistant superintendents, and principals follow to address the
guidelines suggested by these agencies?
3. What was the role of union negotiations in K–12 Southern California public school
districts’ response to the pandemic?
4. How did K–12 Southern California public school districts leadership teams composed
of superintendents, assistant superintendents, and principals address the parent
community’s concerns regarding safety, nutrition, distance learning, lack of
technology, academic standing, and how and when to reopen schools due to the
pandemic?
Participants
Twelve school districts located in Southern California were contacted to participate in the
study. The 12 districts were located in Los Angeles and San Diego Counties. As seen in Table 1,
all 12 districts serve demographically diverse students in pre-kindergarten through eighth grade.
A superintendent, assistant superintendent and principal from each district completed a self-
55
administered survey designed around four research questions and participated in a virtual
interview via Zoom.
As part of the research, 18 participants were asked demographic questions regarding how
many years they had served in the leadership role and how many years they had served in their
current role. It was critical for research participants to have actual experience leading their
districts and schools during the COVID-19 pandemic. As can be seen in Table 2, of the nine
participants in Districts A, B, and C, eight have served in their role for 6 to 10 years. One
participant served in their role for less than a year. Five respondents have served as leaders in
their current role for 6 to 10 years. Two have served in their current role over 10 years.
Additionally, as can be seen in Table 2, seven respondents served in their current district for 6 to
10 years. Two participants have served in their current district for less than a year. All nine
participants experienced leading through the COVID-19 pandemic.
Table 1
School District Participants: Demographic Information
District Grade
levels
Student
population
Socioeconomically
disadvantaged
Homeless English
learners
District A P–8 1635 32.10% .200% 5.60%
District B P–8 14,332 89.00% 4.50% 13.80%
District C P–8 6131 92.50% 10.60% 52.80%
District G P–Adult 13,303 72.90% 4.20% 9.80%
District H P–Adult 22,060 78.20% 6.30% 19.70%
District I P–Adult 7450 69.60% 2.60% 10.20%
56
Table 2
Quantitative Survey: Participant Demographic Information
Position Southern
California district
Years in position Years in position at
current district
Superintendent A Yes 6 to 10 6 to 10
Superintendent B Yes 6 to 10 6 to 10
Superintendent C Yes Less than 1 Less than 1
Assistant Superintendent A Yes 6 to 10 6 to 10
Assistant Superintendent B Yes 3 to 5 3 to 5
Assistant Superintendent C Yes 6 to 10 6 to 10
Principal A Yes 6 to 10 6 to 10
Principal B Yes Over 10 6 to 10
Principal C Yes Over 10 Less than 1
Results for Research Question 1
The COVID-19 pandemic greatly exacerbated the triple squeeze of rising costs, declining
revenue due to declining enrollment, and greater student needs, which are challenges districts
were contending with even before the pandemic (Zhou et al., 2021). Compounded by fluctuating
revenue projections, unpredictable enrollment numbers, the uncertainty of the ongoing costs
related to COVID-19, and the greater breadth and depth of students’ needs, it will take a
transformed vision of schooling to effectively meet these needs (Educational Research
Strategies, 2021) and financial resources to support that vision. The first question was designed
to assess the financial implications of the COVID-19 pandemic on schools and to learn how
57
districts used the CARES Act for the ESSER to respond to those needs and if the additional
funds helped mitigate the challenges school districts are facing.
Six survey questions addressed Research Question 1. The survey questions were designed
to learn about respondents’ perceptions of the effectiveness of the ESSER funds given to their
districts as a resource to respond to and mitigate the needs brought on by the pandemic. As seen
in Table 3, there were two areas where all the superintendent respondents (100%) agreed or
strongly agreed that the CARES Act met their district’s needs in the areas of PPE and
technology. The majority of superintendents indicated that the CARES Act met their funding
needs in the areas of personnel and facility upgrades. Regarding whether the CARES Act met the
district’s funding needs in the area of professional learning and/or training, each superintendent
responded differently with responses from disagree to agree. Assistant superintendent and
principal responses align closely to their superintendent’s perception and their survey responses
(Appendix G).
58
Table 3
Quantitative Survey: Superintendent Perception of Financial Implications of COVID-19
Element Strongly
disagree
Disagree Neither agree
nor disagree
Agree Strongly
agree
The CARES Act met my
districts funding needs
in the area of
personnel.
0.00% 33.33% 0.00% 0.00% 66.67%
The CARES Act met my
school’s funding
needs in the area of
personnel.
0.00% 0.00% 33.33% 33.33% 33.33%
The CARES Act met my
district’s funding
needs in the area of
personal protective
equipment (PPE).
0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 33.33% 66.67%
The CARES Act met my
district’s funding
needs in the area of
technology.
0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 100% 0.00%
The CARES Act met my
district’s funding
needs in the area of
professional learning
and/or training.
0.00% 33.33% 33.33% 33.33% 0.00%
The CARES Act met my
district’s funding
needs in the area of
facility upgrades.
0.00% 0.00% 33.33% 66.67% 0.00%
59
Four interview questions directly addressed the research question and were designed to
provide respondents with an opportunity to discuss the financial implications more broadly.
Responses to the four questions provided information to better understand financial decision-
making and fiscal leadership during the COVID-19 pandemic crisis. The unprecedented
challenges facing K–12 school systems nationwide will require coordinated action from district,
state, and federal leaders and a sustained, multi-year effort to transform and rebuild the nation’s
schools. However, federal and state education leaders must help districts with financial support
and by removing barriers and creating pathways that make it easier to implement sustainable
strategies for students, teachers, and districts (Zhou et al., 2021). Interviews with distinct leaders
reflected the themes from the literature.
Loss of Average Daily Attendance Funds
Participants expressed concerns about the financial impact stemming from a loss in ADA;
although all three districts were seeing declining enrollment, the COVID-19 pandemic
exacerbated the challenge. The governor enacted a hold-harmless provision during the 2020–
2021 school year. According to the CDE (2021), to stabilize school funding, the budget package
provides a hold-harmless clause for calculating LCFF funding for the 2020–21 year by allowing
2020–2021 funding to be based on 2019–2020 ADA rather than 2020–2021 ADA, which is
expected to decline as a result of COVID-19. California lifted the hold-harmless provision for
the 2021–2022 school year. District leaders expressed varying concerns about the financial
implication of the COVID-19 pandemic and declining enrollment in their school districts.
Assistant Superintendent A shared similar concerns about the removal of the hold-
harmless provision and the state’s current ADA funding formula: “We have been able to
implement the independent study contract. However, they’re not turning them back in, so that
60
still shows a decrease in our attendance.” Assistant Superintendent B discussed the financial
implication of California’s ADA funding formula during the pandemic:
The state does not fund districts based upon the kids that are enrolled. Instead, they fund
you based upon how many of those kids attend, which is a terrible system during a
pandemic because, today, our attendance is at 72%, but we hire and staff based upon
enrollment.
Superintendent C echoed similar concerns related to declines in enrollment exacerbated
by the COVID-19 pandemic:
Los Angeles County, in general, has had a huge declining enrollment rate. It has been
exacerbated, I believe, by COVID. In the beginning of the pandemic, we had kids logging
in from out of the country during virtual learning, and they haven’t returned. Unless
something is done, there are going to be strong financial implications for school districts
because we’ve had to increase staff to maintain safety and support.
Assistant Superintendent C discussed the loss of ADA in District C:
What hasn’t helped is the loss of ADA. Just to give you an example, our enrollment was
5,386. [Prior the pandemic enrollment was over 6,100 students], which is a pretty big
drop, and we attributed it to the COVID-19 pandemic. Our current enrollment is 4,800
students. That is a tremendous loss of potential funding for next year.
Spending Flexibility and Structure and Staffing Shortages
When asked about spending flexibility and structure, a theme emerged among
participants’ responses. They were grateful for the additional funds to mitigate the impact of the
COVID-19 pandemic on their school districts; however, they also discussed the challenges
61
associated with the mandated spending timelines. State leaders need to remove funding barriers
and instructional constraints, such as seat time requirements (Zhou et al., 2021).
Assistant Superintendent A also expressed concern for the spending flexibility and
structure:
The state has done, at least conceptually, a nice job of having those one-time dollars to
pick up learning loss and give us the capabilities of expanded learning in a lot of different
areas that we had not had in the past. However, it’s been a little challenging to try to
figure out how to do these wonderful programs that we can think of and we now are
funded for, but we don’t have the personnel to actually implement them.
Superintendent B echoed a similar concern about the challenges of the current spending
flexibility and structure:
The one-time dollars had a lot of flexibility. I would have liked time flexibility. While
having dollars is good, we don’t have the staff; we are having staffing and hiring
difficulties. It’s about doing things well, and you cannot necessarily do it well without the
staff and all the resources. People are going to buy stuff just because that is the easy thing
to do.
Superintendent C also identified the challenges of the current spending timelines:
We launched this year with a focus on mental health and classroom climate for students,
but quite frankly, the staff isn’t available to implement the programs. We have positions
that are just unfilled. On average, for the district, we have about 13 to 20 unfilled
positions per day. The people who were supposed to design those programs are in a
classroom setting. The support staff who might assist are exhausted. Our traditional fix
62
for things is to give dollars; however, in this current situation, the dollars can’t help the
program because we’re just unable to spend it.
Superintendent H discussed stipulations placed on some of the funds:
Extended learning funds and grants were well-intentioned, but as you know, working in
education, we’re dealing with a situation that is quite difficult for everybody involved. I
think everybody is tired. Everybody is worn out. And, so to say, well, we’re going to
extend learning time, that becomes a challenge. You know, we need to make sure that
we’re also providing self-care for our folks. So, I think some of the additional funds that
have come in the grants are well-intentioned, but perhaps a little bit more flexibility.
Superintendent I discussed meeting students’ needs:
You know, the list [of what was purchased during COVID] is probably relatively long
but in short, all of those funding sources, whether it be state or federal has given us
opportunities to not only leverage our efforts during the pandemic, but it’s put us into a
position to have I think sustainable programs to support students downstream.
Results for Research Question 2
In the spring of 2020, schools were facing a complicated array of health considerations;
throughout the state, districts were navigating these and other issues with guidance from county
health departments, the CDE, teachers’ unions, the CDC, and other groups. Conditions were
changing daily, and few districts had devised concrete plans (Jones, 2020). Leaders grappled
with inconsistent guidance and surging community infections (Gross et al., 2021). The school-
reopening guidance offered by the CDC naturally focuses on public-health considerations,
leaving it to educators to devise how to keep students and staff safe while also meeting students’
educational needs (Bailey, 2020). Many system leaders said they were overwhelmed by the
63
logistical challenges they face and the politics of school reopening decisions. Many put forth a
plea for federal and state leadership, calling primarily for improved health guidance and pointing
out that districts have had to create their own action plans due to none from the state and federal
levels, while others pointed out that lack of state and federal guidance has exacerbated the
political pressures they face (Lake, 2021).
The second research question was designed to better understand the impact of health and
safety guidelines on school districts’ ability to reopen schools safely. Study participants
responded to three survey questions related to health and safety guidelines. As seen in Table 4,
the majority of the superintendent respondents did not perceive the federal, state, and local health
guidelines were clear in providing information to support the safe reopening of schools. All the
superintendent respondents understood how to safely bring back staff during the fall of 2020 to
work sites based upon public health guidance. However, all the superintendent respondents did
indicate the health guidelines impacted their districts’ return to school plan in the spring of 2021.
Assistant superintendent and principal responses align closely to their superintendents’
perceptions and survey responses (Appendix G).
64
Table 4
Quantitative Survey: Superintendents’ Perception of the Impact of Health and Safety Guidelines
Element Strongly
disagree
Disagree Neither agree
nor disagree
Agree Strongly
agree
The federal, state, and
local health
guidelines were clear
in providing
information to
support the safe
reopening of schools.
0.00% 66.67% 0.00% 33.33% 0.00%
I understood how to
safely bring back
staff during the fall of
2020 to work sites
based on the public
health guidelines.
0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 100.0% 0.00%
The health guidelines
impacted our
district’s return to
school plan in the
spring of 2021.
0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 33.33% 66.67%
Four interview questions directly addressed the research question and were designed to
provide respondents with an opportunity to discuss the impact, if any, of the health and safety
guidelines from various governmental agencies they had to implement to reopen schools safely.
Responses to the three questions provided information to better understand collaboration among
various agencies and the strategies that districts used to implement the guidance and reopen
schools safely. Two themes emerged from the interview data.
65
Inconsistent Multi-Agency Guidance
Superintendents discussed conflicting agency guidance and their response to ensure their
students and staff remained safe. Superintendent A remarked about the lack of consistent
guidance.
It was like the wild west, and every district had to do what they believed was best. We
used the guidance as guard-rails to keep our students and staff safe. Prior to the school
closures, we had already begun planning for possible school closures. We did all the
purchasing of masks, getting all the signage, generally just getting everything ready to go
so that when teachers actually came back, they felt safe; that was very important.
Superintendent B also spoke to the inconsistency between the various agencies:
The Centers for Disease Control, the county department of public health, and state
department of public health don’t always communicate with each other, which means the
various agencies don’t know what the other agency is going to do. Districts also have to
contend with social media’s understanding of what we should be doing and why. There is
not much alignment. It has been a fast-changing, ever-changing environment that has
made it extremely challenging to keep up with because of the mixed messages.
Superintendent C shared their approach to responding to the various guidelines to keep
their students and staff safe:
We were only focused on the county public health standards because they are what we
have to follow. We did have trust in our public health officials. I think the department of
mental health has been instrumental in offering mental health workshops, and they were
doing them virtually, and I bring that up because it doesn’t align to the public health and
66
safety protocols the state and county were offering. There were many times that we were
actually more restrictive than LA County Public Health as a district.
Superintendent H discussed inconsistent guidance: “There were some times where I got
one answer at nine o’clock in the morning, I got a separate answer at two o’clock in the
afternoon.” Superintendent I added,
We were fortunate in our county, I believe, because our county said, “You know what?
We’re going to go with [CDPH].” We said, “You know what? We’re going to follow the
rules, okay, and that’s it.” Over time, I think it really helped our community because they
knew what to expect. Once they saw what CDPH said they knew the county was going to
say the same thing and then they knew that our district was going to say the same thing
now.
Effective Strategies for Implementing Health Guidelines
Despite the inconsistent messages between various government agencies, districts
implemented various strategies to implement health guidelines to keep their students and staff
safe. Assistant Superintendent A discussed the importance of planning, clear and consistent
communication and being clear about the goal, keeping students at school:
Our superintendent is a forward thinker; the superintendent is amazing. The
superintendent organized cabinet meetings to discuss how we were going to roll out
everything if we had school closure, and that was a good month and a half before we
closed. Before schools closed, we had sanitizer, masks, signage, and everything was
ready to go. We partnered with Southern Indian Health and were able to be one of the
first districts in the country to offer vaccinations to all their employees. Our
superintendent is also tremendous at sending out communication. The superintendent
67
developed a folder for all the principals to standardize communication. Consistency and
communication have helped us implement the health guidelines. Cabinet meets with the
principals once a week. We live in a district that is a little more on the conservative side;
we don’t like to be told exactly what to do. Our superintendent has really built a culture
where everyone understands that we respect different perspectives. We want to keep our
kids here at school, that’s our mission, and that is what we’re setting out to do, so as long
as we’re following the safety and health guidelines, we will be able to do that, so we need
to partner with you, and I think that has been one of the major things that has allowed us
to stay open.
Principal A discussed the school district’s implementation of health and safety guidelines
from the perspective of a school site leader:
Our superintendent would give us the information we needed and really streamlined it for
us, and then anytime things changed, which as you know was often, the superintendent
would call a meeting and give us the latest and greatest and if we had a question about
something that was unclear, the superintendent would place the phone call for us to get
more direction.
Superintendent B discussed the importance of collaboration and communication
strategies to effectively implement health and safety guidelines:
I think from the onset, there was a lot of good communication with LA County,
[Association of California School Administrators], and the department of public health
and that has continued to occur. The weekly meeting for superintendents was helpful.
Local superintendents here also met on a regular weekly basis to communicate our
understanding. To communicate to our communities, we used email, text, voice
68
messages, social media and made sure our messaging was consistent and clear. We also
wanted to make sure they have the same understanding at the sites and are able to
communicate in the same way.
Assistant Superintendent C also discussed collaboration and communication strategies to
effectively implement health and safety guidelines:
Setting up the networking opportunities was probably the greatest thing we could have
done, hearing from others and trying to brainstorm together. We also created quite a few
different committees involving our school site administrators to plan, prepare and lay the
groundwork before students came back. We also took information from the county office
of public health and tried to make it more readable and simplified; we created our own
graphics to share in webinars, post on our website and take to the schools to get the
message out.
Results for Research Question 3
After the initial closures, districts with lengthier collective bargaining agreements were
less likely to start the fall 2020 semester with in-person instruction, were less likely to ever open
for in-person instruction during the fall semester, and spent more weeks overall in distance
learning (Marianno, 2021). School districts in locations with stronger teachers’ unions were
substantially less likely to reopen; political partisanship was a strong predictor of reopening
decisions, but there was no consistent evidence that measures of COVID-19 risk were correlated
with reopening schools in person (Hess, 2021). To decide on future schooling plans under
COVID-19, cooperation between districts and labor groups, including heightened transparency
going forward, could help ensure that districts develop the most appropriate plan for their context
(Hemphill & Marianno, 2021).
69
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 (Bailey, 2020). However, after the spring school closures, there was a 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.
School districts can mitigate any late surprises from labor groups that might occur when
implementing or changing learning plans in response to COVID-19, and leaders can keep a pulse
on teacher morale and safety to avoid perceptions of careless working condition changes by
maintaining transparency and communication with teachers’ union leaders (Hemphill &
Marianno, 2021).
The third research question was designed to better understand the role of labor unions in
shaping districts’ responses to the COVID-19 pandemic. Research participants responded to
three survey questions related to the research question. As seen in Table 5, the majority of
superintendent respondents believed that negotiations with certificated unions influenced how
their district responded to the COVID-19 pandemic for students and families. All superintendent
respondents agreed that negotiations with unions influenced how their districts effectively
responded to the COVID-19 pandemic for students and families. There did not appear to be a
common perception among superintendents about negotiations with the teacher’s union
impacting the quality of instruction during distance learning. Superintendent responses ranged
from neither agree nor disagree to strongly agree.
70
Table 5
Quantitative Survey: Superintendents’ Perception of the Impact of Union Negotiations
Element Strongly
disagree
Disagree Neither agree
nor disagree
Agree Strongly
agree
Negotiations with
certificated unions
influenced the way my
district effectively
responded to the
COVID-19 pandemic
for students and
families.
0.00% 33.33% 0.00% 66.67% 0.00%
Negotiations with
classified unions
influenced the way of
my district effectively
responding to the
COVID-19 pandemic
for students and
families.
0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 100.0% 0.00%
Negotiations with the
teacher’s union
impacted the quality of
instruction offered to
students during
distance learning.
0.00% 0.00% 33.33% 33.33% 33.33%
Four interview questions directly addressed the research question and were designed to
provide respondents with an opportunity to discuss the impact, if any, of union negotiations on
districts’ response to the COVID-19 pandemic. Responses to the four questions provided
information to better understand the interaction between district leadership and labor unions and
71
the impact on districts as they planned their response to the COVID-19 pandemic. Two themes
emerged from the data: safety and the positive experiences working with classified labor unions.
Certificated Union Negotiations Focus on Safety
Superintendent A certificated unions focus on safety:
I told labor unions, “Look at what I do; we respect each other, but I will earn your trust.”
It was important that I ensure our staff’s emotional and physical safety. We were among
the first to install HEPA filters, I contracted with a local distillery to get hand sanitizer,
we put plexi dividers in place in classrooms. I also gave teachers $1,000–$1,200 when
schools reopened, our teachers did not have to negotiate for that.
Assistant Superintendent A reiterated the school district’s focus on safety:
When COVID came out everybody was very scared, very fearful, and so safety was our
number one concern that we wanted to tackle. Our teachers were amazing. They really
came forward and were able to strike a deal immediately on the safety guidelines they
were looking for.
Superintendent B echoed a similar sentiment:
Our district needed to get on the same page about safety. There was a big concern about
safety, their safety, student safety, and what was it going to look like. What helped us was
the fact that we could show evidence that we had taken precautions, not because we were
mandated to but because we felt it was the safe and right thing to do.
Superintendent C discussed the importance of safety and the positive impact of the
COVID-19 pandemic on labor union relationships:
With regard to negotiations, we actually developed strong relationships with both
associations because we were talking every day, and that actually helped to mitigate some
72
things that had to be negotiated because we were able to have a conversation about what
we were doing. The amount of time we spent working together and talking strengthened
our relationship. Each side was willing to communicate more often.
Important Issues Negotiated With Classified Unions
Assistant Superintendent A discussed negotiating a change in job roles and structures:
Our district had a lot of personnel that were guaranteed to have their salaries. But without
students on campus, we had to determine what people were going to do. We had to come
to an agreement about changing the structure of their jobs. If they were campus
supervisors but with no students to watch, they might help clean. We offered a stipend to
our classified staff to make sure that we had flexibility to move staff as needed. All
classified staff also received a stipend.
Superintendent B echoed a similar sentiment: “Safety was one of the big pieces because our
classified staff was coming back a little bit sooner. It was important that we instill that we have
great respect and appreciation for the work they do.”
Assistant Superintendent B discussed the positive experiences working with the classified
labor group:
We love our classified labor group; the leadership is phenomenal. They are so easygoing.
They are the people, who through this whole COVID experience, their life was on the
line. Our cafeteria workers had to keep working, our grounds people had to keep
working, and our maintenance guys had to keep working, and they worked without
skipping a beat, they were fantastic. They wanted some safety provisions. What they
asked for, we told them, “You got it, anything you need.”
73
Superintendent C also discussed issues of safety but also the importance of ensuring the
classified staff feels appreciated and respected for their contribution:
The classified union was very concerned about employee safety. Safety was important,
but I also feel like it was about “appreciate us,” and I feel like we did. But under these
conditions, you had to go above and beyond to show appreciation to them. Negotiations
were more about listening because it was about the fact that they were here. They were
showing up and working every day. Negotiations ended up being more like an emotional
process for them, and you had to allow for that space, space for them. The important
issue was safety. Compensation was always a popular discussion and equitable rotation
of using staff, they were very flexible. Sometimes a food service worker had to do
clerical work.
Superintendent G discussed negotiations with both unions:
Both (unions) were extremely supportive of getting back to work and returning students
to classrooms, and so, we didn’t have a huge obstacle or days of negotiations like other
districts did. In fact, it was like, they came together, they solved the problem, they put the
MOU out, and we were done.
Superintendent H discussed how union issues were resolved:
You know, we had ongoing negotiations with both our labor unions, or associations,
making sure that they were kept in the loop, sitting down at the table, and negotiating
certain safety practices. I made it very clear early on with our associations that my line
was we’re going to follow the experts. My favorite line to say was, I’m not an
epidemiologist so they understand I’m not a biologist; I’m not a scientist. I’m an educator
74
and I’m going to follow those guidelines. We’re not going to do more. We’re not going to
do less.
Superintendent I discussed safety protocols: “Of course, mask wearing and hand washing
stations and all of that. As we moved forward the idea of us having to negotiate really started to
fall off the map, and I think because we built a decent relationship.”
Results for Research Question 4
In a nationally representative online poll of 1,720 educators administered April 7 and 8,
2020, 99% of district leaders said they addressed equity during closures by offering pick-
up/delivery of free or reduced-price meals, providing devices to all students who needed them,
making additional online tutoring available, and providing online/phone therapy (Kurtz, 2020).
Most parents of K–12 students were worried about their children falling behind in school
because of pandemic-related disruptions (Horowitz & Igielnik, 2020). According to Sharfstein
and Morphew (2020), more than 20 million children rely on school breakfast or lunch, millions
of children have lost access to health services through school-based health centers, and there are
significant divides by race/ethnicity, geography, and economic class in access to home
computers and high-speed internet. The COVID-19 pandemic surfaced other urgent priorities
that require significant resources, such as PPE and other safety needs (ERS, 2021). According to
Estrada-Miller et al. (2020), schools need to implement both health and safety measures and
programmatic changes when returning to the classroom, and at the top of the list of critical needs
is a mandate for all staff and students to wear masks, limit class sizes to allow desks to be at least
6 feet apart, and make PPE available for teachers and students.
The fourth research question pertained to the relationship between school districts and
parents during the pandemic. Participants responded to seven survey questions. As seen in Table
75
6, all superintendent participants agreed or strongly agreed that their district maintained good
communication with families. All superintendent participants strongly agreed their district met
the nutritional needs of students and families. They all also agreed or strongly agreed that their
district met students’ and families’ computer/device technology needs. Similarly, all
superintendent participants agreed or strongly agreed their district met the students’ and families’
internet service needs. All superintendent participants agreed or strongly agreed their district met
the students’ and families’ health and safety needs.
As seen in Table 6, there were two areas where superintendents believed they could have
served their constituents better: students’ academic social-emotional needs. Most superintendent
participants believed they did not meet their students’ academic needs. Regarding meeting
students’ and families’ social-emotional and well-being needs, the superintendents’ responses
ranged from disagree to agree; district responses varied. Assistant superintendent and principal
responses mirror their respective superintendent. Their survey responses are in Appendix G.
76
Table 6
Quantitative Survey: Superintendents’ Perception of Parent Concerns
Element Strongly
disagree
Disagree Neither agree
nor disagree
Agree Strongly
agree
My district maintained
good communication
with families during the
pandemic.
0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 66.67% 33.33%
My district met the needs
of students and families
in the area of nutrition.
0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 100.0%
My district met the needs
of students and families
in the area of technology
(computers/devices).
0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 33.33% 66.67%
My district met the needs
of students and families
in the area of technology
(internet service).
0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 33.33% 66.67%
My district met the needs
of students and families
in the area of social-
emotional well-being.
0.00% 33.33% 33.33% 33.33% 0.00%
My district met the needs
of students and families
in the area of health and
safety.
0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 66.67% 33.33%
My district met the
academic needs of
students.
0.00% 66.67% 33.33% 0.00% 0.00%
77
Two interview questions directly addressed the research question and were designed to
provide respondents with an opportunity to learn more about the relationship between the parent
community and school districts during the COVID-19 pandemic. Responses to the two questions
provided information about parents’ perceptions of school districts meeting their needs during
the pandemic. Four themes emerged from the interview data: safety as a priority, food insecurity,
technology needs of students and their families, and students’ academic needs.
Health and Safety Needs
Principal A spoke about the sense of pride felt stemming from the district’s thorough
health and safety planning and support, meeting students’ nutritional needs and technology:
Whatever I asked for, I was given. I don’t feel like there’s been anything that we’ve
needed. We’ve just been so incredibly well supported. We have everything that you can
think of to keep the students healthy. Even before we knew for sure that we were going to
be able to open back up our superintendent had movers come into the classroom and
move out all the non-essential items so that we could space students apart. Every little
thing was thought about to keep our students safe. Extra custodians were hired. We [the
central office] even contracted out to get extra people in cleaning. We had people just
walking around spraying [cleaning] surfaces. I would say there were very few, if any,
concerns regarding safety because our superintendent is an over-communicator; the
superintendent was constantly explaining to the community what we were doing and
what was already done.
Principal B spoke about the way their community was personally impacted by COVID
and the way that influenced their approach to safety:
78
There have always been safety concerns. Parents were concerned about their kids getting
sick and grandparents at home getting COVID. A father of one of our students at our
school died from COVID, so the impact has been really severe. We communicate with
parents about safety protocols to keep kids safe. We don’t let things slide. Parents know
that their kids are being held to those safety protocols. We also share updates with
parents, which, I think, helps them feel a little bit more comfortable about their kids being
here.
Principal C echoed a similar focus of ensuring families understood the ways the school
was keeping their students safe:
The biggest concern was related to safety. We had a daily health screening. We had
temperature checks. We placed students in cohort groups. We even cohorted entrances
and exits. We communicated what we were doing to families from the beginning so that
families know we are taking this seriously. We also followed masking guidelines as well.
Nutrition
Principal A spoke about the ways their district ensured they addressed the nutritional
needs of their community:
We provided meals. Food was readily available. We delivered meals when we needed to.
We did everything possible. There were a couple of times when we ran out of food just
because the process was new, but we would run back to where we had the food and come
back with more so it was never an issue.
Principal B expressed pride in the district’s ability to meet students nutritional needs
during the pandemic school closures:
79
There were definitely nutrition concerns in our district. I think our district did a really
fabulous job communicating with parents where kids can get meals. Parents could come
to any school site within our district and pick up enough meals for 7 days, so the kids
were fed throughout the week and even on the weekend.
Principal C also expressed their district’s response to meet the nutritional needs of their
community: “Parents were asking if they could somehow access our school meal or lunch
programs during the pandemic. Our district ran an extensive grab-and-go meal program from the
start of the pandemic through the summer.”
Superintendent G discussed meeting students’ nutritional needs:
We’d go out to each school site and help get meals out to families, but they [the families]
got really good at driving through and picking up and where there were situations that a
family didn’t have transportation to come pick it up, some of our bus drivers were out
driving and delivering food. We had door delivery and those types of things, so actually, I
think people got more food than they had ever encountered.
Superintendent H also discussed feeding the community:
You know our nutrition services immediately answered the call. We had lunch pickups
and meal pickups, providing multiple meals to families. We sent them to different areas
of the community. You know since buses weren’t being used to get kids to school, we’re
using buses to get lunches to them.
Superintendent I added,
They [nutrition services] never missed a day. They always delivered; they continue to
deliver. And I think that was so critical, particularly with our communities and the other
surrounding communities. There are plenty of homes who are insecure with their food.
80
And so, the capacity to be able to take that off their plates, particularly when we’re going
to shut down mode. That was so very important. I’m incredibly proud of all those folks
who are doing that.
Students’ Technology Needs
Principal A shared their immediate response to the school closures by getting their
families what they needed to continue schooling:
The first Monday after we closed, our principals were literally ripping apart Chromebook
carts and handing them out to people immediately. Then, we had hotspots in our parking
lots all throughout the district so that anybody could come and sit in the parking lot and
do their work if they needed internet access. Eventually, we were able to provide hotspots
for families. We really didn’t have concerns with technology. We were able to give
everybody what they needed.
Principal B spoke about effective central office planning that allowed their students to receive
the technology they needed to participate in distance learning:
Because of the planning of our IT Department and having Chromebooks and hotspots on
hand, all of our kids had access to digital content when we were in distance learning and
continue to have access at home to our web 2.0 tools that we continue to use. In terms of
technology, really, we’re set.
Principal C discussed the challenges with students being able to access technology to participate
in distance learning: “Getting online and accessing the internet was probably the biggest concern
because kids could not attend school without it. A number of our students did not have adequate
access.” Superintendent D discussed students’ technology needs: “We learned very early on how
many of our families really did not have access to internet.”
81
Parents’ Academic Concerns
Principal A focused on reassuring families that all students would have unfinished
learning and teachers were aware and preparing to meet their students’ needs:
Parents were very concerned about academics with distance learning. While they were
grateful and appreciative of how quickly and how well we transitioned, they quickly
realized that it’s not the same. I spent a lot of time on the phone with parents addressing
their academic concerns because they realized their students weren’t learning as they
should be learning and letting them know it was going to be okay and that everybody was
going to have unfinished learning. The teachers know this, and they’re preparing for that.
Principal B realized students’ academic motivation shifted after the pandemic:
There were and continue to be academic concerns. Our kids came in this year not quite
being as prepared as they would have in the past, and so our goal is to make learning as
engaging as possible so that kids want to learn. I think that a big piece after we moved to
in-person learning is the motivation; we saw it just wasn’t the same. That spark wasn’t
quite what it used to be. Our goal is to motivate kids, excite kids, and that’s always been
part of our goal, but we really want to put that front and center: getting kids excited about
learning. Motivation is definitely something we will continue to focus on.
Principal C discussed parents’ concerns about their students’ social-emotional needs:
Parents wanted their kids to keep up. It was honestly a distant third to safety and then
emotional well-being. I’ve had more parents asking about what we can do on the social-
emotional side than anything else. Some kids thrived during distance learning, but it was
probably the minority of kids. Most kids needed in-person interactions. In terms of
82
academics, they wanted us back in school because they knew their kids needed more than
just what online was offering.
Superintendent E discussed parents’ concerns: “The biggest concern was about athletics
and graduation.”
Summary
This chapter reported the findings from surveys and interviews of nine Southern
California educational leaders: three superintendents, three assistant superintendents, and three
principals. 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
influences administrative practices, student achievement, financial responsibility, union
leadership, and community/parent support as they responded to the COVID-19 crisis. Most
importantly, the study provides insight into enacted leadership practices during a crisis.
Times of crisis amplify the need for superintendent leadership. Students and communities
need someone to bring clarity to chaos, make decisions, and respond to surprises. If
superintendents do not lead district responses, no one else can (Hill & Jochim, 2021). In times of
crisis, people look to leaders for hope and the way forward (Kaiser, 2020). Superintendent A
discussed a favorite text, “Eyes on the Prize,” and explained that the focus from the beginning
during the initial school closures was returning students to safe, in-person learning.
Superintendent B discussed a clear focus on safety and equity, explaining a clear focus on safety
protocols to ensure that no child or staff member would lose their life on their watch.
Superintendent C expressed a clear focus on the whole child and supporting students’ social-
emotional health. All superintendents led with a clear focus and moral purpose to provide clarity
and meaning during an uncertain time.
83
The conceptual framework for the study is drawn from three theoretical frameworks to
develop an understanding of the theories that impact school leadership and how they can be
adapted to the current situation of managing constant change brought about by the COVID-19
pandemic crisis. The four frames described by Bolman and Deal (2008) make clear that, to create
organizational change, leaders have to ask the right questions. To ask the right questions, the four
frames provide school and system leaders with a tool for multi-frame thinking. Multi-frame
thinking offers a pathway to examine multiple perspectives to accurately assess challenges and
an organization’s context. Once the leader accurately assesses the situation, she can intentionally
select the appropriate leadership frame to draw upon to move the organization forward.
Superintendent A discussed the importance of the political frame to describe the work required to
move the district through the school closures. All superintendents discussed the value of
participating in various collaborative experiences where they could network with other
superintendents and public health officials to ask the right questions to ensure their actions align
with public health guidelines and keep their students and staff safe.
As school leaders quickly responded to constant change brought about by the COVID-19
pandemic, Fullan’s (2014) research on the principal and maximizing impact provides insight into
the interdependence of site principals and central office leaders when maximizing and improving
the impact of the system as a whole. Fullan’s work notes the importance of principals leading
schools in ways that contribute to and expand the system’s collective expertise to then increase
its impact. Large-scale success will occur only when system members begin to act from a shared,
coherent mindset and the glue of coherence is purposeful interaction over time that people find
worthwhile (Fullan, 2014).
84
The COVID-19 pandemic established a clear purpose for a coherent and collective
mindset. Similar to Fullan’s work on maximizing and sustaining a school system’s positive
impact is Westover’s work on coherence. Westover (2020) discussed the benchmarks of capacity
for school district coherence: clarity of district goals and school priorities for student learning,
establishing a culture of shared leadership and systematic collaboration, a coherent instructional
framework for developing collective expertise, and evidence-based inquiry cycles for continuous
improvement so that a system’s impact can grow. The districts represented in this study did just
that. District leaders were very clear about their goals, whether it be getting students back to in-
person learning, safety, or attending to the needs of the whole child. Evidence of consistent
collaboration was present as districts met with system and site leaders frequently to develop a
common understanding of safety protocols and established district committees to plan for safe
reopening, ensure student learning, and empower people in the organization to become experts
and communicate their expertise to the entire organization and its stakeholders.
The conceptual framework makes clear that managing organizational change during a
crisis like the COVID-19 pandemic demands skilled leaders who can act as organizational
architects to design and construct productive organizational relationships, effective systems for
carrying out the organization’s work, and stakeholder capacity. The conceptual framework
creates a model for K–12 school districts to persist, at all levels of leadership, through a crisis.
Chapter Five presents a summary of the findings, implications for practice, a discussion
of future research, and further conclusions.
85
Chapter Five: Conclusions
The COVID-19 pandemic caused a near-total shutdown of the U.S. school system,
forcing more than 55 million students to transition to home-based remote learning practically
overnight (Horrigan, 2020). During the 2 years, schools across the country discontinued in-
person instruction and quickly pivoted their operations and instruction to respond to new
challenges presented by the pandemic (Reed, 2021). Superintendents had to decide whether to
reopen schools or keep them closed. Both reopening schools and keeping them closed carried
risks that actively required mitigation (Viner et al., 2021). Superintendent B discussed the critical
nature of ensuring the community was safe: “I don’t want to lose one kid or staff member on my
watch.”
The harms related to prolonged school closure are well documented; in addition to
impacts on learning, these include reductions in physical activity and a range of impacts on
mental health and well-being due to social isolation, reduced social support, increased exposure
to violence at home, exclusion from school-delivered public health interventions, and exclusion
of the most vulnerable students from social safety nets operating through schools (Viner et al.,
2021). Yet, with financial incentives and mounting pressure to reopen, superintendents faced a
new challenge: reopening schools safely. The school-reopening guidance offered by the CDC
naturally focused on public-health considerations, leaving it to educators to devise how to keep
students and staff safe while also meeting students’ educational needs. Even if public officials
deemed it safe for schools to reopen, some parents would still hesitate to send their children to
school, and some educators whose age or health conditions place them at risk may not be in a
position to return (Bailey, 2020).
86
The school districts that participated in this study did reopen. March 2022 marks 2 years
of school systems operating through the COVID-19 pandemic. The 2 years involved financial
implications, making sense of conflicting guidance, and interfacing with federal, state, and local
agencies to keep their school communities safe. They also involved negotiating with labor unions
and addressing parents’ needs and concerns. The significance of this study is that it contributes to
the evolving body of research about the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on K–12 school
districts and district and site leaders’ leadership during a crisis.
Purpose of the Study
The purpose of this study was to analyze the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on K–12
school districts and understand what district and site administrators learned from their
experiences and their decision-making responsibilities in managing the crisis. This study brings
to light the impact of the pandemic on students, families, leaders, schools, and districts. Most
importantly, this study examined how district and school leadership influences administrative
practices, student achievement, financial responsibility, union leadership, and community/parent
support as they responded to the crisis.
Research Questions
The study was guided by four research questions:
1. What are the financial implications of the COVID-19 pandemic on K–12 public
school districts in Southern California and how did district superintendents, assistant
superintendents, and principals address these implications?
2. What was the impact of federal, state, and local health agencies on K–12 public
school districts in Southern California, and what strategies did district
87
superintendents, assistant superintendents, and principals follow to address the
guidelines suggested by these agencies?
3. What was the role of union negotiations in K–12 Southern California public school
districts’ response to the pandemic?
4. How did K–12 Southern California public school districts leadership teams comprised
of superintendents, assistant superintendents, and principals address the parent
community’s concerns regarding safety, nutrition, distance learning, lack of
technology, academic standing, and how and when to reopen schools due to the
pandemic?
Methodology
This study was designed as a mixed-methods study, utilizing qualitative and quantitative
methods to collect and analyze data. A mixed-methods approach was selected to establish
triangulation for more accurate findings and make the study more holistic (Maxwell, 2013).
Lochmiller and Lester (2017) stated that triangulation establishes evidence across multiple data
points to support the claims made in the study. Collecting data through interviews and surveys
enabled triangulation, which is crucial for cross-checking the data and supporting the study’s
findings (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). This study was conducted with school superintendents,
assistant superintendents, and principals of Southern California K–12 public school districts.
This study involved collecting qualitative data from open-ended interviews with participants and
quantitative surveys completed by the interviewees.
Results and Findings
The findings in this study were based on interviews and surveys. The results and findings
connect to the literature. This study’s results were compared to the results collected by other
88
research team members. Our research team consisted of two researchers, each investigating three
school districts: Jason Olmstead and myself. We assigned a unique code to ensure each district’s
anonymity. Researcher 1 investigated District A, District B, and District C. Researcher 2
investigated District G, District H, and District I.
Research Question 1
The first research question asked, “What are the financial implications of the COVID-19
pandemic on K–12 public school districts in Southern California, and how did district
superintendents, assistant superintendents, and principals address these implications?”
Loss of Average Daily Attendance Funds
One of the themes was the challenges associated with California’s ADA funding formula
and the uncertainty of communities’ needs, now exacerbated by the pandemic. Districts
appreciated the hold-harmless provision for the 2020–2021 school year, but when California
lifted it for the 2021–2022 school year, district leaders expressed varying concerns about the
financial implications and declining enrollment. This theme is supported by the literature.
According to Roza (2021), states typically fund districts based on student counts, so districts
reporting shrinking student enrollment are worried about shrinking dollars.
District leaders reported a rapid decrease in daily attendance throughout the pandemic
and continued to worry about a fiscal cliff. According to Hong (2022), in 2018–2019, California
schools lost about 23,000 students statewide. Between the 2019–20 and 2020–21 school years,
the state’s public school enrollment dropped by nearly seven times that figure, with more than
160,000 students dropping out. If the state does not amend the current ADA policy, districts
could face increased students’ needs and limited resources to operate and meet these needs. We
89
must begin by understanding the financial cost of meeting these exacerbated inequities and
increased needs that will be ongoing and compound over time (Zhou et al., 2021).
Spending Flexibility and Structure and Staffing Shortages
Another significant theme was the need for increased spending flexibility and structure
specifically tied to staffing shortages. District leaders appreciated the additional funding but
discussed the rigid spending timelines and their inability to hire people to implement programs.
One superintendent added, “The people who are supposed to be designing the programs the
additional funding is providing for are at sites and in classrooms because there are between 13 to
20 staff shortages per day.” With spending timelines and staffing shortages, there is a likelihood
that one-time dollars may be spent on “stuff.” The literature supports the findings from the study.
State leaders need to remove funding barriers and instructional constraints, such as seat time
requirements, and federal policymakers should direct near-term stimulus funding to meet the
most urgent needs of the hardest-hit school systems (Zhou et al., 2021). Concerns about spending
restrictions, reporting requirements, and federal timelines mean that these dollars might
underwrite fragmented services, ineffective but familiar programs, or faddish offerings embraced
by those in Washington. Instead, federal officials should simplify spending rules. In the
meantime, district officials need to more aggressively explore what is allowed and resist the
temptation to choose what is safe over what is successful (Hess, 2021).
Research Question 2
The second research question asked, “What, if any, have been the impact of federal, state,
and local health agencies on K–12 school districts, and what strategies have districts followed to
address the suggested guidelines?”
90
Inconsistent Multi-Agency Guidance
One of the themes was the inconsistent multi-agency guidance. Superintendents
contended with guidance from county health departments, the CDE, teachers’ unions, the CDC,
and other groups (Jones, 2020). As policymakers debated when and how to reopen schools,
efforts had to be made to mitigate the effects of the closures on children and young people, their
families, and broader society (Viner et al., 2021). During the interviews, superintendents
expressed a sense of clarity about their focus to get students back to in-person instruction to
attend to their academic and social-emotional needs while ensuring they did not lose students or
staff members on their watch and while the science of the COVID-19 virus was evolving. One
superintendent used the guidance as guide-rails instead of mandates to ensure the school district
met the students’ needs and kept employees safe. The literature reflects the sentiment expressed
by the superintendent research participants. Many put forth a plea for federal and state
leadership, calling primarily for improved health guidance and pointing out that districts had to
create their own action plans due to none from the state and federal levels; others pointed out the
lack of state and federal guidance has exacerbated the political pressures they face (Lake, 2021).
Effective Communication Strategies
Another theme was that districts used a variety of communication strategies to connect
with their stakeholders. Research participants discussed strategies ranging from weekly meetings
with cabinet members and principals to impromptu meetings with district and site leaders as
changes in guidance that impacted sites, staff, and students occurred. Research participants
discussed using their school districts’ websites, email, and social media accounts to maintain
consistent communication with stakeholders. They credited their communication effectiveness to
consistent over-communication with standardized messaging to ensure all stakeholders received
91
the same information. Flexibility, providing hope and encouragement to motivate employees,
and coordinating a collective response as important leadership functions were key attributes of
crisis leadership; however, a leader’s role in organizing teams to regroup, refocus, and adapt may
be the higher priority (Kaiser, 2020). All participating superintendents demonstrated flexibility in
the methods they used to communicate, as well as, to continually regroup, refocus and adapt to
the changing science and agency guidance.
Research Question 3
The third research question asked, “How, if at all, have union negotiations played a role
in K–12 district’s response to the COVID-10 pandemic?”
Certificated Union Negotiations Focus on Safety
There was one significant theme as superintendents and assistant superintendent
participants discussed their experiences with certificated staff labor unions: safety. Research
participants discussed the conditions under which certificated employees transitioned to working
from home. District and school site leaders discussed certificated personnel’s fear of returning to
in-person learning. Superintendent participants shared the safety measures they put in place,
without any negotiation, to ensure their employees felt safe physically and emotionally. As one
superintendent expressed, “what helped us was the fact that we could show evidence that we had
taken precautions, not because we were mandated to but because we felt it was the safe and right
thing to do.” Safety is related to teachers’ working conditions, and working conditions are
negotiated in collective bargaining agreements. The literature reflects the importance of
attending to teachers’ safety concerns. Failure to carefully attend to teacher working conditions
as outlined in contract language could exacerbate teacher morale and lead to labor unrest
(Hemphill & Marianno, 2021).
92
Important Issues Negotiated With Classified Staff Unions
A few themes emerged from the data. Safety was the most important issue during
negotiations with classified staff unions; however, all district leaders also felt it was important to
meet all the safety measures these unions requested. District leaders expressed gratitude and
appreciation for their classified employees putting their lives on the line throughout the
pandemic to maintain district operations and support students and their families. One
superintendent increased campus supervisors’ pay, knowing that it would create an issue in the
system but realizing how important they were to campus safety. Another theme was the districts’
ability to change the structure of classified employees’ jobs with students no longer being on
campus. The literature supports approaches to moving districts forward during the pandemic.
States and districts will need to provide new flexibilities and models that enable schools to
organize people, time, technology, and community partnerships in new ways that can be
sustained with less money. Districts will need to improve the use and function of support staff to
execute new strategies (Bourne, 2014). Additionally, in a health crisis, leaders are urged to show
empathy by attending to peoples’ safety, security, and emotional needs as well as be practical in
meeting their task-related needs when getting work done (Kaiser, 2020).
Research Question 4
The fourth research question asked, “How did K–12 Southern California public school
districts leadership teams, composed of superintendents, assistant superintendents, and principals
address the parent community’s concerns regarding safety, nutrition, distance learning, lack of
technology, academic standing, and how and when to reopen schools due to the pandemic?”
Four themes emerged from the data. As schools began to reopen, parents’ primary
concern was safety. However, prior to schools reopening, parents were concerned about meeting
93
their children’s nutritional needs. District participants expressed a sense of pride about their
district’s ability to respond to their communities’ nutritional needs. Districts participated in daily
food distribution, while others provided grab-and-go meals for 7 days at a time. The other theme
that emerged was related to technology. While all participating districts rapidly disseminated
devices to students, they discovered that many students did not have stable internet access at
home. Districts responded by placing hot spots in school parking lots and disseminating hotspot
devices. However, the connection became unstable when more than one child was using the
hotspot in the home. During the COVID-19 pandemic, home internet connectivity and learning
devices became the digital school buses that took students to their classes and instructors (Bailey,
2020). Students struggled to connect in districts large and small (Goldstein et al., 2020).
Research participants discussed parents’ concerns about their children falling behind
academically. Most parents of students in K–12 schools expressed concern about their children
falling behind in school because of disruptions caused by the pandemic (Horowitz et al., 2020).
Comparative Analysis: Summary of Common Themes
This study involved three researchers collecting and analyzing data from interviews and
surveys, which enabled data triangulation. Triangulation is critical for cross-checking the data
and supporting the study’s findings (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). Research participants were
school superintendents, assistant superintendents, and principals in Southern California K–12
public school districts. This study involved collecting qualitative data from open-ended interview
questions with participants and quantitative surveys completed by the interviewees. Researchers
worked individually, collecting and analyzing data from nine school district leaders.
Additionally, two researchers worked together more closely to analyze the data to identify
94
common themes from six superintendents, six assistant superintendents, and six principals from
six school districts. As the two researchers analyzed the data, common themes were identified.
District leaders appreciated the additional funds provided to their districts through the
CARES Act and ESSR Funds. They appreciated the spending flexibility. However, they
expressed frustration with the spending timelines because of staffing shortages. One district
superintendent indicated they had 13 to 20 unfilled positions each day. District leaders indicated
that staffing shortages hindered their ability to use the funds in all the ways they would like.
However, districts used the funding to invest in technology. They purchased hotspots to provide
Wi-Fi for students, equipped buses with Wi-Fi, and extended Wi-Fi capabilities at schools to
ensure families had an option to come to any school’s parking lot to participate in distance
learning. School districts also used the funding to ensure their students and staff were safe by
investing in PPE and classroom air purification systems. All districts indicated that the funds
were not an incentive to reopen and return to in-person instruction.
Another common theme amongst the district leaders was the inconsistent messaging and
guidance from federal, state, and local health agencies. Districts near one another appeared to
collaborate regularly to interpret the guidance and share best practices. Superintendents met
frequently with their cabinets and site leaders to ensure common understanding and answer
questions. The researchers also noticed there was not a common position responsible for
interpreting and implementing COVID-19 safety practices and guidance.
With regard to the relationships between labor unions and district leadership, district
leaders expressed gratitude and appreciation for the unions’ willingness to work outside of their
class and support district leadership in bringing students back to in-person learning. The largest
concern for both unions was safety. It was important to all district superintendents to implement
95
safety measures that did not require negotiation. It was important for the superintendents to
demonstrate to their staff that they were willing to do what was right for everyone’s safety
without having to engage in negotiations.
Three common themes emerged from the study. Parents were concerned about safety.
Safety concerns ranged from being very conservative with a concern for protecting older family
members acting as caregivers to differences in opinion over wearing masks. Superintendents
expressed the vagueness of the guidance caused political challenges that might not have occurred
if the guidance were uniform, consistent, and presented as mandates instead of
recommendations. However, all districts expressed a sense of pride about their nutrition
departments’ ability to meet their students’ and larger communities’ nutritional needs. Services
ranged from daily grab-and-go food pick-up locations to community food pantries, food delivery
services, and providing families with 7 days of meals during one pick-up. There were a range of
responses regarding parents’ concerns about students’ academic progress. In some districts,
parents were more concerned about safety and worried about the impact of reopening on their
students’ health and that of older caregivers in the home. In other districts, while parents were
more concerned about students’ academic progress and unfinished learning, district
superintendents were more focused on students’ social-emotional health.
Implications for Practice
This study was designed to analyze the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on Southern
California K–12 school districts and what administrators learned during the crisis. This study
brought to light the impact of the pandemic on students, families, leaders, schools, and districts.
Most importantly, this study examined how district and school leadership influences
administrative practices, student achievement, financial responsibility, union leadership, and
96
community/parent support in responding to the crisis. The results of this study contribute to the
literature on K–12 school districts’ responses to the pandemic and can be utilized to inform how
school system and site leaders respond to future crises.
Recommendations for Future Research
The impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on Southern California K–12 public school
districts will be far-reaching and can include a wider scope of work to be explored by the
research community. Future research topics evolving from this work may include
• A longitudinal study of the far-reaching impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic on
students’ social-emotional health and unfinished learning and the investment required
to meet those needs,
• An examination of the fiscal impact of declining enrollment on districts’ financial
ability to meet students’ pandemic-caused long-term social-emotional and academic
needs,
• Successful school practices for responding to students’ pandemic-caused social-
emotional needs and unfinished learning,
• An examination of the differentiated unfinished learning and social-emotional needs
between students who took part in synchronous distance learning instruction and
those who were unable to access synchronous instruction, and
• An analysis of the innovations districts implemented to respond to students’ needs
without opposition and whether these continued after the pandemic.
97
Conclusions
Education changed as we once knew it during March 2020. Schools discontinued in-
person instruction to ensure student and staff safety due to the rapid spread of the COVID-19
pandemic. School districts that participated in the study pivoted and ushered their students into
distance learning; students participated in synchronous instruction with their teachers. However,
not all students could participate in distance learning because they did not have access to internet
service at home. During the school closures, students struggled to connect in districts large of all
sizes (Goldstein et al., 2020). Superintendents were left to determine how to ensure continuity of
learning, provide students with a rigorous learning experience, and respond to families’
nutritional needs while prioritizing their communities’ safety without clear or consistent
government guidance. The pandemic disrupted K–12 school districts in Southern California,
causing unforeseen consequences in the education system. It also highlighted financial
implications, the role of agencies and labor unions, and the impact on students and communities.
Thus, COVID-19 shifted the scope of school leaders’ roles beyond instructional leadership and
to crisis managers.
The literature on crisis leadership identifies providing hope and encouragement to
motivate employees and coordinating a collective response as important leadership functions.
This study’s findings are consistent with this but suggest that a focus on a leader’s role in
organizing teams to regroup, refocus, and adapt may be the higher priority (Kaiser, 2020).
Superintendents’ actions aligned with the literature. Each operated with a distinct purpose to
return students to in-person learning, ensure they did not lose students or staff on their watch,
and attend to students’ social-emotional needs. To meet their objective, they refocused,
98
regrouped and organized teams to manage and interpret information to keep their communities
safe and ensure continuity of learning.
In a time of crisis, leaders must act swiftly and with foresight but also with careful
consideration of options, consequences, and side effects of actions taken. They must
communicate with clarity and purpose but also with empathy and humanity (Netolicky, 2020).
Superintendents acted swiftly. They discussed their pivot to distance learning, distributing
Chromebooks and hotspots within a week of the school closures. Principals discussed breaking
down classroom Chromebook carts to get students the tool they needed to continue their
education. Humanity and empathy were woven throughout superintendent research participants’
responses. They created space to listen to classified staff and genuinely affirm the ways they
were appreciated, valued, and respected. They went beyond health guidance to ensure their
staff’s physical and psychological safety without negotiation. They focused district resources on
ensuring their students’ nutritional needs were met. School districts were not only focused on
education but also on meeting the needs of the whole child and supporting families.
This was a mixed-methods study. The study relied on a sample population of 18whether
school leaders. The purpose of this study was to analyze the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic
on K–12 school districts in Southern California and understand what administrators learned from
their experiences and their decision-making responsibilities. This study brought to light the
impact of the pandemic on students, families, leaders, schools, and districts. Most importantly,
the study examined how district and school leadership influences administrative practices,
student achievement, financial responsibility, union leadership, and community/parent support in
responding to the crisis. Therefore, these findings have relevance within the discourse on
Southern California K–12 school districts’ response to the COVID-19 pandemic.
99
References
The 74 Media Inc. (2021). Analysis: Schools are facing a surge of failing grades during the
pandemic—and traditional approaches like credit recovery will not be enough to manage
it. https://www.the74million.org/article/analysis-schools-are-facing-a-surge-of-failing-
grades-during-the-pandemic-and-traditional-approaches-like-credit-recovery-will-not-be-
enough-to-manage-it/
AASA. (2020a). AASA COVID-19 school response study. https://aasa.org/policy-
blogs.aspx?id=44619&blogid=84002
AASA. (2020b). COVID-19 and schools: Detailing the continued impact. https://aasa.org/policy-
blogs.aspx?id=44816&blogid=84002
Achor, S. (2018). Big potential: How transforming the pursuit of success raises our achievement,
happiness, and well-being. Currency.
Achor, S. (2020). Positivity matters in times of crisis. https://trainingmag.com/positivity-matters-
in-times-of-crisis/
Adelman, H., & Taylor, L. (2020). Restructuring California schools to address barriers to
learning and teaching in the COVID-19 Context and beyond. Policy Analysis for
California Education.
Bailey, J. (2020). Reopening resilient schools. Education Next, 20(4).
Bassok, D., & Monday, A. S. (2021). Understanding COVID-19-era enrollment drops among
early-grade public school students. The Brookings Institution.
Beach, B., Saavedra, M. H., & Clay, K. (n.d.). The 1918 influenza pandemic and its lessons for
COVID-19. National Bureau of Economic Research.
https://www.nber.org/system/files/working_papers/w27673/w27673.pdf
100
Belsha, K., LeMee, G. L., Willingham, L., & Fenn, L. (2020). Across U.S., states see public
school enrollment dip as virus disrupts education. https://www.chalkbeat.org/2020/12/22/
22193775/states-public-school-enrollment-decline-covid
Blinder, A. S., & Watson, M. W. (2016). Presidents and the US economy: An econometric
exploration. American Economic Review, 106(4), 1015–1045.
https://doi.org/10.1257/aer.20140913
Bolman, L. G., & Deal, T. E. (2017). Reframing organizations: Artistry, choice, and leadership
(6th ed.). Jossey-Bass.
Borter, G., & O’Brien, B. (2021, March 29). Another danger for kids in the age of COVID:
Failing grades. Reuters. https://www.reuters.com/article/us-health-coronavirus-usa-
students-insig/another-danger-for-kids-in-the-age-of-covid-failing-grades-
idUSKBN2BL1BF
Bourne, M. (2014). Managing through uncertainty. In D. Otley & K. Soin (Eds.), Management
control and uncertainty (pp. 97–113). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1057/9781137392121
Brookings Institution. (2020). School reopening plans linked to politics rather than public
health. https://www.brookings.edu/blog/brown-center-chalkboard/2020/07/29/school-
reopening-plans-linked-to-politics-rather-than-public-health/
California Department of Education. (2020). CDE. https://www.cde.ca.gov/
California Department of Education. (2021). Website: Budget Act for 2020–21: Information
https://www.cde.ca.gov/fg/fr/eb/yr20ltr0929.asp#:~:text=In%20an%20effort%20to%20st
abilize,a%20result%20of%20COVID%2D19.
California Department of Public Health. (2021). About us. Retrieved November 12, 2021, from
https://www.cdph.ca.gov/Pages/About.aspx
101
California School Employees Association. (2021). About us. https://www.csea.com/about-us
California State Government. (2021). Definitions.
https://schools.covid19.ca.gov/pages/definitions
CalMatters. (YEAR). Title of the page you viewed.
https://calmatters.org/education/2022/01/california-schools-budgets/
Campbell, A., & Soifer, D. (2021). Public-private microschool partnerships: The Southern
urban micro academy model. American Enterprise Institute.
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. (2005). SARS (10 years after). Centers for Disease
Control and Prevention. from https://www.cdc.gov/dotw/sars/index.html
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. (2021). Mission, role and pledge.
https://www.cdc.gov/about/organization/mission.htm
Chu, L., & Lake, R. (2021). The kids are (really) not alright: A synthesis of COVID-19 student
surveys. Center on Reinventing Public Education.
Cohen, D. K., & Raudenbush, S. W. (2003). Resources, instruction, and research. Educational
Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 25(2), 119–142.
Common Sense Media. (2020). New survey reveals teens’ anxieties, how they’re staying
connected, and their struggles with distance learning amid the coronavirus.
https://www.commonsensemedia.org/about-us/news/press-releases/new-survey-reveals-
teens-anxieties-how-theyre-staying-connected-and
Crayne, M. P., & Medeiros, K. E. (2021). Making sense of crisis: Charismatic, ideological, and
pragmatic leadership in response to COVID-19. American Psychologist, 76(3), 462–474.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/amp0000715
Dean, J. R. (1945). Southern California chapter. Optometry and Vision Science, 22(11), 539–540.
102
Education Data Partnership. (2021). Negotiating teachers’ contracts in California. www.ed-
data.org/article/Negotiating- Teachers%27-Contracts-in-California
Education Resource Strategies. (2021). Six adaptations to budget planning for 2021-22.
https://www.erstrategies.org/news/blog_budget_planning_for_2021-22
Education Resource Strategies. (2022). Investing federal ESSER funds in recovery and redesign:
7 crucial principles for investing ESSER funds for sustainable impact.
https://www.erstrategies.org/news/investing_federal_esser_funds_in_recovery_and_redes
ign
Exceptional Lives. (2019). Special education: A glossary of terms and acronyms.
www.exceptionallives.org/blog/special-education-a- glossary-of- terms-and-acronyms
Fensterwald, J., Burke, M., Stavely, Z., and Johnson, S. (June 26, 2021). 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
Fullan, M. (2020). Learning and the pandemic: What’s next? Prospects, 49(1–2), 25–28.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11125-020-09502-0
Fullan, M. G. (2018). The principal: Three keys to maximizing impact. Jossey-Bass.
Fullan, M., & Quinn, J. (2016). Coherence: The right drivers in action for schools, districts, and
systems. Corwin.
Garet, M., Rickles, J., Bowdon, J., & Heppen, J. (2020). National survey on public education’s
coronavirus pandemic response. American Institute for Research.
GENYouth. (2020). Life disrupted: The impact of COVID-19 on teens.
https://genyouthnow.org/news/life-disrupted-the-impact-of-covid-19-on-teens/
103
Gewertz, C. (2020, May 28). Instruction during COVID-19: Less learning time drives fears of
academic erosion. Education Week. https://www.edweek.org/teaching-
learning/instruction-during-covid-19-less-learning-time-drives-fears-of-academic-
erosion/2020/05
The Glossary of Education Reform. (2021). Cohort. https://www.edglossary.org/cohort/
Goldstein, D., Popescu, A., & Hannah-Jones, N. (2020, April 6). As school moves online, many
students stay logged out. The New York Times. https://www.nytimes.com/2020/04/06/us/
coronavirus-schools-attendance-absent.html
Gross, B., Heyward, G., & Mccann, S. (2021). How schools adapt during the pandemic can
reshape adolescent learning experiences for generations. Center on Reinventing Public
Education
Gross, B., & Opalka, A. (2020). Too many schools leave learning to chance during the
pandemic. Center on Reinventing Public Education.
Hamilton, L., Kaufman, J. H., & Diliberti, M. K. (2020). Teaching and leading through a
pandemic: Key findings from the American Educator Panels spring 2020 COVID-19
surveys. RAND. https://doi.org/10.7249/rra168-2
Hargreaves, A., & Fullan, M. (2020). Professional capital after the pandemic: revisiting and
revising classic understandings of teachers’ work. Journal of Professional Capital and
Community, 5(3–4), 327–336. https://doi.org/10.1108/JPCC-06-2020-0039
Harris, A., & Jones, M. (2020). COVID 19–school leadership in disruptive times. School
Leadership and Management, 40(4), 243–247.
https://doi.org/10.1080/13632434.2020.1811479
104
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
Hess, F. (2021, February 17). How schools can stop buying stuff that sits on the shelf. Forbes.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/frederickhess/2021/02/17/how-schools-can-stop-buying-
stuff-that-sits-on-the-shelf/?sh=5013ae68262f
Hess, R. (2021a, April 23). Have school reopening decisions been driven by union influence ?
Districts in areas with stronger unions were less likely to reopen in person.
EducationWeek. https://www.edweek.org/leadership/opinion-have-school-reopening-
decisions-been-driven-by-union-influence/2021/04
Hess, R. (2021b, April 16). Is hybrid homeschooling the future of education Hybrid
homeschooling combines the best of homeschooling and traditional schooling.
EducationWeek. https://www.edweek.org/policy-politics/opinion-is-hybrid-home-
schooling-the-future-of-education/2021/04
Hill, P. T., & Jochim, A. (2021). How can school superintendents lead during the COVID-19
crisis? Brookings Institution. https://www.brookings.edu/blog/brown-center-
chalkboard/2021/01/26/how-can-school-superintendents-lead-during-the-covid-19-crisis/
Hoel, T. L. (1997). Voices from the classroom. Teaching and Teacher Education, 13(1), 5–16.
https://doi.org/10.1016/S0742-051X(96)00048-0
Hong, J. (2022, January 5). California schools risk ‘colossal’ loss of dollars as enrollment drops.
Hopkins, B., & Strunk, K. O. (2021). Policy brief: A look inside Michigan Classrooms:
Educators’ Perceptions of COVID-19 and K–12 schooling in the fall of 2020. Education
Policy Innovation Collaborative.
105
Horowitz, J., & Igielnik, R. (2020). Most parents of K–12 students learning online worry about
them falling behind. Pew Research Center.
https://www.pewsocialtrends.org/2020/10/29/most-parents-of-k-12-students-learning-
online-worry-about-them-falling-behind/
Horrigan, J. B. (2020). Students of color caught in the homework gap.
https://futureready.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/07/HomeworkGap_FINAL7.20.
2020.pdf
Hurtt, A., Cohen, K., & Reed, S. (2021). Early pandemic response in California. Policy Analysis
for California Education.
Jarmolowski, H., & Roza, M. (2021). Proceed with caution: With enrollment drops, states are
looking to hold district budgets harmless. Edunomics Lab.
Jochim, A., & Lake, R. (2020). Understanding the learning pods landscape. Center on
Reinventing Public Education. https://www.crpe.org/thelens/understanding-learning-
pods-landscape
Johnson, S. (2021). California teachers grapple with grading nearly a year after initial school
closures. EdSource. https://edsource.org/2021/california-teachers-grapple-with-grading-
nearly-a-year-after-initial-school-closures/648376
Jones, C. (2020). Complex health considerations make reopening California’ s schools a
challenge. EdSource. https://edsource.org/2020/complex-health-considerations-make-
reopening-californias-schools-a-challenge/633214
Jones, C., & Freedberg, L. (2021). California legislature approves plan to encourage schools to
reopen for in-person instruction. EdSource.
106
Jones, E. P., Margolius, M., Skubel, A., Flanagan, S., & Hynes, M. (2020). All of who I am:
Perspectives from young people about social, emotional, and cognitive learning.
America’s Promise Alliance.
Kaden, U. (2020). Covid-19 school closure-related changes to the professional life of a k–12
teacher. Education Sciences, 10(6), 1–13. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci10060165
Kaiser, R. B. (2020). Leading in an unprecedented global crisis: The heightened importance of
versatility. Consulting Psychology Journal, 72(3), 135–154.
https://doi.org/10.1037/cpb0000186
Kaufman, J., & Diliberti, M. (2021). Teachers are not all right: How the COVID-19 pandemic is
taking a toll on the nation’s teachers. Center on Reinventing Public Education.
Kurtz, H. (2020, April 10). National survey tracks impact of coronavirus on schools: 10 key
findings Education Week. https://www.edweek.org/ew/articles/2020/04/10/national-
survey-tracks-impact-of-coronavirus-on.html
Lake, R. (2021). “Public education will never be the same:” How COVID-19 forced school
district leaders to innovate on the fly. Center on Reinventing Public Education.
Leithwood, K., Harris, A., & Hopkins, D. (2020). Seven strong claims about successful school
leadership revisited. School Leadership and Management, 40, 5–22.
https://doi.org/10.1080/13632434.2019.1596077
Lochmiller, C. R., & Lester, J. N. (2017). An introduction to educational research: Connecting
Methods to practice. SAGE.
Malin, H. (2018), Teaching for purpose: Preparing students for lives of meaning. Harvard
Education Press.
107
Malkus, N., Christensen, C., & West, L. (2020). School district responses to the COVID-19
pandemic: Round 6, ending the year of school closures. American Enterprise Institute.
Margolius, M., Doyle Lynch, A., Pufall Jones, E., & Hynes, M. (2020). The state of young
people during COVID-19. America’s Promise Alliance.
Marianno, B. D. (2021). Teachers’ unions: Scapegoats or bad-faith actors in COVID- 19 school
reopening decisions? Brookings Institution.
Maxwell, J. A. (2013). Qualitative research design: An interactive approach (3rd ed.). Sage
Publications.
Myung, J., Gallagher, H. A., Cottingham, B. W., Gong, A., Kimner, H., Witte, J., Gee, K., &
Hough, H. J. (2020). Supporting learning in the COVID-19 context.
https://www.edpolicyinca.org/publications/supporting-learning-covid-19-context
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
Netolicky, D. M. (2020). School leadership during a pandemic: Navigating tensions. Journal of
Professional Capital and Community, 5(3–4), 391–395. https://doi.org/10.1108/JPCC-05-
2020-0017
Norton, L. W. (2010). Flexible leadership: An integrative perspective. Consulting Psychology
Journal: Practice and Research, 62, 143–150. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0019990
Olson, L. (2021). Teaching innovation: New school staffing strategies inspired by the pandemic.
FutureEd and EducationCounsel
Opalka, A., & Jochim, A. (2021). It takes a village: The pandemic learning pod movement, one
year in. Center on Reinventing Public Education.
108
Peterson, L., Scharber, C., Thuesen, A., & Baskin, K. (2020). A rapid response to COVID-19:
One district’s pivot from technology integration to distance learning. Information and
Learning Science, 121(5–6), 451–459. https://doi.org/10.1108/ILS-04-2020-0131
Pillow, T., & Dusseault, B. (2021). Five lessons on how community-driven learning hubs could
change school districts long-term. Center on Reinventing Public Education.
https://www.crpe.org/thelens/five-lessons-how-community-driven-learning-hubs-could-
change-school-districts-long-term
Reed, S. (2021). Early pandemic response in California. Policy Analysis for California
Education.
San Diego Unified School District. (n.d.). SDUSD grading policy.
https://sandiegounified.org/s_d_u_s_d_grading_policy
Sawchuck, S. (2020, December 11). Should schools be giving so many failing grades this year?
EducationWeek. https://edunomicslab.org/2021/02/26/ proceed-with-caution/
Sawchuck, S. (2021, May 7). Wanted: Superintendents to lead districts through the end of a
pandemic. Education Week. https://www.edweek.org/leadership/wanted-superintendents-
to-lead-districts-through-a-pandemic/2021/05
Saunders-Hastings, P., & Krewski, D. (2016). Reviewing the history of pandemic influenza:
Understanding patterns of emergence and transmission. Pathogens, 5(4), 66.
https://doi.org/10.3390/pathogens5040066
Schanzenbach, D., & Pitts, A. (2020). Food insecurity triples for families with children during
COVID-19 pandemic. Institute for Policy Research.
https://www.ipr.northwestern.edu/news/2020/food-insecurity-triples-for-families-during-
covid.html
109
Schwartz, H. L., Grant, D., Diliberti, M., Hunter, G. P., & Setodji, C. M. (2020). Remote
learning is here to stay: Results from the first American school district panel survey.
RAND. https://doi.org/10.7249/rra956-1
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
Smith, K. M. (1969). Producing the rigorous design case. International Journal of Designs for
Learning, 1(1), 9–20. https://doi.org/10.14434/ijdl.v1i1.917
Soares, A. P. (2013). How did Covid-19 and stabilization policies affect spending and
employment? A new real-time economic tracker based on private sector data. Journal of
Chemical Information and Modeling, 53(9), 1689–1699.
Spots, B., & Spot, F. (n.d.). Navigating the moment.
States. https://www.ncsl.org/research/labor-and-employment/covid-19-essential-
workers-in-the-states.aspx#:~:text=According%20to%20the%20U.,to%20
defense%20to%20agriculture.
Sterrett, W., & Richardson, J. (2020). Supporting professional development through digital
principal leadership. Journal of Organizational & Educational Leadership, 5(2), 4.
Superville, D. R. (2021, March 16). Lessons from the pandemic that can improve leading and
teaching. Education Week. https://www.edweek.org/leadership/lessons-from-the-
pandemic-that-can-improve-leading-and-teaching/2021/03
U.S. Department of Education. (2021). U.S. Department of Education. https://www.ed.gov.
U.S. Department of Labor. (2021). Personal protective equipment – Overview.
https://www.osha.gov/personal-protective-equipment
110
Valant, J. (2020). School reopening plans linked to politics rather than public health. Brookings.
Brookings Institution. https://www.brookings.edu/blog/brown-center-
chalkboard/2020/07/29/school-reopening-plans-linked-to-politics-rather-than-public-health
Vance, F., Wolforth, S., & Gunderson, J. (2021). Learning hubs: In-person learning for the
whole child. Policy Analysis for California Education.
Vegas, E., & Winthrop, R. (2020). 2020: A year of turmoil but also hope in education.
Brookings Institution. https://www.brookings.edu/blog/education-plus-
development/2020/12/22/2020-a-year-of-turmoil-but-also-hope-in-education/
Viner, R. M., Bonell, C., Drake, L., Jourdan, D., Davies, N., Baltag, V., Jerrim, J., & Darzi, A.
(2021). Reopening schools during the COVID-19 pandemic: Governments must balance
the uncertainty and risks of reopening schools against the clear harms associated with
prolonged closure. Archives of Disease in Childhood, 106(2), 111–113.
https://doi.org/10.1136/archdischild-2020-319963
Westover, J., Fullan, M., & Quinn, J. (2020). Districts on the move: Leading a coherent system
of continuous improvement. Corwin.
World Health Organization. (2021a). Who we are. www.who.int/about/who-we-are
World Health Organization. (2021b). World Health Organization coronavirus dashboard.
https://covid19.who.int
Wyse, A. E., Stickney, E. M., Butz, D., Beckler, A., & Close, C. N. (2020). The potential Impact
of COVID-19 on student learning and how schools can respond. Educational
Measurement: Issues and Practice, 39(3), 60–64. https://doi.org/10.1111/emip.12357
Zhao, Y. (2020). COVID-19 as a catalyst for educational change. Prospects, 49(1–2), 29–33.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11125-020-09477-y
111
Zhou, T., Molfino, T., & Travers, J. (n.d.). The cost of Covid: Understanding the full financial
impact of COVID-19 on districts and schools. Education Resource Strategies.
112
Appendix A: Superintendent Interview Protocol
Interviewer: Date:
Interviewee: Location:
Job Title: Contact Information:
Length of Time in Your Position:
Introduction
[Introduce yourself and your affiliation.]
During this conversation, we hope to learn more about the COVID-19 pandemic and your
experience as a superintendent during this time. The ultimate goal of this study is to better
understand leadership during a crisis.
Your comments will remain confidential. We would like to record this interview to ensure the
accuracy of our conversation. The recording will be used only by our research team to review
responses and to provide an opportunity to code themes between the various respondents. The
information recorded will remain secure and anonymous. Do we have your consent to record?
This interview will last approximately 35 minutes. Do you have any questions before we begin?
1. What, if any, are the financial implications that the COVID-19 pandemic has had on K–
12 districts and how have district leaders addressed these implications?
A. What have been the biggest financial implications of the pandemic on your
district?
B. In what ways, if any, would more spending flexibility/structure have benefitted
your district?
C. In what ways has COVID-19 related funding been used to meet student needs in
your district?
D. To what extent, if any, did financial incentive influence your district’s reopening
plan/timeline?
2. What, if any, have been the impact of Federal, State and Local Health agencies on K–12
school districts, and what strategies have districts followed to address the suggested
guidelines?
A. In what ways did your district collaborate with federal, state, and local
government agencies and community organizations to support your school district
during COVID?
a. PQ What agencies or organizations?
113
B. To what degree, if any, did the various agencies align COVID-19 guidance for
schools?
C. What strategies have been effective for your district in implementing health
guidelines/policies?
D. Who in your district was primarily in charge of interpreting and implementing the
health guidelines/policies?
3. How, if at all, have union negotiations played a role in K–12 district’s response to the
COVID-19 pandemic?
A. What were the most important issues negotiated with your teachers union and
how were they resolved?
B. What were the most important issues negotiated with your classified union and
how were they resolved?
C. In what ways, if any, were instructional programs influenced by union
negotiations in your district?
D. In what ways, if any, were safety protocols influenced by union negotiations in
your district?
4. How, if at all, has your district addressed the concerns of the parent community regarding
safety, nutrition, distance learning, lack of technology, academic standing, and how and
when to open schools due to the COVID-19 pandemic?
A. In what ways did your district gather input from and communicate to the
community?
B. What were the biggest concerns from your district’s community and how were
they addressed?
a. PQ Were there any safety concerns?
b. PQ Were there any nutrition concerns?
c. PQ Were there any academic concerns?
d. PQ Were there any technology concerns?
e. PQ Were there any reopening concerns?
Conclusion
Thank you for your time and willingness to meet with me and for all the valuable information
you provided for this study.
114
Appendix B: Assistant Superintendent Interview Protocol
Interviewer: Date:
Interviewee: Location:
Job Title: Contact Information:
Length of Time in Your Position:
Introduction
[Introduce yourself and your affiliation.]
During this conversation, we hope to learn more about the COVID-19 pandemic and your
experience as 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?
2. What, if any, are the financial implications that the COVID-19 pandemic has had on K–
12 districts and how have district leaders addressed these implications?
A. What have been the biggest financial implications of the pandemic on your
district?
B. In what ways, if any, would more spending flexibility/structure have benefitted
your district?
C. In what ways has COVID-19 related funding been used to meet student needs in
your district?
D. To what extent, if any, did financial incentive influence your district’s reopening
plan/timeline?
3. What, if any, have been the impact of Federal, State and Local Health agencies on K–12
school districts, and what strategies have districts followed to address the suggested
guidelines?
A. In what ways did your district collaborate with federal, state, and local
government agencies and community organizations to support your school district
during COVID?
a. PQ What agencies or organizations?
115
B. To what degree, if any, did the various agencies align COVID-19 guidance for
schools?
C. What strategies have been effective for your district in implementing health
guidelines/policies?
D. Who in your district was primarily in charge of interpreting and implementing the
health guidelines/policies?
4. How, if at all, have union negotiations played a role in K–12 district’s response to the
COVID-19 pandemic?
A. What were the most important issues negotiated with your teachers union and
how were they resolved?
B. What were the most important issues negotiated with your classified union and
how were they resolved?
C. In what ways, if any, were instructional programs influenced by union
negotiations in your district?
D. In what ways, if any, were safety protocols influenced by union negotiations in
your district?
5. How, if at all, has your district addressed the concerns of the parent community regarding
safety, nutrition, distance learning, lack of technology, academic standing, and how and
when to open schools due to the COVID-19 pandemic?
A. In what ways did your district gather input from and communicate to the
community?
B. What were the biggest concerns from your district’s community and how were
they addressed?
a. PQ Were there any safety concerns?
b. PQ Were there any nutrition concerns?
c. PQ Were there any academic concerns?
d. PQ Were there any technology concerns?
e. PQ Were there any reopening concerns?
Conclusion
Thank you for your time and willingness to meet with me and for all the valuable information
you provided for this study.
116
Appendix C: Principal Interview Protocol
Interviewer: Date:
Interviewee: Location:
Job Title: Contact Information:
Length of Time in Your Position:
Introduction
[Introduce yourself and your affiliation.]
During this conversation, we hope to learn more about the COVID-19 pandemic and your
experience as a 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?
3. What, if any, are the financial implications that the COVID-19 pandemic has had on K–
12 districts and how have district leaders addressed these implications?
A. What have been the biggest financial implications of the pandemic on your
district?
B. In what ways, if any, would more spending flexibility/structure have benefitted
your district?
C. In what ways has COVID-19 related funding been used to meet student needs in
your district?
D. To what extent, if any, did financial incentive influence your district’s reopening
plan/timeline?
4. What, if any, have been the impact of Federal, State and Local Health agencies on K–12
school districts, and what strategies have districts followed to address the suggested
guidelines?
A. In what ways did your district collaborate with federal, state, and local
government agencies and community organizations to support your school district
during COVID?
a. PQ What agencies or organizations?
117
B. To what degree, if any, did the various agencies align COVID-19 guidance for
schools?
C. What strategies have been effective for your district in implementing health
guidelines/policies?
D. Who in your district was primarily in charge of interpreting and implementing the
health guidelines/policies?
5. How, if at all, have union negotiations played a role in K–12 district’s response to the
COVID-19 pandemic?
A. What were the most important issues negotiated with your teachers union and
how were they resolved?
B. What were the most important issues negotiated with your classified union and
how were they resolved?
C. In what ways, if any, were instructional programs influenced by union
negotiations in your district?
D. In what ways, if any, were safety protocols influenced by union negotiations in
your district?
6. How, if at all, has your district addressed the concerns of the parent community regarding
safety, nutrition, distance learning, lack of technology, academic standing, and how and
when to open schools due to the COVID-19 pandemic?
A. In what ways did your district gather input from and communicate to the
community?
B. What were the biggest concerns from your district’s community and how were
they addressed?
a. PQ Were there any safety concerns?
b. PQ Were there any nutrition concerns?
c. PQ Were there any academic concerns?
d. PQ Were there any technology concerns?
e. PQ Were there any reopening concerns?
Conclusion
Thank you for your time and willingness to meet with me and for all the valuable information
you provided for this study.
118
Appendix D: Superintendent Survey
Introduction
Thank you for participating in this research project. The goal is to understand how the COVID-
19 pandemic affected K–12 school districts, and in doing so, transformed the role of district and
school site leaders into crisis managers. You were chosen to participate in this survey because
you demonstrated leadership as a superintendent during the COVID-19 crisis.
Your participation in this study is entirely voluntary. Your identity, position, and any identifying
information about your district will be anonymized to secure confidentiality. Thank you again for
your participation. We also invite you to take part in a virtual 30 minute interview to be
scheduled at your convenience after the survey.
Table D1
Survey Items
Survey items Response choices
How many years have you served as a superintendent? Open-ended (Demographic)
Less than 1 year
1 to 2 years
3 to 5 years
6 to 10 years
Over 10 years
How long have you been superintendent at your current
district?
Open-ended (Demographic)
Less than 1 year
1 to 2 years
3 to 5 years
6 to 10 years
Over 10 years
RQ1: Financial implications
119
Survey items Response choices
The CARES Act met my district’s funding needs in the
area of personnel.
Strongly disagree
Disagree
Neither agree nor disagree
Agree
Strongly agree
The CARES Act met my district’s funding needs in the
area of personal protective equipment (PPE).
Strongly disagree
Disagree
Neither agree nor disagree
Agree
Strongly agree
The CARES Act met my district’s funding needs in the
area of technology.
Strongly disagree
Disagree
Neither agree nor disagree
Agree
Strongly agree
The CARES Act met my district’s funding needs in the
area of professional learning and/or training.
Strongly disagree
Disagree
Neither agree nor disagree
Agree
Strongly agree
The CARES Act met my district’s funding needs in the
area of facility upgrades.
Strongly disagree
Disagree
Neither agree nor disagree
Agree
Strongly agree e
RQ2: Health and safety guidelines
The federal, state, and local health guidelines were clear
in providing information to support the safe reopening
of schools.
Strongly disagree
Disagree
Neither agree nor disagree
Agree
Strongly agree
120
Survey items Response choices
I understood how to safely bring back staff during the
fall of 2020 to work sites based on the public health
guidelines.
Strongly disagree
Disagree
Neither agree nor disagree
Agree
Strongly agree
The health guidelines impacted our district’s return to
school plan in the spring of 2021.
Strongly disagree
Disagree
Neither agree nor disagree
Agree
Strongly agree
RQ3: Union negotiations
Negotiations with certificated unions influenced the way
my district effectively responded to the COVID-19
pandemic for students and families.
Strongly disagree
Disagree
Neither agree nor disagree
Agree
Strongly agree
Negotiations with classified unions influenced the way
of my district effectively responding to the COVID-
19 pandemic for students and families.
Strongly disagree
Disagree
Neither agree nor disagree
Agree
Strongly agree
Negotiations with the teacher’s union impacted the
quality of instruction offered to students during
distance learning.
Strongly disagree
Disagree
Neither agree nor disagree
Agree
Strongly agree
RQ4: Community concerns
My district maintained good communication with
families during the pandemic.
Strongly disagree
Disagree
Neither agree nor disagree
Agree
Strongly agree
121
Survey items Response choices
My district met the needs of students and families in the
area of nutrition.
Strongly disagree
Disagree
Neither agree nor disagree
Agree
Strongly agree
My district met the needs of students and families in the
area of technology (computers/devices).
Strongly disagree
Disagree
Neither agree nor disagree
Agree
Strongly agree
My district met the needs of students and families in the
area of technology (internet service).
Strongly disagree
Disagree
Neither agree nor disagree
Agree
Strongly agree
My district met the needs of students and families in the
area of social-emotional well-being.
Strongly disagree
Disagree
Neither agree nor disagree
Agree
Strongly agree
My district met the needs of students and families in the
area of health & safety.
Strongly disagree
Disagree
Neither agree nor disagree
Agree
Strongly agree
My district met the academic needs of students. Strongly disagree
Disagree
Neither agree nor disagree
Agree
Strongly agree
Overarching
122
Survey items Response choices
The board of education supported my district’s response
to the COVID-19 pandemic?
Strongly disagree
Disagree
Neither agree nor disagree
Agree
Strongly agree
District administrators supported my district’s response
to the COVID-19 pandemic?
Strongly disagree
Disagree
Neither agree nor disagree
Agree
Strongly agree
District facilities and operations teams supported my
district’s response to the COVID-19 pandemic?
Strongly disagree
Disagree
Neither agree nor disagree
Agree
Strongly agree
Teachers supported my district’s response to the
COVID-19 pandemic?
Strongly disagree
Disagree
Neither agree nor disagree
Agree
Strongly agree
Classified staff supported my district’s response to the
COVID-19 pandemic?
Strongly disagree
Disagree
Neither agree nor disagree
Agree
Strongly agree
Families supported my district’s response to the
COVID-19 pandemic?
Strongly disagree
Disagree
Neither agree nor disagree
Agree
Strongly agree
I recommend the following assistant superintendent
from my district to participate in this study:
[open-ended response]
123
Survey items Response choices
I recommend the following principal from my district to
participate in this study:
[open-ended response]
Closing
We appreciate your willingness to participate in the survey. Your responses will help us better
understand the perspectives of district superintendents during the COVID-19 pandemic and
experiences as crisis managers.
We will be in touch to invite you to take part in a virtual 35 minute interview to be scheduled at
your convenience.
Thank you for participating in this survey.
124
Appendix E: Assistant Superintendent Survey
Introduction
Thank you for participating in this research project. The goal is to understand how the COVID-
19 pandemic affected K–12 school districts, and in doing so, transformed the role of district and
school site leaders into crisis managers. You were chosen to participate in this survey because
you demonstrated leadership as a superintendent during the COVID-19 crisis.
Your participation in this study is entirely voluntary. Your identity, position, and any identifying
information about your district will be anonymized to secure confidentiality. Thank you again for
your participation. We also invite you to take part in a virtual 30 minute interview to be
scheduled at your convenience after the survey.
Table E1
Survey Items
Survey items Response choices
How many years have you served as an assistant
superintendent?
Open-ended (Demographic)
Less than 1 year
1 to 2 years
3 to 5 years
6 to 10 years
Over 10 years
How long have you been assistant superintendent
at your current district?
Open-ended (Demographic)
Less than 1 year
1 to 2 years
3 to 5 years
6 to 10 years
Over 10 years
RQ1: Financial implications
The CARES Act met my district’s funding needs
in the area of personnel.
Strongly disagree
Disagree
Neither agree nor disagree
Agree
Strongly agree
125
Survey items Response choices
The CARES Act met my district’s funding needs
in the area of personal protective equipment
(PPE).
Strongly disagree
Disagree
Neither agree nor disagree
Agree
Strongly agree
The CARES Act met my district’s funding needs
in the area of technology.
Strongly disagree
Disagree
Neither agree nor disagree
Agree
Strongly agree
The CARES Act met my district’s funding needs
in the area of professional learning and/or
training.
Strongly disagree
Disagree
Neither agree nor disagree
Agree
Strongly agree
The CARES Act met my district’s funding needs
in the area of facility upgrades.
Strongly disagree
Disagree
Neither agree nor disagree
Agree
Strongly agree
RQ2: Health and safety guidelines
The federal, state, and local health guidelines were
clear in providing information to support the
safe reopening of schools.
Strongly disagree
Disagree
Neither agree nor disagree
Agree
Strongly agree
I understood how to safely bring back staff during
the fall of 2020 to work sites based on the public
health guidelines.
Strongly disagree
Disagree
Neither agree nor disagree
Agree
Strongly agree
126
Survey items Response choices
The health guidelines impacted our district’s
return to school plan in the spring of 2021.
Strongly disagree
Disagree
Neither agree nor disagree
Agree
Strongly agree
RQ3: Union negotiations
Negotiations with certificated unions influenced
the way my district effectively responded to the
COVID-19 pandemic for students and families.
Strongly disagree
Disagree
Neither agree nor disagree
Agree
Strongly agree
Negotiations with classified unions influenced the
way of my district effectively responding to the
COVID-19 pandemic for students and families.
Strongly disagree
Disagree
Neither agree nor disagree
Agree
Strongly agree
Negotiations with the teacher’s union impacted the
quality of instruction offered to students during
distance learning.
Strongly disagree
Disagree
Neither agree nor disagree
Agree
Strongly agree
RQ4: Community concerns
My district maintained good communication with
families during the pandemic.
Strongly disagree
Disagree
Neither agree nor disagree
Agree
Strongly agree
My district met the needs of students and families
in the area of nutrition.
Strongly disagree
Disagree
Neither agree nor disagree
Agree
Strongly agree
127
Survey items Response choices
My district met the needs of students and families
in the area of technology (computers/devices).
Strongly disagree
Disagree
Neither agree nor disagree
Agree
Strongly agree
My district met the needs of students and families
in the area of technology (internet service).
Strongly disagree
Disagree
Neither agree nor disagree
Agree
Strongly agree
My district met the needs of students and families
in the area of social-emotional well-being.
Strongly disagree
Disagree
Neither agree nor disagree
Agree
Strongly agree
My district met the needs of students and families
in the area of health & safety.
Strongly disagree
Disagree
Neither agree nor disagree
Agree
Strongly agree
My district met the academic needs of students. Strongly disagree
Disagree
Neither agree nor disagree
Agree
Strongly agree
Overarching
The board of education supported my district’s
response to the COVID-19 pandemic?
Strongly disagree
Disagree
Neither agree nor disagree
Agree
Strongly agree
128
Survey items Response choices
District administrators supported my district’s
response to the COVID-19 pandemic?
Strongly disagree
Disagree
Neither agree nor disagree
Agree
Strongly agree
District facilities and operations teams supported
my district’s response to the COVID-19
pandemic?
Strongly disagree
Disagree
Neither agree nor disagree
Agree
Strongly agree
Teachers supported my district’s response to the
COVID-19 pandemic?
Strongly disagree
Disagree
Neither agree nor disagree
Agree
Strongly agree
Classified staff supported my district’s response to
the COVID-19 pandemic?
Strongly disagree
Disagree
Neither agree nor disagree
Agree
Strongly agree
Families supported my district’s response to the
COVID-19 pandemic?
Strongly disagree
Disagree
Neither agree nor disagree
Agree
Strongly agree
I recommend the following assistant
superintendent from my district to participate in
this study:
[open-ended response]
I recommend the following principal from my
district to participate in this study:
[open-ended response]
129
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.
130
Appendix F: Principal Survey
Thank you for participating in this research project. The goal is to understand how the COVID-
19 pandemic affected K–12 school districts, and in doing so, transformed the role of district and
school site leaders into crisis managers. You were chosen to participate in this survey because
you demonstrated leadership as a superintendent during the COVID-19 crisis.
Your participation in this study is entirely voluntary. Your identity, position, and any identifying
information about your district will be anonymized to secure confidentiality. Thank you again for
your participation. We also invite you to take part in a virtual 30-minute interview to be
scheduled at your convenience after the survey.
Table F1
Survey Items
Survey items Response choices
How many years have you served as a principal? Open-ended (Demographic)
Less than 1 year
1 to 2 years
3 to 5 years
6 to 10 years
Over 10 years
How long have you been principal at your current
district?
Open-ended (Demographic)
Less than 1 year
1 to 2 years
3 to 5 years
6 to 10 years
Over 10 years
RQ1: Financial implications
The CARES Act met my district’s funding needs
in the area of personnel.
Strongly Disagree
Disagree
either Agree nor Disagree
Agree
Strongly Agree
131
Survey items Response choices
The CARES Act met my district’s funding needs
in the area of personal protective equipment
(PPE).
Strongly Disagree
Disagree
Neither Agree nor Disagree
Agree
Strongly Agree
The CARES Act met my district’s funding needs
in the area of technology.
Strongly Disagree
Disagree
Neither Agree nor Disagree
Agree
Strongly Agree
The CARES Act met my district’s funding needs
in the area of professional learning and/or
training.
Strongly Disagree
Disagree
Neither Agree nor Disagree
Agree
Strongly Agree
The CARES Act met my district’s funding needs
in the area of facility upgrades.
Strongly Disagree
Disagree
Neither Agree nor Disagree
Agree
Strongly Agree
RQ2: Health and safety guidelines
The federal, state, and local health guidelines were
clear in providing information to support the
safe reopening of schools.
Strongly Disagree
Disagree
Neither Agree nor Disagree
Agree
Strongly Agree
I understood how to safely bring back staff during
the fall of 2020 to work sites based on the public
health guidelines.
Strongly Disagree
Disagree
Neither Agree nor Disagree
Agree
Strongly Agree
132
Survey items Response choices
The health guidelines impacted our district’s
return to school plan in the spring of 2021.
Strongly Disagree
Disagree
Neither Agree nor Disagree
Agree
Strongly Agree
RQ3: Union negotiations
Negotiations with certificated unions influenced
the way my district effectively responded to the
COVID-19 pandemic for students and families.
Strongly Disagree
Disagree
Neither Agree nor Disagree
Agree
Strongly Agree
Negotiations with classified unions influenced the
way of my district effectively responding to the
COVID-19 pandemic for students and families.
Strongly Disagree
Disagree
Neither Agree nor Disagree
Agree
Strongly Agree
Negotiations with the teacher’s union impacted the
quality of instruction offered to students during
distance learning.
Strongly Disagree
Disagree
Neither Agree nor Disagree
Agree
Strongly Agree
RQ4: Community concerns
My district maintained good communication with
families during the pandemic.
Strongly Disagree
Disagree
Neither Agree nor Disagree
Agree
Strongly Agree
My district met the needs of students and families
in the area of nutrition.
Strongly Disagree
Disagree
Neither Agree nor Disagree
Agree
Strongly Agree
133
Survey items Response choices
My district met the needs of students and families
in the area of technology (computers/devices).
Strongly Disagree
Disagree
Neither Agree nor Disagree
Agree
Strongly Agree
My district met the needs of students and families
in the area of technology (internet service).
Strongly Disagree
Disagree
Neither Agree nor Disagree
Agree
Strongly Agree
My district met the needs of students and families
in the area of social-emotional well-being.
Strongly Disagree
Disagree
Neither Agree nor Disagree
Agree
Strongly Agree
My district met the needs of students and families
in the area of health & safety.
Strongly Disagree
Disagree
Neither Agree nor Disagree
Agree
Strongly Agree
My district met the academic needs of students. Strongly Disagree
Disagree
Neither Agree nor Disagree
Agree
Strongly Agree
Overarching
The board of education supported my district’s
response to the COVID-19 pandemic?
Strongly Disagree
Disagree
Neither Agree nor Disagree
Agree
Strongly Agree
134
Survey items Response choices
District administrators supported my district’s
response to the COVID-19 pandemic?
Strongly Disagree
Disagree
Neither Agree nor Disagree
Agree
Strongly Agree
District facilities and operations teams supported
my district’s response to the COVID-19
pandemic?
Strongly Disagree
Disagree
Neither Agree nor Disagree
Agree
Strongly Agree
Teachers supported my district’s response to the
COVID-19 pandemic?
Strongly Disagree
Disagree
Neither Agree nor Disagree
Agree
Strongly Agree
Classified staff supported my district’s response to
the COVID-19 pandemic?
Strongly Disagree
Disagree
Neither Agree nor Disagree
Agree
Strongly Agree
Families supported my district’s response to the
COVID-19 pandemic?
Strongly Disagree
Disagree
Neither Agree nor Disagree
Agree
Strongly Agree
I recommend the following assistant
superintendent from my district to participate in
this study:
[open-ended response]
I recommend the following principal from my
district to participate in this study:
[open-ended response]
135
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.
136
Appendix G: Survey Question Results
This section presents visuals depicting the results for the survey questions.
Figure G1
Quantitative Survey: Assistant Superintendent’s Perception of Financial Implications (n = 3)
137
Figure G2
Quantitative Survey: Principal’s Perception of Financial Implications (n = 3)
138
Figure G3
Quantitative Survey: Assistant Superintendent’s Perception of Health and Safety Guidelines (n =
3)
139
Figure G4
Quantitative Survey: Principal’s Perception of Health and Safety Guidelines (n = 3)
Figure G5
Quantitative Survey: Assistant Superintendent’s Perception of Union Negotiations (n = 3)
140
Figure G6
Quantitative Survey: Principal’s Perception of Union Negotiations (n = 3)
Figure G7
Quantitative Survey: Assistant Superintendents’ Perception of Community Concerns (n = 3)
141
Figure G8
Quantitative Survey: Principals’ Perceptions of Community Concerns (n = 3)
142
Appendix H: Invitation Letter: Superintendent Research Participants
Date
Dear Superintendent ___________,
My name is [USC STUDENT’S NAME] and I am currently completing my doctoral dissertation
at the University of Southern California’s Rossier School of Education under the guidance of Dr.
Rudy Castruita. I am writing to invite you to participate in a 15-minute survey and 35-minute
virtual interview. In addition, I am also requesting your permission to administer a survey and
conduct an interview with an assistant superintendent and principal in your district. 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. The survey includes a place for you to recommend
an assistant superintendent and a principal from your district to participate in this research.
If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me at -----------@----. Thank you very much
for your time and assistance.
Sincerely,
[researcher’s name]
Doctoral Candidate
Rossier School of Education
University of Southern California
143
Appendix I: Invitation Letter: Assistant Superintendent Research Participants
Date
Dear Assistant Superintendent ___________,
My name is [USC STUDENT’S NAME] and I am currently completing my doctoral dissertation
at the University of Southern California’s Rossier School of Education under the guidance of Dr.
Rudy Castruita. I am writing to invite you to participate in a 15-minute survey and 35-minute
virtual interview. Collecting data from highly effective leaders such as yourself would be greatly
appreciated and is essential for the success of this study.
The ultimate purpose of the study is to analyze the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on K–12
school districts. We aim to understand what district and site administrators have learned from
their experiences and their decision-making responsibilities in managing the crisis.
This research study has been reviewed and approved by the University of Southern California
Institutional Review Board for Human Subjects Research (IRB). The IRB believes that the
research procedures safeguard your privacy, welfare, civil liberties, anonymity, and rights. Please
be assured that your participation and answers will be kept confidential and anonymous. The
results will be analyzed solely for this dissertation and no identifying information will be used.
Please click on this survey link to participate. If you have any questions, please feel free to
contact me at -----------@----. Thank you very much for your time and assistance.
Sincerely,
[researcher’s name]
Doctoral Candidate
Rossier School of Education
University of Southern California
144
Appendix J: Invitation Letter: Assistant Principal Research Participants
Date
Dear Principal ___________,
My name is [USC STUDENT’S NAME] and I am currently completing my doctoral dissertation
at the University of Southern California’s Rossier School of Education under the guidance of Dr.
Rudy Castruita. I am writing to invite you to participate in a 15-minute survey and 35-minute
virtual interview. Collecting data from highly effective leaders such as yourself would be greatly
appreciated and is essential for the success of this study.
The ultimate purpose of the study is to analyze the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on K–12
school districts. We aim to understand what district and site administrators have learned from
their experiences and their decision-making responsibilities in managing the crisis.
This research study has been reviewed and approved by the University of Southern California
Institutional Review Board for Human Subjects Research (IRB). The IRB believes that the
research procedures safeguard your privacy, welfare, civil liberties, anonymity, and rights. Please
be assured that your participation and answers will be kept confidential and anonymous. The
results will be analyzed solely for this dissertation and no identifying information will be used.
Please click on this survey link to participate. If you have any questions, please feel free to
contact me at -----------@----. Thank you very much for your time and assistance.
Sincerely,
[researcher’s name]
Doctoral Candidate
Rossier School of Education
University of Southern California
Abstract (if available)
Abstract
The purpose of this study was to analyze the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on K–12 school districts in Southern California and understand what district and site administrators learned from their experiences and their decision-making responsibilities during the crisis. This study brings to light the impact of the pandemic on students, families, leaders, schools, and districts. Most importantly, this study examined how district and school leadership influences administrative practices, student achievement, financial responsibility, union leadership, and community/parent support in responding to the crisis. The research team was led by Dr. Rudy Castruita from the University of Southern California Rossier School of Education. The dissertation group was composed of 22 students with Dr. Castruita as the lead researcher and the supervisor for the study. The research team, which began meeting in the spring of 2021, contributed to the literature review bibliography, statement of the problem, purpose of the study, research questions, conceptual framework, and data collection instruments. This study was designed as a mixed-methods study, utilizing both qualitative and quantitative methods to collect and analyze data. This study was conducted with school superintendents, assistant superintendents, and principals of Southern California K–12 public school districts. This study involved the collection of qualitative data from open-ended interview questions with participants and quantitative surveys completed by the interviewees. Our group is made up of three researchers, each researcher investigated three school districts we have given a unique pseudonym to ensure each district’s anonymity.
Linked assets
University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses
Conceptually similar
PDF
The impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on K–12 public school districts in southern California: responses of superintendents, assistant superintendents, and principals
PDF
The impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on K–12 public school districts in southern California: responses of superintendents, assistant superintendents, and principals
PDF
The impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on K-12 public school districts in southern California: responses of superintendents, assistant superintendents, and principals
PDF
The impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on K–12 public school districts in southern California: responses of superintendents, assistant superintendents, and principals
PDF
The impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on K–12 public school districts in southern California: responses of superintendents, assistant superintendents, and principals
PDF
The impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on K–12 public school districts in southern California: responses of superintendents, assistant superintendents, and principals
PDF
The impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on K–12 public school districts in southern California: responses of superintendents, assistant superintendents, and principals
PDF
The impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on K–12 public school districts in southern California: responses of superintendents, assistant superintendents, and principals
PDF
The impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on K-12 public school districts in southern California: responses of superintendents, assistant superintendents, and principals
PDF
The impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on K–12 public school districts in southern California: responses of superintendents, assistant superintendents, and principals
PDF
The impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on K-12 public school districts in southern California: responses of superintendents, assistant superintendents, and principals
PDF
The impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on K-12 public school districts in southern California: responses of superintendents, assistant superintendents, and principals
PDF
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
Asset Metadata
Creator
Spates, Krishna Darlene
(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
04/11/2022
Defense Date
03/16/2022
Publisher
University of Southern California
(original),
University of Southern California. Libraries
(digital)
Tag
assistant superintendent,Average Daily Attendance (ADA),CARES Act,COVID-19 guidance,COVID-19 pandemic,crisis leadership,district responses to COVID-19 pandemic,ESSR funding,financial impact,fiscal impact,health and safety,instructional core,K–12 school districts,mixed methods,Nutrition,OAI-PMH Harvest,Principal,social-emotional,spending flexibility,superintendent,Technology,unfinished learning,unions
Format
application/pdf
(imt)
Language
English
Contributor
Electronically uploaded by the author
(provenance)
Advisor
Castruita, Rudy (
committee chair
), Cash, David (
committee member
), Roach, John (
committee member
)
Creator Email
kds_432@usc.edu
Permanent Link (DOI)
https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-oUC110937319
Unique identifier
UC110937319
Document Type
Dissertation
Format
application/pdf (imt)
Rights
Spates, Krishna Darlene
Type
texts
Source
20220412-usctheses-batch-922
(batch),
University of Southern California
(contributing entity),
University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses
(collection)
Access Conditions
The author retains rights to his/her dissertation, thesis or other graduate work according to U.S. copyright law. Electronic access is being provided by the USC Libraries in agreement with the author, as the original true and official version of the work, but does not grant the reader permission to use the work if the desired use is covered by copyright. It is the author, as rights holder, who must provide use permission if such use is covered by copyright. The original signature page accompanying the original submission of the work to the USC Libraries is retained by the USC Libraries and a copy of it may be obtained by authorized requesters contacting the repository e-mail address given.
Repository Name
University of Southern California Digital Library
Repository Location
USC Digital Library, University of Southern California, University Park Campus MC 2810, 3434 South Grand Avenue, 2nd Floor, Los Angeles, California 90089-2810, USA
Repository Email
cisadmin@lib.usc.edu
Tags
assistant superintendent
Average Daily Attendance (ADA)
CARES Act
COVID-19 guidance
COVID-19 pandemic
crisis leadership
district responses to COVID-19 pandemic
ESSR funding
financial impact
fiscal impact
health and safety
instructional core
K–12 school districts
mixed methods
social-emotional
spending flexibility
unfinished learning
unions