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
Jason Olmstead
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 Jason Olmstead 2022
All Rights Reserved
The Committee for Jason Olmstead 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
In March 2020, the COVID 19 pandemic changed public education in Southern California. From
the initial closures to reopening in a hybrid format to fully reopening, all with their own safety
protocols, Superintendents, Assistant Superintendents, and Principals led their districts and
schools through the frequent changes. This study starts with a brief look at past educational
crises to set a foundation. The focus then shifts to how three superintendents, three assistant
superintendents, and three principals in Southern California have worked through this crisis.
Four main research questions guided this study which sought to find out how the financial
implications, union negotiations, governmental guidance, and local communities impacted the
operations of these school districts. The study found that while massive influxes of money
helped support districts and schools, vague and frequently changing guidance compounded by
safety concerns from staff and community caused the shift from teaching virtually to reopening
in-person to be cumbersome. Each of the leaders credit communication and a willingness to
work together for the benefit of students as keys to success. Further research will need to be
conducted on the long-term impact the COVID-19 pandemic had on student academics and the
social emotional wellbeing of students and staffs.
Keywords: COVID-19, superintendents, assistant superintendents, principals, educational
crisis, school closures, distance learning
v
Dedication
To my wife, Kristy, you were always there telling me, “someday” when this dream was
impossible. You never let me let go. It was because of your belief in me on that fateful day in
2018 when I randomly came across a notification for a Doctor in Education at USC program and
you told me I better apply that I stand here today. Over these last 3 years, you have continued to
support me and encourage me. I have had to lean on you countless times and your strength
continuously motivated me. Without you, this would still only be a dream. Thank you!
To my children, Megan, Jason, and Katie, never give up. Let this paper be a testament to the idea
that never giving up on a dream and with hard work and dedication, you can accomplish your
dreams. I love you guys! Do great things!
To my mom, JoEllen, no matter how impossible this dream was for me, you always had hope.
You and dad never thought this dream was out of reach. Thank you for your constant love and
motivation.
To my younger self, sometime during third or fourth grade, you decided you wanted to be a
doctor from the University of Southern California. I’m not really sure why you picked USC at
the time, but that early decision led to this dream that went from possible, to improbable, to
impossible, to here I am on the doorstep of fulfilling that dream. Never give up and never lose
hope; it can be done.
vi
Acknowledgements
In the Fall of 2019, my cohort had a very Matrix moment when our understanding of
public education was shattered by Drs. Cash and Hinga in our first two classes in our doctoral
program. That cohort took the name of a group of heroes in other popular comics and movies—
we became The Avengers. For the last three years, this cohort has challenged, motivated, and
supported me as I had to relearn what it means to be an educator and educational leader in K–12
schools. Avengers, we are just beginning. Let’s go!
Throughout this particular study, my partner, Krishna Spates, has been a constant positive
motivator. I learned a long time ago to surround myself with great people, and Krishna is a great
person. Aside from being a fantastic researcher and writing partner, she pushed me to do better.
Finally, after countless Zooms and phone calls, we have finished this part of our study. And as
we’ve talked about, we can explore this rabbit hole again in the future.
Throughout this dissertation process, my dissertation chair, Dr. Castruita, has been there
to guide and support me. From the inkling of an idea and through the research and writing, Dr.
Castruita has been a constant motivation. Dr. C., you broke this process down into manageable
chunks and held me accountable to finishing on time. Thank you!
To all of my professors at the University of Southern California, you have changed me,
you have opened my eyes, you have made me want to do better for all students. Throughout the
writing of this dissertation, I saw avenues where I could veer off down paths each of you created
within me. Life isn’t so simple any more. Thank you. I will work to make sure I apply what I
have learned from each of you.
vii
A special acknowledgement to my editor, Dr. Guadalupe Montano. Aside from the
formatting, spelling, and grammar corrections, your feedback throughout has helped focus my
perspective. I appreciated all of your feedback and guidance as I worked through this.
And to the participants in this study, your voices will be heard. I appreciate the time you
gave me and the candid discussions we had. I learned from each of your and am grateful for that
opportunity.
viii
Table of Contents
Abstract .......................................................................................................................................... iv
Dedication ........................................................................................................................................v
Acknowledgements ........................................................................................................................ vi
List of Tables ................................................................................................................................. xi
List of Figures ............................................................................................................................... xii
Preface.......................................................................................................................................... xiii
Chapter One: Overview of the Study ...............................................................................................1
Statement of the Problem .................................................................................................... 2
Purpose of the Study ........................................................................................................... 2
Research Questions ............................................................................................................. 2
Significance of the Study .................................................................................................... 3
Limitation and Delimitations .............................................................................................. 3
Definition of Terms............................................................................................................. 4
Chapter Two: Literature Review ...................................................................................................10
A Brief History of Education’s Handling of Crises .......................................................... 11
Examples of School Leadership during a Crisis ............................................................... 14
Impact of Outside Agencies during the COVID-19 Pandemic ......................................... 18
Schools’ Response at the Onset of the Pandemic ............................................................. 21
The Impact of the Pandemic on Teachers ......................................................................... 24
The Impact of the Pandemic on Students ......................................................................... 26
The Impact of Unions ....................................................................................................... 28
Summary ........................................................................................................................... 31
Chapter Three: Methodology .........................................................................................................32
Statement of the Problem .................................................................................................. 32
ix
Purpose of the Study ......................................................................................................... 32
Research Questions ........................................................................................................... 33
Research Team .................................................................................................................. 33
Research Design................................................................................................................ 34
Quantitative Methods ........................................................................................................ 35
Sample and Population ..................................................................................................... 36
Instrumentation and Conceptual Framework .................................................................... 37
Data Collection ................................................................................................................. 39
Data Analysis .................................................................................................................... 40
Ethical Considerations ...................................................................................................... 40
Summary ........................................................................................................................... 41
Chapter Four: Findings ..................................................................................................................42
Participants ........................................................................................................................ 43
Demographic Data ............................................................................................................ 44
Research Question 1 ......................................................................................................... 45
Research Question 2 ......................................................................................................... 51
Research Question 3 ......................................................................................................... 58
Research Question 4 ......................................................................................................... 63
Summary ........................................................................................................................... 69
Chapter Five: Discussion ...............................................................................................................71
Purpose of the Study ......................................................................................................... 71
Comparative Analysis of Emerging Themes .................................................................... 72
Comparative Analysis: Summary of Common Themes ................................................... 79
Implications for Practice ................................................................................................... 81
Recommendations for Future Research ............................................................................ 83
x
Conclusion ........................................................................................................................ 84
References ......................................................................................................................................86
Appendix A: Superintendent Invitation Letter ..............................................................................99
Appendix B: Assistant Superintendent Invitation Letter .............................................................101
Appendix C: Principal Invitation Letter ......................................................................................103
Appendix D: Superintendent Survey Instrument .........................................................................105
Closing ............................................................................................................................ 113
Appendix E: Assistant Superintendent Survey Instrument ..........................................................114
Closing ............................................................................................................................ 121
Appendix F: Principal Survey Instrument ...................................................................................122
Closing ............................................................................................................................ 129
Appendix G: Superintendent Interview Questions ......................................................................130
Introduction ..................................................................................................................... 130
Conclusion ...................................................................................................................... 132
Appendix H: Assistant Superintendent Interview Questions.......................................................133
Introduction ..................................................................................................................... 133
Conclusion ...................................................................................................................... 135
Appendix I: Principal Interview Questions..................................................................................136
Introduction ..................................................................................................................... 136
Conclusion ...................................................................................................................... 138
xi
List of Tables
Table 1: Identified Districts Demographic Data 43
Table 2: Quantitative Survey: Participant Demographic Information 45
Table 3: Survey Responses for Questions 3–7 46
Table 4: Initial CARES Money Districts Received 48
Table 5: Survey Responses for Questions 8–10 53
Table 6: Survey Responses for Questions 11–13 59
Table 7: Survey Responses for Questions 14–20 65
Table 8: Six Districts’ Demographics Comparison 73
xii
List of Figures
Figure 1: Conceptual Framework 39
xiii
Preface
Some of the chapters of this dissertation were co-authored and have been identified as
such. While jointly authored dissertations are not the norm of most doctoral programs, a
collaborative effort is reflective of real-world practices. To meet their objective of developing
highly skilled practitioners equipped to take on real-world challenges, the USC Graduate School
and the USC Rossier School of Education have permitted our inquiry team to carry out this
shared venture.
This dissertation is part of a collaborative project between two doctoral candidates:
Krishna Spates and Jason Olmstead. Two doctoral students each interviewed and surveyed six
superintendents, assistant superintendents and principal; 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 effective practices of principals in
continuation education.
1
Chapter One: Overview of the Study
The COVID-19 pandemic has been both rapidly evolving and lingering. This is unusual
for the types of crises schools more typically face, which tend to be either immediate like an
active shooter or persistent like underachievement (Gainey, 2009). The pandemic prompted
schools to close on very short notice under hold-harmless guidelines from state agencies
overseeing education, with the exception of school closures lasting several weeks (Fensterwald,
2020). However, the school closures, whether full or partial, caused by COVID-19 have
continued to impact school districts for over a year. As the pandemic lasted, the issues facing
school leaders and their school communities became more complex (Mayer et al., 2008).
Federal and state governments assisted school districts financially to help address the
challenges of distance learning and safety. Governmental agencies also provided rules, guidance,
and protocols to help schools operate in these new circumstances. While these were sometimes
very helpful, they could also be contradictory and difficult to enforce, which caused problems for
school districts as well. As these rules and regulations evolved, so, too, did the roles and
expectations of district employees. Unions renegotiated basic aspects of working conditions
during this time to keep members safe and to express how the pandemic impacted their work.
Parents were also heavily impacted by the pandemic as students stayed home to learn. Parents
rely on schools not just for education but also for childcare, food, and social, emotional, and
medical care for their children. All of these stakeholder concerns significantly changed the role
of school leadership at both the district and site levels. School leaders became crisis managers to
see their organizations through the tumultuous time of the pandemic.
2
Statement of the Problem
The COVID-19 pandemic presented a disruption in K–12 school districts in Southern
California, causing unforeseen consequences within the education system and highlighting
financial implications, the impact of agencies, negotiations with unions, and the impact on
students and community. The pandemic shifted schools’ roles and scope, and school leaders
became both instructional leaders and 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 decision-making responsibilities during the crisis. This study
examined the pandemic’s impact on students, families, leaders, schools, and districts. Most
importantly, this study examined how district and school leadership influenced administrative
practices, student achievement, financial responsibility, union leadership, and community/parent
support 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
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?
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 transformed school leaders into crisis managers. This unprecedented event forced these
leaders to 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 supports addressing it through the
systems in place by school leaders, educators, boards of education, and community stakeholders.
Limitation and Delimitations
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-
4
19 pandemic on public education. Also, all participants work at Southern California public
schools and may not accurately represent all schools 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 public school districts in Southern California who were willing to
participate in the study.
Definition of Terms
The following is a list of key terms and definitions used throughout this research:
Assembly 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 Bill 129 and Senate Bill 129 are state budget agreements that add 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).
California Department of Education (CDE) is the 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 laws and regulations (CDE, 2020).
5
California Department of Public Health is 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 (California Department of Public Health, 2021).
California School Employees Association (CSEA) is the largest classified school
employees’ union in the United States, representing more than 250,000 school support staff
throughout California. 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, 2021a).
CARES Act is 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, 2021b).
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) is the nation’s health agency that
conducts critical science and provides health information and responds to health crises (CDC,
2021).
Cohort refers to a group of individuals who have something in common such as same
grade level, or specific student groups such as English learners (The Glossary of Education
Reform, 2021).
Collective bargaining agreement is employee contract negotiated by the unions. Under
the Rodda Act, passed in 1975, school boards and unions must review agreement terms at least
6
once every three years. Relevant to this study, the result of this negotiation determines the
salaries and benefits, hours, calendar, and most aspects of teachers’ working conditions.
Negotiators can also discuss problems and address new issues that have arisen during the period
of the contract. This can be especially significant 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 (Education Data Partnership,
2021).
COVID-19 is a novel strain of coronaviruses that shares 79% genetic similarity with
SARS-CoV from the 2003 SARS outbreak, declared in March 2020 by the World Health
Organization as a global pandemic (World Health Organization, 2021b; Xiong et al., 2020).
Distance learning: Instruction in which the pupil and instructor are in different locations
and pupils are under the general supervision of a certificated employee of the local educational
agency (CDE, 2020).
Elementary and secondary school emergency relief was 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 pandemic on elementary and secondary schools (U.S.
Department of Education, 2021).
Essential workers are those who conduct a range of operations and services that are
typically essential to continue critical infrastructure operations (National Conference of State
Legislatures, 2021).
Free and appropriate public education requires all students aged 3 to 22 receive a free
public education that meets their educational needs. Students have a right to fully take part in
7
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 is the combination of in-person and distance learning (CDE,
2020).
In-person learning is used to describe how students receive in-person instruction for at
least part of the instructional day for the full instructional week (California State Government,
2021a).
Learning loss refers to any specific or general loss of knowledge and skills or to reversals
in academic progress, most commonly due to extended gaps or discontinuities in a student’s
education (The Glossary of Education Reform, 2021).
Pandemic is defined in The International Epidemiology Association’s dictionary of
epidemiology 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 is equipment worn to minimize exposure to hazards that
cause serious workplace injuries and illnesses. These injuries and illnesses may result from
contact with chemical, radiological, physical, electrical, mechanical, or other workplace hazards.
Personal protective equipment may include items such as gloves, safety glasses and shoes,
earplugs or muffs, hard hats, respirators, or coveralls, vests, and full body suits (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).
8
Stakeholders refers to anyone who is invested in the welfare and success of a school and
its students, including administrators, teachers, staff members, students, parents, families,
community members, local business leaders, and elected officials such as school board members,
city councilors, and state representatives. Stakeholders may also be collective entities, such as
local businesses, organizations, advocacy groups, committees, media outlets, and cultural
institutions, in addition to organizations that represent specific groups, such as teachers’ unions,
parent-teacher organizations, and associations representing superintendents, principals, school
boards, or teachers in specific academic disciplines (e.g., the National Council of Teachers of
English or the Vermont Council of Teachers of Mathematics). In a word, stakeholders have a
“stake” in the school and its students, meaning that they have personal, professional, civic, or
financial interest or concern (The Glossary of Education Reform, 2021).
Synchronous learning is learning that 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 is the result of the 2000 Eliezer Williams, et al. (Williams), vs.
State of California 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
9
3001. Up to 2.3 million California public school students may benefit from funding from the
Williams case settlement (CDE, 2020).
World Health Organization is a team of professionals that includes the world’s leading
public health experts. Together, the organization coordinates the world’s response to health
emergencies, promotes well-being, prevents disease, and expands access to health care (World
Health Organization, 2021a).
Organization of the Study
This research study is organized into five chapters. Chapter One provides an introduction
to the study, the statement of the problem, the study’s purpose and significance, the four research
questions, limitations, delimitations, and the definitions of key terms. Chapter Two reviews the
existing 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 research along with an analysis of the data. 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.
10
Chapter Two: Literature Review
On March 11, 2020, the World Health Organization reclassified the COVID-19 outbreak
as a pandemic. Shortly after, on March 13, 2020, President Trump declared a national
emergency. On that day, school districts closed for an initially anticipated 2 to 3 weeks to help
mitigate the spread of the virus (Los Angeles Times, 2021). While the anticipation was for
schools to reopen again after these closures, on March 19, California Governor Newsom issued a
statewide stay-at-home order, thereby effectively closing schools indefinitely (Exec. Order No.
N-33-20, 3 CFR, 2020).
With school closures, educational leaders faced the task of determining how to finish the
school year while also working through the possibility that they might need to start the following
school year with physical doors being closed. This was not the first time schools needed to close
due to emergency conditions. The Northridge earthquake in 1994 shut down schools for up to a
month (Goldman, 1994). Yet, school leaders still found themselves working through a new
educational landscape. This literature review seeks to provide an understanding of how schools
dealt with crises in the past and how previous closures affected educational systems.
The literature review will look more closely at the COVID-19 pandemic and its current
impacts on education. The goal of the study is to provide context to the current pandemic in
relation to previous crises and to build knowledge about difficulties educational leaders
encountered while striving to continue to educate students. Specifically, the study examined how
school leaders transitioned from educating in person to distance learning and their impact on
teachers and students. The study explored the impact various government agencies had on
schools and how school leaders worked through directives and health and safety regulations.
Lastly, the study examined the discussion of how to open schools from a school leaders’
11
perspective by addressing parent and community concerns and meeting health and safety
requirements.
A Brief History of Education’s Handling of Crises
Reviewing the successes and challenges of past school closure events can help guide
school leaders as they navigate the current pandemic. One strategy many leaders rely on is
leaning on prior knowledge to frame possible strategies and outcomes. This literature review will
also research the decisions leaders had to make during this pandemic. Three similar situations
examined are the Spanish Flu, SARS, and the H1N1 Influenza Virus. Each of these is a variant
of the influenza virus, and each became pandemics.
Spanish Flu
Between 1918–1919, the United States experienced an influenza pandemic that killed
thousands, similar to the current COVID-19 pandemic. During that pandemic, commonly
referred to as the Spanish Flu, 675,000 Americans died. In response to the Spanish Flu, many
schools closed or had voluntary absenteeism. As Stern (2009) noted, these closures tended to be
communities’ reactionary response by rather than a proactive attempt to stop the spread. Stern
reported that of the 43 most populated cities at that time, schools in only three cities remained
open while the rest closed for as many as 15 weeks. The schools that remained open relied on
extensive health checks aided by the school medical corps tasked with inspecting students,
classrooms, and, occasionally, students’ homes. Also, while some schools remained open,
absenteeism was very high and reached as high as 50% in Chicago (Stern, 2009).
Schools that closed oftentimes encountered debates between communities and local
health departments (Stern, 2009). Stern (2009) found that varying information from different
governmental agencies and the lack of defined leadership created confusion, resulting in unclear
12
operational requirements for school districts. Stern concluded that a clear delineation of authority
could facilitate a smoother implementation of plans, policies, and procedures. Stern stated, “ill-
defined lines of authority among governmental branches contributed to the eruption of
interagency conflict in U.S. cities during the 1918–19 pandemic” (Stern, 2009, p. 1076). This
research revealed that Cleveland and Los Angeles took innovative approaches. For example,
Cleveland’s local government set criteria for student well-being and clear determinants for
closures. Los Angeles schools created a system for students to mail in their coursework. In
addition, during the pandemic, 1,500 teachers took newly created courses on subject knowledge
and pedagogical skills to improve their ability to teach remotely.
The Spanish Flu showed that not having clear leadership or strong communication can
create confusion for school leaders. It also showed the importance of breaking away from what is
considered normal to search for alternate ways to educate students. Similarly, the differing
information from the federal level down to state governments and local municipalities was
problematic for district and school site leaders during the COVID-19 pandemic (Stern, 2009).
Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome
In 2003, an outbreak of severe acute respiratory syndrome affected over 1800 people in
more than a dozen countries. While this outbreak was not on the scale of the Spanish Flu or
COVID-19, there are lessons to be learned in how it affected schools. For example, a review of
SARS mitigation and prevention efforts revealed several strategies schools and families should
implement to avoid infection. These strategies include having air ventilation, maintaining clean
premises, including restrooms, sanitizing furniture and toys, handling contaminated items
properly, and investigating absenteeism and reporting cases of infection (Lee et al., 2003).
13
Lieberman (2020a) stated that COVID-19 infection rates are 15 to 20 times more likely
indoors than outdoors. As such, good air ventilation is critical to helping to prevent the spread of
the virus. Other strategies to prevent infection are having high-quality air filters installed into
heating, ventilation, and air conditioning systems, maintaining continuous and strong air
circulation, and increasing the exchange of inside and outside air more frequently. Lieberman
(2020a) stated that before this public health emergency, 41% of schools needed updated
ventilation systems.
Also learned from the severe acute respiratory syndrome outbreak was the practice of
sanitizing surfaces in restrooms daily while ensuring they are stocked with cleansing liquid and
paper towels. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC, 2020a) detailed cleanliness
guidelines to reduce the risk of exposure to viruses. While a virus will die on surfaces in time,
sanitizing helps prevent accidental exposure, thereby reducing the risk of infection. Cleaning
with proper cleansers will help reduce this spread. The outbreak highlighted the importance of
investigating absenteeism and case reporting. Contact tracing helps to prevent virus spread by
informing those who were exposed so that they do not unwittingly infect others. Lee et al. (2003)
added that it is imperative to keep proper attendance records and obtain permission from exposed
families to notify the health authorities.
H1N1 Influenza Virus
During the spring of 2009, a new form of the influenza virus (H1n1) was detected in the
United States and quickly spread around the world. The CDC found that one-third of those over
60 years old already had antibodies for this new virus, possibly due to being exposed to older
versions of the virus earlier in their lives (CDC, 2019). During that pandemic, the CDC estimated
there were 60.8 million cases, 274,304 hospitalizations, and 12,469 deaths.
14
The H1N1 pandemic illustrated how quickly information can change. The initial
guidance from the CDC to close for 7 days was issued on April 26, 2009. Five days later, on
May 1, 2009, the guidance was changed to 2 weeks. Four days later, on May 5, the guidance
changed to avoid closures and keep ill children home for 2 weeks. This recommendation was
reiterated prior to the new school year on August 7, 2009. Complicating this matter further, CDC
guidance did not necessarily dictate school closures for every school. As Klaiman et al. (2011)
described, during emergencies, authority to close schools could rest with the schools, local health
agencies, or the state. Klaiman et al. found that over 700 schools in the United States closed to
help mitigate the spread of the H1N1 virus.
Considering that student attendance is the basis for school funding, the decision to close
a school and eliminate potential attendance is a significant concern for school leaders. Klaiman
et al. (2011) described that because school funding is directly tied to student attendance, during
the H1N1 pandemic, the decision to close schools varied by state. For example, Rhode Island
authorized the education commissioner to waive attendance days in case of emergencies. In
contrast, schools in Alabama were required to reschedule the missed school days or risk losing a
portion of their state funds.
Following the guidance to shut down put schools in unfamiliar situations about how to
proceed. Many schools attempted to implement generic disaster plans, but the pandemic
shutdown was not the typically planned-for disaster. Principals were forced to figure out how to
proceed with little or differing information from government agencies (Braunack-Mayer, 2013).
Examples of School Leadership during a Crisis
Similar to how prior situations can help to determine whether to close down, school
leaders can examine how other school leaders managed crises. With a focus on school leaders,
15
research can provide behavior models from which to learn. While the intensity of school
shootings exceeds that of the pandemic, school leaders’ responses to these emergencies can be
applied to school closures and the general confusion that followed the initial shutdown.
School Shootings
On April 20, 1999, two shooters entered Columbine High School in Littleton, Colorado,
killed 13 people, and wounded 20 others. After the shooting, the school closed for the remaining
3 weeks, shuttling students to a nearby school to complete the school year.
On December 14, 2012, a shooter entered Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newton,
Connecticut, killed 26 people, and wounded two others. After the shooting, the school closed for
the remainder of the year and was eventually razed. From January 2013 until the new school
building opened in 2016, students were bussed to neighboring schools (Zimmerman, 2017).
On February 14, 2018, a shooter entered Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in
Parkland, Florida, killed 17 people, and wounded 17 others. After the shooting, the school closed
for 2 weeks and reopened on February 28, 2018.
Per Fein and Isaacson (2009), during these crises, leaders acted according to how they
defined their roles as leaders. The leaders’ descriptions of their roles changed after the crises,
possibly due to the personal toll of responding to those traumatic events. Bloom (1997) described
that during crises, our bodies respond in primitive ways, leaving people in a “storm of emotional
and physical reactions that we cannot understand or control” (p. 5). Within this storm, leaders
acted according to how they thought a leader should behave, attempting to maintain a sense of
order and control. They ultimately felt responsible for the organization and for the people they
were leading while being aware that others were watching how they responded (Fein & Isaacson,
2009).
16
In the aftermath of school shootings, leaders reflected on those experiences. During the
crises, school leaders relied heavily on outside agencies and assisted their efforts as much as
possible. After the shootings, leaders’ focus shifted more towards the human side of their jobs,
visiting wounded students in hospitals, attending funerals and memorials, and providing
counseling. As the focus returned to school, leaders’ awareness that school shootings can happen
in their schools again caused them to become more proactive and cautious. Leaders took steps to
reduce the chances of a shooting reoccurring by hiring additional campus resource offices,
installing additional cameras, and increasing efforts to stop bullying (Fein & Isaacson, 2009).
Fires at Paradise Elementary
In 2018, the Camp Fire in California burned more than 10,000 structures and killed at
least 88 people. In Butte County, the fire displaced more than 4,800 students and 380 teachers
and staff members (Lambert & Washburn, 2018). Paradise Elementary School closed on
November 8. Students returned to school with their teachers on December 3, albeit at a school in
a different city. This was the case with many students who qualified under the McKinney-Vento
Homelessness Act, which allows students displaced and rendered homeless due to the fire to
attend the nearest school without providing proof of residence. Additionally, students in middle
and high school were offered distance learning with weekly meeting options at local shopping
malls.
During this crisis, school leaders met with county and state educational leaders to
determine how to continue educating students. The high-level collaboration ensured students had
access to technology and educational space as the state superintendent facilitated negotiations
and helped push an executive order that waived average daily attendance requirements. School
funding is largely based on average daily attendance. Such efforts paved the way to gather
17
funding for rebuilding some of the destroyed facilities. Getting students back to school was the
priority. As Paradise Unified School District Superintendent Michelle John stated, “[parents]
drove here [to schools away from their neighborhood], so their kids could be with our teachers.
That’s all they’ve asked of us.” Leaders led with emotional intelligence, understanding that this
traumatic event would cause students and families to need additional counseling support and
other mental health services. Collaboration was essential as leaders focused on what the group
could do rather than what individuals could do by tapping into government and community
resources to support the schools and students (Lambert & Washburn, 2018).
Hurricane Katrina
In 2005, several hurricanes made landfall on the gulf coast. Hurricanes Katrina and Rita
struck on August 29 and September 25, respectively, and resulted in nearly 2,000 deaths and an
economic toll of $91 billion. As a result, an estimated 400,000 students across the gulf states
were displaced from their schools for several days in parts of Texas and for the entire school year
in parts of New Orleans (Restore the Mississippi River Delta, 2017). In New Orleans, 110 out of
126 public schools were destroyed, displacing over 65,000 students (Oblack, 2020).
Within a couple of months, affected districts received financial support both for the
schools that were directly affected and for the schools that received large numbers of displaced
students. In December 2005, Congress approved a $1.4 billion hurricane relief package for K–12
schools. Of that money, $750 million was Restart Aid, which districts used to replace student
information systems lost during the hurricanes, books, student materials, and temporary
educational space. In addition, Congress approved $880 million as Impact Aid, which was
designated for districts that gained displaced students. To demonstrate the importance of the
impact aid, the Houston school district gained 5,500 displaced students. It was estimated that it
18
would cost an additional $180,000 per day and $20 million for the school year to pay for 200
additional staff members, additional bus routes, and higher utility bills. In another example, the
East Baton Rouge Parrish school district spent $200,000 on additional textbooks (Klein, 2006;
U.S. Government Accountability Office, 2011). This financial support allowed superintendents
to ease some staff concerns by assuring them that the schools would reopen and jobs would be
available. For example, the superintendent of Calcasieu Parrish school district told staff, “I want
you to know that your jobs are safe. We will rebuild, and we will reopen. You do not need to
look for other employment” (Klein, 2006).
The experience of these hurricanes highlighted the importance of being aware of the
human toll. As Gouwens (2008) stated, “For all of the superintendents, healing and caring for the
people they serve has been at the forefront of their work” (p. 294). Priorities shifted from student
achievement to the welfare of the children, families, and communities they serve and the staff
they lead. Ensuring their welfare involved setting up food pantries, arranging for counseling
services to help with post-traumatic stress, making sure staff were paid when schools closed, and
acknowledging and giving additional days off for staff to attend to personal issues.
Impact of Outside Agencies during the COVID-19 Pandemic
Throughout the current pandemic, information about how schools could and should
continue to operate came from various sources. These voices were those of the president of the
United States, the CDC, governors, state superintendents of schools, state health officials, local
county health departments, county superintendent of schools, and city leaders. The guidance
schools received was as stratified as the different agencies that gave it. This research examined
the guidance under two categories: operational guidance and fiscal support. These categories
were selected because of the previously discussed struggles schools endured during other crises.
19
Operational Guidance
In March 2020, then-President Trump declared a state of emergency based on guidance
from the White House Coronavirus Task Force (Cohen, 2020). A week later, California
Governor Newsom issued a statewide stay-at-home order (Exec. Order No. N-33-20, 3 CFR,
2020). On April 27, 2020, the CDC (2020b) issued the Considerations for School Closure
document. Then, in June 2020, the California Department of Education issued a guidebook for
reopening public schools. These are examples of the guidance leaders used to operate schools.
As superintendents, assistant superintendents, and principals worked to educate within
the guidelines, the guidelines changed. According to the CDC (n.d.), 219 guidance documents
were produced to inform organizations during the pandemic. In addition to the federal level,
schools received guidance from the state level. California’s governor held 65 press conferences
between March 11, 2020, and April 6, 2021 (State of California, n.d.). During these conferences,
he provided updates about infection rates and guidance for people and businesses. In addition,
schools received guidance from the California Department of Education (CDE). A search for
“COVID-19” on the department’s website yielded 4,650 results within 100 different linked
pages. The CDE issued 134 press releases between March 11, 2020, and April 30, 2021. This
was a large volume of information and operational guidance for schools and communities.
Complicating the matter, local health departments also issued operational guidance.
Financial Support for Schools During the Pandemic
To facilitate the changes required to educate students in a virtual environment, the
2020/21 California state budget allowed school districts to spend at the same rate as they did
during the 2019/20 school year. This allowed districts to avoid cuts due to anticipated lower
ADA to maintain levels of instruction needed during school closures. To support this, the state
20
relied on additional funding coming from the federal government (Fensterwald, 2020).
Fortunately, this additional federal funding was distributed in March 2020 and again in
December 2020.
In March 2020, Congress passed the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act
(CARES Act) to provide economic assistance during the pandemic. The overall bill was valued
at $30.75 billion. This bill designated two funding sources for schools: the Elementary and
Secondary School Emergency Relief Fund and the Governor’s Emergency Education Relief
Fund. The former designated $13.2 billion for schools, and the latter added $3 billion. California
received $1,647,306,127 from the first and $355,227,235 from the second (California
Department of Education, 2021a).
In December 2020, Congress passed the Coronavirus Response and Relief Supplemental
Appropriations Act (CRRSA Act). Like the CARES Act, the CRRSA Act used two funding
sources for schools: the Elementary and Secondary School Emergency Relief II Fund and the
Governor’s Emergency Education Relief II Fund. The first fund designated $54.3 billion for
schools, and the second one added $4.05 billion. California received $6,709,633,866 from the
former and $341,442,086 from the latter (California Department of Education, 2020).
Additionally, as part of the 2020/21 state budget, funding from the CARES Act, the
Governor’s Emergency Education Relief Fund, and the state’s general fund were used to create
the Learning Loss Mitigation Funding to support academic achievement and mitigate learning
loss. The total designated by this funding was $5,334,997,000. $355,227,000 from the CARES
Act and $539,926,000 from the state general fund added to $4,439,844,000 from the Governor’s
Emergency Education Relief Fund to provide additional financial support to schools (California
Department of Education, 2021b).
21
California also designated more funding for schools to aid in their safe reopening. In
December 2020, the governor announced the Safe Schools for All Plan, which designated an
additional $2 billion to be used to safely reopen schools. This money was designated for
COVID-19 testing, classroom ventilation, and personal protective equipment so schools could
resume in-person instruction. The act called for frequent COVID-19 testing for all students and
staff, up to weekly testing in high-transmission areas, and encouraging school employees to get
vaccinated. Schools were to use the money to buy masks and upgrade ventilation systems to help
mitigate the spread of the virus (State of California, 2020b).
Schools’ Response at the Onset of the Pandemic
In March 2020, school doors were closed in an attempt to slow the spread of COVID-19
and education shifted to a distance learning model. This transition can be viewed in three parts:
preparation, training, and implementation. Most of the preparation phase occurred prior to
schools closing in March 2020, but much had to be done while working remotely. The next
phase of transitions was training teachers. Virtual teaching requires different skills, and teacher
readiness and training are key (Castelo, 2020). As teachers began teaching online, principals and
superintendents had to shift their mindset to becoming caregivers looking out for their entire
educational community.
Preparation
The more prepared schools were for distance education, the better positioned they were to
successfully transition. This preparation falls under five categories: providing devices, training
teachers on delivering online instruction, using a learning management system, providing fully
online or blended courses, and establishing plans to deliver instruction for extended school
closures (Diliberti et al., 2020). The more experience schools had in these categories, the easier
22
the transition was for them when they closed. If these plans were not prepared prior to the
closures, school leaders had to make these preparations remotely.
When it was determined that schools had to close, district leaders needed to reprioritize
their needs to meet students’ new needs. In response to the pandemic, the U.S. Census Bureau
and five other statistical agencies collaborated to determine how many students had access to
computers and the internet at home. They reported that out of 52 million homes with school-age
children, 8% had access sometimes, rarely, or never, equating to about 4.1 million households.
Of the households with regular access to the internet, 60% received devices from their schools
(USAFacts, 2020). Many districts administered surveys to determine their students’ device and
internet accessibility (Diliberti et al., 2020; Malkus, Christensen, & West, 2020a). Based on
these needs assessments, school leaders needed to acquire the devices and get students to access
the internet at either a discounted rate or for free (Malkus, Christensen, & West, 2020a).
As schools transitioned to online learning, they encountered several issues, including
acquiring and distributing digital devices. Additionally, teachers’ preparation to teach online
varied. Even though needs were mostly met over time, Malkus, Christensen, and Shurz (2020)
reported that 40% of schools explicitly stated student participation was not required, attendance
would not be taken, and work would not be graded. Another 40% of schools implemented less-
than-rigorous standards.
Training
To maintain some degree of education, schools implemented a wide range of distance
teaching strategies, including web-based platforms like Google Classroom, Zoom, and Google
Meet video conferencing, televised instructional content, and emailing links to virtual content
(Diliberti et al., 2020; LAUSD, 2021; Malkus, Christensen, & West, 2020a). During this phase
23
of preparation, teachers were trying to supplement however they could to get to the end of the
school year with the hope that school doors would open as usual the following school year.
When schools did not open as usual for the school year beginning Fall 2020, school
leaders faced the challenge of training teaching staff on how to teach effectively in the distance
format. This training occurred remotely as well. Teachers’ collective efficacy can be increased
through instructional professional development supports. Research indicated that tailored and
responsive professional learning can promote mastery experiences (Goddard et al., 2000). This is
critical as teachers’ sense of efficacy is critical for effective online teaching. Instructional
coaches can support teachers by tailoring professional development to their specific needs and
the resources required (Flott & Simpson, 2020). As instructional coaches demonstrated virtual
instruction to teachers, teacher efficacy improved.
Another problem that arose was that parents and family were often stand-in teachers
since students were now learning from home. Districts and schools worked to provide different
ways to support parents in remote learning at home. Difficulties included disruption in routines
both for the student and their guardian, keeping students active and engaged outside of class
time, struggles with the execution of online learning, mental health, and social development
(Bhamani et al., 2020).
Implementation
Even as school leaders worked through preparations and training, they still found
themselves in uncharted territory: leading a remote staff remotely. This new environment
required a shift in mindset, now focusing more on being a caregiver than an academic leader
(Anderson et al., 2020). Principals felt responsible for monitoring and supporting students and
their families by providing them with resources to help them continue learning at home while
24
maintaining a connection to the school. Principals also felt responsible for monitoring and
supporting the mental health of teachers, particularly those who were socially isolated or
responsible for supervising their own children during remote teaching, and expressing concern
about their students’ needs during the pandemic (Anderson et al., 2020). Almost immediately
after implementing distance learning, many teachers reported vastly increased feelings of
anxiety, stress, fear, worry, and sadness (Cipriano & Brackett, 2020). Consequently, principals
addressed their staff’s well-being in two primary ways: individual outreach and community
building. Individual outreach included calling teachers at home to check in. Community building
included holding staff meetings and professional development, hosting an open forum for raising
concerns, and creating a space to process feelings (Anderson et al., 2020).
During this time, a thoughtful focus on emotional well-being was a priority (Cipriano &
Brackett, 2020). Cipriano and Brackett (2020) discussed the importance of emotional well-being
because it impacts attention, memory, and learning, decision making, relationships, health, and
performance. School leaders needed to re-focus on how teachers want to feel at work: happy,
inspired, valued, supported, effective, and respected. The gap between how teachers want to feel
and how they actually feel creates the emotional environment of the school and shows where
support is needed.
The Impact of the Pandemic on Teachers
As superintendents and principals had to change their mindsets, teachers had to make
significant changes as well. Similar to how school leaders became caregivers, teachers needed
more empathy as they worked with students during the changes caused by the pandemic. Teacher
challenges can be viewed from two perspectives: personal and professional.
25
Personal Challenges
As Kaden (2020) described, the role of the teacher changed significantly during the
pandemic. With that change came personal and professional stressors as teachers turned their
homes into classrooms. As teachers saw more into their students’ lives because students were
attending school from their homes, they became aware of disparities frequently discussed but
rarely seen, such as crowded homes, lack of regular meals, and a lack of digital tools for student
success like computers and reliable internet access. Moreover, teachers faced backlash and
vilification from local communities as they sought to protect themselves by staying safe and
working from home (Will et al., 2021).
As fear of the pandemic spread, teachers reported feeling a sense of moral obligation to
their students as they worked to be a positive constant in their students’ lives. To help their
students, teachers reported spending an additional three hours helping students access or
complete assignments since students could now access work at any time. In addition to the
extended workdays, teachers reported a general lack of personal boundaries since students were
now also in teachers’ homes through video meetings (Kurtz, 2020; Will et al., 2021).
Professional Challenges
In addition to these personal challenges, teachers also faced many professional challenges
as their roles changed. Teachers lacked the devices and internet connectivity to adequately
support their students and a space from which to conduct their classes within their homes. Due to
educating remotely, teachers struggled with planning virtual classes, implementing quality
academic programs, and finding equitable assessment means (Fauzi & Sastra Khusuma, 2020).
As teachers learned to teach remotely, they became increasingly aware of the resources
available to them. For example, the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural
26
Organization (UNESCO) listed over 100 digital tools to help teachers in the virtual environment.
Teachers utilized distance communications resources like Zoom and Instagram Live. In addition,
in seven states, school districts partnered with their local PBS affiliate, allowing teachers to
utilize television programs to supplement their teaching. Teachers could also use education
material delivery platforms like Canvas and Google Classroom. Unfortunately, because most of
these resources were not used regularly before the pandemic, teachers felt the stress of
attempting to learn as they continued to educate (Herold, 2020). While the number of resources
was helpful, it also caused many teachers to feel overwhelmed (Schwartz, 2020).
The Impact of the Pandemic on Students
The following paragraphs discuss how students were affected academically as well as
social-emotionally. Specifically, the pandemic affected various historically marginalized groups
differently. Using Hurricane Katrina as a baseline, it is estimated that students would start the
2020/21 school year with only 63% to 68% of learning gains in reading and 37% to 50% of
learning gains in mathematics relative to a typical school year (Kuhfeld et al., 2020).
Academics
Various factors affected student learning during the pandemic. These factors include
attendance, access to technology, and how students interacted with their teachers. According to
Johnson, Anderson, and Faden (2021), absenteeism doubled during the pandemic from 5% per
day to about 10%, with numbers slightly higher in high school than in middle or elementary
school. Students reported that poor internet access or a lack of digital devices caused their
absences. For parents, other issues were their employment or childcare responsibilities
(Lieberman, 2020b). In March 2020, the Los Angeles Unified School District reported that
27
15,000 students were absent during the first 2 weeks of the school closures. The district had
simply lost contact with them (Burke, 2020).
One of the causes of absenteeism was the inaccessibility of technology (Lake & Makori,
2020). A Pew Research report found that approximately 20% of parents thought it was likely that
their children would not be able to complete their school work because they did not have a
computer at home, while 30% of parents reported that students would be completing their school
work via cell phone (Lake & Makori, 2020). Since school was conducted digitally, these students
were unable to attend their classes regularly.
Social-Emotional
In addition to learning loss, students were challenged social-emotionally. The isolation
caused by school closures has a greater impact on children due to their limited understanding of
the event. This led to a sharp increase in anxiety and other mental health problems with an
accompanying decrease in emotional well-being (Cowie & Myers, 2021; de Figueiredo et al.,
2021; Javed et al., 2020). During the pandemic, when adolescents were unable to attend schools,
these students had limited interaction with their peers, which imposed a gap on their social
network (Spinelli et al., 2020). Virtual interaction did not fill the gap in students’ socioemotional
needs. A recent study showed that school routines are important coping mechanisms, especially
for young people with mental health issues (Lee, 2020). Furthermore, research illustrated that
periods without school were also associated with decreased physical activity, increased screen
time, irregular sleep patterns, and less appropriate diets in children and adolescents (Wang et al.,
2020).
Closing schools meant that students might not have had access to many basic needs,
including nutrition. A study in April 2020 found that 33% of households experienced food
28
insecurity. Nationwide, missed meals due to school closures were relatively low in the early
weeks of March 2020. However, as more states closed their schools, 49 states in all, the resulting
meals missed grew toward the end of March 2020. From late March 2020 through the beginning
of May 2020, an estimated 1.1 billion meals were missed across the country (Kinsey et al.,
2020). School closures and social distancing guidelines required districts and schools to innovate
meal distribution that eliminated barriers to access (Kinsey et al., 2020; Malkus, Christensen, &
West, 2020b; McLoughlin et al., 2020). These methods of distribution included grab-and-go
lunches where districts provided lunches through drive-up service. Another method was a drop-
off method where school buses delivered lunches to parents at designated times and locations.
While measuring the number of children left at home to care for themselves and/or
siblings is difficult, a survey conducted by the Bipartisan Policy Center in August 2020 found
that 22% of surveyed adults could not return to work without childcare and that more than half of
the parents who looked for childcare found it difficult to find. Twenty percent of the respondents
reported that they needed to find childcare for the 2020/21 school year because schools remained
closed (Bipartisan Policy Center, 2020). For these reasons, some students were left at home to
care for themselves and their siblings while their parents worked.
The Impact of Unions
Throughout the pandemic, school leaders had to respond to various guidance and
directives about closing and reopening schools along with challenges within those processes. As
well, leaders had to consider how to continue cultivating a virtual educational environment. A
vocal component of the virtual educational environment was the school employee unions. With
different tasks and responsibilities, the teachers and certified employee unions attempted to work
with districts to make sure teachers and staff remained safe during the crisis. Different
29
stakeholders had different needs, which often did not align with all the other parties involved.
The following sections discuss some of these emerging issues.
Teachers’ Unions
As teaching shifted from in-person to online, many districts implemented plans that
directly violated collective bargaining agreements with teachers’ unions. As a result, many
districts agreed to memoranda of understanding with their unions to create short-term changes to
contract language (Hemphill & Marianno, 2021). Hemphill and Marianno (2021) examined how
school districts navigated the changing environment working with their unions. In all, they
studied 101 schools from across the United States. Of those schools, 25 had signed memoranda
of understanding with their unions in the spring of 2020. Within those 25 memoranda, they
found that significant issues regarded teacher compensation, work hours, professional
development, and technology. The report showed that teachers’ pay was reduced when
extracurricular activities, such as paid Saturday school, were eliminated since those activities
were no longer offered. Eighteen memoranda had provisions about required professional
development within the virtual classroom. Teachers also received reduced required work hours
since they would be teaching from home. Twelve of the 16 memoranda that discussed work
hours dropped hours to 3 or less per day. The second most discussed topic was getting teachers
the technology they would need to continue teaching.
While these memoranda worked to help with the transition from in-person to virtual,
other agreements needed to be made to bring teachers back to school as the spread of the virus
came under control. In the spring of 2021, the spread of the virus slowed enough in California
that schools could reopen. With the news of reopening, unions began speaking out about their
teachers’ safety. In one study, the American Federation of Teachers reported that 530 teachers
30
died due to COVID-19 (Nierenberg & Pasick, 2021). In March 2021, 91% of teachers in the
United Teachers Los Angeles union voted to reject a plan to return to the classroom, demanding
that staff be vaccinated or have access to vaccinations, that safety protocols be in place prior to
teachers’ return, and that schools reopen only if the number of the county’s new COVID-19
cases continued to drop (ABC, Inc., 2021).
Classified Unions
While teacher concerns surrounded their ability to continue to educate students, the
classified unions focused on continued employment and how they could continue to support the
running of schools (Mahnken, 2020). In an op-ed piece in the Los Angeles Times in September
2020, the CSEA’s president reported that 4,640 classified jobs were eliminated from 175 school
districts represented by the association in California (Valdepena, 2020). The association, which
covers 250,000 employees in 700 school districts, created 640 memoranda of understanding and
returned to work agreements with different employers (CSEA, 2021b). During the pandemic,
classified employees took on the additional responsibilities of distributing school lunches and
helping to issue technology. Similar to teacher agreements, classified employees ensured that
safety was a priority since they worked on site and directly with the public.
Additionally, the requirement that classified employees work on site while the teachers
were permitted to work from home caused animosity. A building engineer with LAUSD spoke
about classified employees being called back to work. If these employees felt uncomfortable
returning, they needed to take personal paid leave time since restrictions were reduced. Similarly,
an LAUSD cafeteria worker stated that many employees considered retiring out of fear of
returning to work and catching COVID-19. She mentioned that many employees returned to
work even though they felt unsafe because they needed the income (Chen, 2020).
31
Summary
The review of the literature demonstrated that schools closed for varying lengths of time
at different times due to emergency conditions. Those closures revealed that schools needed clear
and explicit direction on how to operate and whether closing schools was a viable option. When
schools closed, there were many potential problems superintendents and principals needed to be
aware of. Those problems ranged from finances to logistics of operating to working with the
teacher and classified staff organizations. During the COVID-19 pandemic and the required
virtual schooling, money was directed to schools to facilitate the educational process, but there
were still many problems in executing that process. Superintendents and principals had to work
closely with unions, but they were frequently at odds regarding how to best educate students.
32
Chapter Three: Methodology
When the COVID-19 pandemic led to school closure, there was not much research for
superintendents, assistant superintendents, and principals to review when making determinations
about school operations. The literature review showed previous school closures, but nothing to
the scale and scope of the COVID-19 pandemic. This chapter reviews the statement of the
problem, the purpose of the study, and the research questions. It outlines the design of the
research study, summarizes the methodology, identifies the participants, and explains the
instruments used to conduct the research. It concludes with an explanation of how the data were
collected and analyzed and a brief summary of this chapter.
Statement of the Problem
The pandemic presented a disruption in K–12 school districts in Southern California,
causing unforeseen consequences within the education system and highlighting financial
implications, the impact of agencies, negotiations with unions, and the impact on students and
community. COVID-19 shifted schools’ roles and scope, which meant that school leaders took
on the additional role of crisis managers.
Purpose of the Study
The purpose of this study was to analyze the impact of the pandemic on K–12 schools in
Southern California. It also sought to understand what district and site administrators learned
from their experiences and decision-making responsibilities in managing the crisis. This study
examined the impact of the pandemic on students, families, leaders, schools, and districts.
Specifically, the focus was on the influence of district and school leaders on administrative
practices, student achievement, financial responsibility, union leadership, and community/parent
support.
33
Research Questions
The study was guided by four research questions:
1. What are the financial implications that the COVID-19 pandemic has had on K–12
public school districts in Southern California, and how have district superintendents,
assistant superintendents, and principals addressed these implications?
2. What have been the impact of federal, state, and local health agencies on K–12 public
school districts in Southern California, and what strategies have district
superintendents, assistant superintendents, and principals followed to address the
suggested guidelines?
3. How have union negotiations played a role in K–12 Southern California public school
districts’ response to the COVID-19 pandemic?
4. How have K–12 Southern California public school districts leadership teams
comprised of superintendents, assistant superintendents, and principals addressed the
concerns of the parent community regarding safety, nutrition, distance learning, lack
of technology, academic standing, and how and when to reopen schools due to the
COVID-19 pandemic?
Research Team
The research team was led by Dr. Rudy Castruita from the University of Southern
California Rossier School of Education. The dissertation group consisted of 22 students, with Dr.
Castruita as the lead researcher and the study’s supervisor. The research team, which began
meeting in the spring of 2021, contributed to the literature review bibliography, statement of the
problem, the purpose of the study, research questions, conceptual framework, and data collection
34
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
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.
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
superintendents, assistant superintendents, and principals made decisions and addressed
challenges during the COVID-19 pandemic. The researchers conducted interviews with three
35
superintendents, three assistant superintendents, and three principals to gather information for
this study. The semi-structured interview protocol developed by the research team consisted of
25 questions, and researchers asked follow-up questions. Separate interview protocols with
minimal vocabulary changes and very similar questions were created for superintendents,
assistant superintendents, and principals. The interview protocols can be found in Appendix G,
Appendix H, and Appendix I. The interviews were conducted via Zoom and took an average of
35 minutes to complete. The interview protocol was followed consistently throughout the
interviews, and additional questions were asked when necessary. Via the interviews, the
researchers gathered data that reflected the participants’ opinions, decisions, and knowledge.
With permission, these meetings were recorded to facilitate accuracy. The overall purpose of
qualitative research is to interpret how individuals make sense of a process and describe how
they interpret what they experience (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016).
Quantitative Methods
Quantitative research describes patterns, trends, and relationships using numerical data.
Quantitative research usually collects data using instruments such as assessments, surveys, and
existing datasets. The most commonly used protocol for gathering quantitative data is a survey.
Surveys allow the researcher to obtain information from the participants and then easily convert
it to quantitative data to be analyzed (Lochmiller & Lester, 2017). For this study, quantitative
data were collected using a self-administered 26-question survey on Qualtrics (Appendix D,
Appendix E, and Appendix F). The survey questions were developed around the four research
questions to assist in the research. The survey was designed to gather data that reflect the school
leaders’ experiences, views, decisions, and knowledge about the impact of the COVID-19
pandemic on Southern California K–12 public school districts. Separate surveys with minimal
36
vocabulary changes and very similar questions were created for superintendents, assistant
superintendents, and principals. The surveys consist of 5-point Likert-scale questions (1
= strongly disagree to 5 = strongly agree). The surveys took an average of 15 minutes to
complete. The survey link was emailed to the participants. The survey includes a cover letter
(Appendix A, Appendix B, and Appendix C), the survey questions, and final instructions.
Participants completed the survey using Qualtrics, which tabulates the number of responses
returned.
Sample and Population
The population for the study consists of leaders of Southern California K–12 public
school districts: superintendents, assistant superintendents, and principals. Convenience
sampling and purposeful sampling were utilized in selecting the school districts and the
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 based on specific criteria (Lochmiller & Lester, 2017;
Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). This study includes purposeful selection to ensure all participants
work in public Southern California K–12, K–8, elementary, and high school districts as
superintendents, assistant superintendents, or principals. The selection criteria are that
participants be (a) a superintendent, assistant superintendent, or principal at a traditional
California public K–12, K–8, elementary, or high school district with a student population of at
least 1,000; (b) in the current role for at least a year; and (c) have served in this position during
the 2020–2021 school year. The minimum sample size for the interviews and surveys was set at
nine. The participants selected for this study played a role in supporting school districts and
37
school sites during the COVID-19 pandemic. The results from the interviews and surveys were
compared to the results collected by other research team members.
Three school districts were selected for this study. School District A serves 14,736
students in grades K–12. The district has an average daily attendance of 12,510. Nearly 9.2% of
the students are English learners, and 68.6% receive free or reduced-price meals. School District
B serves 24,404 students in grades K–12. The district has an average daily attendance of 20,925.
Nearly 19.3% of the students are English learners, and 75.6% receive free or reduced-price
meals. School District C serves 7,450 students in grades seventh through 12th. The district has an
average daily attendance of 7,100. Nearly 10.2% of the students are English learners, and 68.4%
receive free or reduced-price meals.
Both the survey and interview protocols include an explanation of the purpose of the
study. The participants were informed that the process was voluntary and that confidentiality was
maintained throughout the entire process. The names of the school districts, schools, or
participants are 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. The interview and survey
questions were field-tested beforehand to ensure they were concise and that the results generated
addressed the research study questions. Interviews took place virtually because of the safety
protocols due to the COVID-19 pandemic and out of consideration to the time constraints of the
participants who were still leading schools through a pandemic. All the interviews were recorded
with participants’ permission, and notetaking will also be used. Appendix G, Appendix H, and
38
Appendix I contain the interview protocol. The link to the survey questions will be emailed to
the participants. Appendix D, Appendix E, and Appendix F contain the survey questions.
The conceptual framework (Figure 1) utilized for this study was based on three
theoretical frameworks. The three frameworks assist in understanding the theories that impact
school leadership and how these can be adapted to the current situation of managing the COVID-
19 pandemic crisis. The four frames, political, structural, human resources, and symbolic,
described by Bolman and Deal (2017), provide school leaders at both site and district levels the
roadmap to navigate the different aspects of leadership and their actions’ and habits’ effect on
the organization. Fullan (2014) examined the principal’s specific role of enacting change at the
site level as being a lead learner, district and system player, and change agent. Westover’s (2020)
framework provides districts the guiding principles to create an organization that can move
through change and continuous improvement. These three frameworks provide K–12 school
districts the steps to persist, at all levels of leadership, through a crisis like the pandemic.
39
Figure 1
Conceptual Framework
Data Collection
Data collection began during the fall 2021 semester after approval from the University of
Southern California Institutional Review Board (IRB). District superintendents were contacted
via a formal written request (email), followed by a phone conversation to obtain permission for
the study and gain access to assistant superintendents and principals. Once permission is 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.
40
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 15 minutes
completing the online survey. The semi-structured interviews took place via Zoom for an
average of 35 minutes. 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, the qualitative and quantitative data 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, axial, and selective coding. Common themes and patterns were identified to gain an
understanding of the impact of the pandemic 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 were calculated for each participant and include 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. So, an important aspect of ethical research is the focus on respect
41
for the individuals and the community (Denzin, 2016; Glesne, 2011; Lochmiller & Lester, 2017;
Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). Throughout the design and implementation of this study, all ethical
considerations were followed. All guidelines and procedures for the University of Southern
California Institutional Review Board (IRB) were reviewed and implemented. To ensure the
study is conducted ethically, all participants were informed of its purpose and assured that their
participation is voluntary. Participants were also informed that their identities and responses
were 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 in the doctoral program at the
University of Southern California.
Summary
This chapter restated the statement of the problem, the purpose of the study, and the
research questions. The research design, which included details of the research methods
including the sample and population, instrumentation, data collection, and data analysis were
also presented in this chapter. The chapter outlined that the data collection began after IRB
approval. This study used appropriate tools and followed all ethical standards to ensure its
validity and reliability. Chapter Four presents the research findings and in-depth analysis.
42
Chapter Four: Findings
This study involved collecting qualitative and quantitative data to examine participants’
influence on administrative practices, student achievement, financial responsibility, union
leadership, and community/parent support during the COVID-19 pandemic. Participants were
three school superintendents, three assistant superintendents, and three principals at Southern
California K–12 public school districts. A mixed-methods approach was selected to establish
triangulation for more accurate findings and make the study more holistic (Maxwell, 2013).
Qualitative methods allowed for examining how participants made decisions and addressed
challenges during the pandemic. Interviews took place during the study’s qualitative phase. The
semi-structured interview protocol consisted of 25 questions and a series of follow-up probes.
The interviews provided data on participants’ opinions, decisions, and knowledge.
The survey questions were developed around the four research questions and designed to
gather data on respondents’ experiences, views, decisions, and knowledge about the impact of
the COVID-19 pandemic on Southern California K–12 public school districts. The surveys
consisted of 5-point Likert-scale questions. Chapter Four presents the findings pertaining to the
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?
43
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
Three school districts located in Southern California were contacted to participate in the
study. The three districts were located in San Bernardino County and served demographically
diverse students in pre-kindergarten (PreK) through Grade 12. A superintendent, an assistant
superintendent, and a principal from each district completed a self-administered survey designed
around the research questions and participated in a virtual interview via Zoom.
Table 1 lists general demographic information from each of the participating districts.
Table 1
Identified Districts Demographic Data
District Student
population
Socioeconomically
disadvantaged
Homeless English
learners
District G 13,303 72.9% 4.2% 9.8%
District H 22,060 78.2% 6.3% 19.7%
District I 7,450 69.6% 2.6% 10.2%
44
Demographic Data
Respondents answered two demographic questions to ensure they were with the district
they were represented during the COVID-19 pandemic. The questions asked how many years
respondents had served as superintendent, assistant superintendent, or principal and how long
they had held that title at their district. Each respondent had served in their role for at least a
year, with most (77.8%) having served in it for at least 6 years. Their answers also showed that
the least amount of time one of these leaders, a principal, had been with their school was 1 to 2
years. All others had been in their positions for at least 3 years. The responses show all
respondents met the criteria of having served in their position during the pandemic, allowing
their responses to be used in this study.
Table 2 details the responses for the first two survey questions which asked each
participant the number of years each has served in the current position and the number of years
in that position in the current district.
45
Table 2
Quantitative Survey: Participant Demographic Information
Position Years in position Years in position
at current district
Superintendent G 6 to 10 3 to 5
Superintendent H 3 to 5 3 to 5
Superintendent I 6 to 10 6 to 10
Assistant Superintendent G Over 10 Over 10
Assistant Superintendent H 6 to 10 6 to 10
Assistant Superintendent I 6 to 10 6 to 10
Principal G 1 to 2 1 to 2
Principal H 6 to 10 6 to 10
Principal I Over 10 Over 10
Research Question 1
The first research question asked, “What, if any, are the financial implications that the
COVID-19 pandemic has had on K–12 public school districts in Southern California, and how
have district superintendents, assistant superintendents, and principals addressed these
implications?” To answer this question, the participants were asked four interview questions and
five survey questions. The survey questions sought to learn the respondents’ perceptions of
whether the CARES Act funding was sufficient to meet district and school needs. As seen in
Table 3, the majority of respondents said the funding met needs in the categories of personnel,
personal protective equipment (PPE), and technology. The responses show that while about a
third of respondents agreed that the funding met their needs for professional learning and facility
46
upgrades, most responded these needs were not met, yet some strongly disagreed that their
professional learning and training needs were met.
Table 3
Survey Responses for Questions 3 –7
The CARES Act met my district’s/school’s funding needs in regards to
Strongly
disagree
Disagree
Neither agree
nor disagree
Agree
Strongly
agree
Personnel
11.11% 0.00% 22.22% 66.67% 0.00%
Personal protective
equipment (PPE)
0.00% 11.11% 0.00% 77.78% 11.11%
Technology
0.00% 11.11% 22.22% 44.44% 22.22%
Professional
learning/Training
22.22% 0.00% 44.44% 33.33% 0.00%
Facility upgrades 11.11% 22.22% 33.33% 33.33% 0.00%
47
To gain further insight, each interviewee answered the following four questions about
funding during the COVID-19 pandemic:
1. What have been the biggest financial implications of the pandemic on your district?
2. In what ways, if any, would more spending flexibility/structure have benefitted your
district?
3. In what ways has COVID-19 related funding been used to meet student needs in your
district?
4. To what extent, if any, did financial incentives influence your district’s reopening
plan/timeline?
Interview responses revealed several themes across the three districts. One of the themes
was that schools needed to reopen and have students return as quickly as possible. The second
was how to address staff and students’ safety concerns, as safety was important but frequently
unclear. The third was that each of these school leaders worked to spend the one-time funds to
build capacity at the districts, schools, and among staff for long-term benefit.
When schools closed, there was uncertainty about how long they would remain so.
Considering all three school districts surveyed were scheduled for their spring break within the 2
weeks after March 13, 2020, leaders anticipated schools would open shortly after this break, so
students would not miss much seat time. Unfortunately, as one superintendent said, “We had no
idea how big this would be, and still is.” Schools remained closed for in-person education for the
remainder of the school year. Fortunately, the CARES Act became law later that March, helping
schools alleviate the financial worry that came with the closures. As schools stayed closed for the
remainder of the 2019–2020 school year, school leaders were tasked with finishing the academic
year remotely. Remote education required students and staff to access each other and the
48
curriculum virtually, which created additional expenses for districts. Then, as schools looked
forward to starting the 2020–2021 school year, their focus shifted to how to get students back
into school. The expenses related to safely reopening were other areas where school leaders
needed to focus.
Table 4 shows Districts G and H received an additional 11% of their budget in CARES
funding in March 2020, and District I received about 32.5% more money (Willis, 2021). This
was the money schools initially received as they began to educate virtually. While all three
districts used portions of these monies to facilitate this process by purchasing technology like
Chromebooks, laptops for teachers, and hot spots for students without WIFI, leadership teams
also focused on how to return to school safely when permitted.
Table 4
Initial CARES Money Districts Received
2018–2019
approved budget
CARES money districts
received in March 2020
Percentage of
the total budget
District G $143,869,121.00 $16,055,971.00 11.16%
District H $258,923,501.00 $29,360,911.00 11.34%
District I $23,721,790.93 $7,708,563.00 32.50%
49
Safety
All interviewees’ primary concern was safety for students and staff. Fortunately, the
increased monies districts received helped to cover costs. All respondents discussed PPE as the
most important initial expense. Purchasing face masks and gloves was critical, but as
Superintendent I recalled, lack of supply and supply chain issues slowed the delivery of these
items. After PPE, money designated for safety was spent on larger items. All three
superintendents discussed purchasing in-room air filters/sanitizers for every classroom and office
space students frequented while planning for them to return. Additionally, Superintendent G and
Superintendent H mentioned the funds allowing them to upgrade building heating, ventilation,
and air conditioning (HVAC) systems to meet the filtration requirements to reduce the spread of
COVID-19.
Maximizing One-Time Funds
School districts spent a large portion of the money they received on single-use items like
gloves, masks, hand sanitizer, and other cleaning supplies. Additionally, they purchased items
like Plexiglas screens for teachers and staff and clear plastic dividers for student desks, which
they will likely not need beyond the pandemic. Participants all understood these costs, but they
also wanted to maximize the money by purchasing items and training that would help shape their
schools and increase student achievement following the pandemic. Districts G and H were
already 1:1 for students to Chromebooks, and with the money, District I also attained this ratio
and purchased a Chromebook for each student. Additionally, Superintendent H noted the money
was spent on professional development to train staff on the hybrid and virtual models.
Superintendent I discussed purchasing new academic programs that could also be utilized when
schools were fully reopened.
50
Another major one-time expense all superintendents discussed was the cost to address
students’ and staff members’ mental health and well-being. They spend money on professional
development opportunities and staff specifically trained and designated to respond to students’
mental health needs. District H hired additional high school counselors, a counselor for every
school, and a new district psychologist. Assistant Superintendent H mentioned working on
maintaining this staffing beyond COVID-19 to continue to focus on the students’ mental well-
being into the future.
Reopening
To receive the full incentive amount provided under Assembly Bill 86, schools had to
reopen by April 1. If they did not, they would lose 1% of their incentive for each day after up to
May 15, when the incentive was no longer available. Each of the districts opened in early April,
maximizing the incentive, but when asked if the incentive played a part in the reopening, all nine
interviewees stated it did not. They mentioned the additional funds were helpful and appreciated,
but the decision to open as quickly as they could was due to their communities’ needs and the
notion that students learned better on campus in person. Superintendent G responded to this topic
by saying,
It had no influence on our reopening. From day one, our goal was to get kids back on
campus. There was no question. We did it before there was an incentive offered, and the
incentive was just kind of an, “okay, thanks, but the goal is getting back.”
Superintendent I built on the idea that while the incentive was helpful and appreciated,
the focus was the students’ education. He added to the idea of students being back in school for
instruction, the families’ needs, and the social support students received at school.
Superintendent I also mentioned the importance of returning to school for the staff. All
51
stakeholders needed the entirety of in-person education for their students, and these school
leaders worked with their collaborative teams to reopen as quickly and safely as possible to get
students back on campus and in front of teachers.
Research Question 2
The second research question asked, “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?” On March 13, 2020, schools closed, and districts finished the
school year virtually. The three school districts in this study started the 2020–2021 school year
virtually and were hopeful the pandemic would end during late summer or early fall. However,
when infection numbers rose late in the fall, it seemed very likely that the entire school year
would be virtual. Fortunately, infection numbers dropped in the spring, and schools were allowed
to open in a hybrid model in April 2021. The 2020–2021 school year ended under the hybrid
model, but this opened the door to starting the 2021–2022 school year fully in person. With each
change, schools received guidance from various governmental agencies, and unfortunately, the
guidance at differed times.
Alongside guidance directly relating to schools was other information regarding general
life in public, like mask mandates and social distancing. Guidance for the general public came
from the California Department of Public Health (CDPH) and county departments of public
health, but schools received operating guidance from the California Department of Industrial
Relations Division of Occupational Safety and Health (Cal OSHA). In some instances, as noted
by Superintendents H and I, these guidelines did not align, which confused stakeholders in their
52
communities. The disparity in responses in the survey data can is evidence of the confusion the
varying guidance caused.
The first survey question for this research question addressed this confusion directly and
found that only three of the nine school leaders thought the guidelines about the safe reopening
of schools were clear. Two of the nine strongly disagreed with this statement, and another two
disagreed. Superintendent H, who also mentioned he met regularly with the county
superintendent of schools, stood by the idea that he is not a doctor and took the guidelines at face
value. In contrast, Superintendent G discussed frustration with the wording of the guidance.
Rather than directing certain actions, as Superintendent G would have preferred, guidelines were
simply recommendations, which left room for discussion and variance. The survey results show
that most school leaders understood how to safely bring students back to school in the fall of
2020, with most agreeing to that point. Unfortunately, considering that two disagreed with this
statement, there was still some confusion to some school leaders.
In March 2021, with the passing of Assembly Bill 86, schools were incentivized to
reopen. All school leaders stated the incentive did not play a part in the decision to reopen, but
they all stated, according to the survey, that the guidelines for reopening impacted the districts’
and schools’ reopening plans.
Table 5 shows the percentage of responses for questions 8–10.
53
Table 5
Survey Responses for Questions 8 –10
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.
22.22% 22.22% 22.22% 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% 22.22% 22.22% 44.44% 11.11%
The health guidelines impacted
our district’s return to school
plan in the spring of 2021.
0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 88.89% 11.11%
To gain further insight, the participants answered the following four interview questions
about funding during the COVID-19 pandemic.
1. In what ways did your district collaborate with federal, state, and local government
agencies and community organizations to support your school district during COVID-
19? What agencies or organizations?
2. To what degree, if any, did the various agencies align COVID-19 guidance for
schools?
3. What strategies have been effective for your district in implementing health
guidelines/policies?
54
4. Who in your district was primarily in charge of interpreting and implementing the
health guidelines/policies?
As the survey results show, the differing guidance caused confusion, but the responses
were similar within districts. From principal to assistant superintendent to superintendent, they
all mentioned meeting frequently, working with their teams, and most importantly,
communicating by sending out newsletters at least weekly in the beginning. Schools and districts
worked to open schools safely by collaborating with stakeholders, executive leaders, and risk
managers.
Meet Frequently
Superintendent I used the term “collective genius” to describe how that district worked
through the varying and frequently changing guidance. This term applies to each district as each
interviewee mentioned the importance of meeting within their respective teams. Superintendents
met with their cabinets and executive management teams. Assistant superintendents met as part
of the cabinet and with their designated assignments, such as human resources and business
services. Principals met as part of the executive management team and with personnel at their
schools. Superintendent meetings generally focused on what the guidance meant for their
districts and setting the district-wide policy. Assistant superintendent meetings focused on
compliance and making sure emerging policies did not violate the law or collective bargaining
agreements. Principals’ meetings focused on implementing the policies at their schools, ensuring
the implementation was within the framework established by the assistant superintendents.
In these meetings, superintendents pushed schools to open for the benefit of the students,
and principals created plans to open schools safely, but assistant superintendents voiced
frustration with the process. When asked about the COVID-19 guidance aligning with schools,
55
all three assistant superintendents voiced concern. Assistant Superintendent G noted that there
were places where alignment was not possible because of misalignment between the CDPH and
Cal OSHA. Assistant Superintendent H stated, “their (CDPH, Cal OSHA) world doesn’t
understand education.” Assistant Superintendent I added that while the state wanted schools
open, they made it nearly impossible because of social-distancing and mask-wearing
requirements. He also noted that social-distancing mandates prevented them from providing
transportation. While all felt students needed to return to school, the logistics of that return met
with frustration addressed during collaboration meetings.
Collaborate
In addition to meeting within their teams, superintendents spoke of the importance of
collaborating with community leaders. Superintendents G and H met monthly with the CEO of a
local hospital, who also sent out weekly texts of current numbers and trends, getting first hand
infection information. This information was used to help guide the operation of their districts.
Being the largest employers in their respective cities, these superintendents understood that
bringing students back to school too quickly could have caused the virus to spread more quickly
throughout the community.
As Superintendent G stated,
It was a morning check-in, and it gave us a pulse of what was going on at the hospital and
allowed us to make decisions when we went to reopen. That included the number of ICU
beds, the number of ventilators, and a number of things that I would have never had a
need to know. But with the reopening in a hybrid model that fall, one of our biggest
concerns was overwhelming the hospital. So, if they were at a point that was a breaking
point, I didn’t feel like I was being a good community member for those that were getting
56
sick. I have college- and high-school-aged children, and if they get in the car and get in a
car accident, where are they going? To our local hospital. But if they’re going to be
turned away, then that’s not helpful either. So, adding more to that problem was not our
goal. And as the larger largest employer in [city], bringing up to 1,700 employees [or]
2,100 depending on my substitutes and that type of thing, bringing them back into the
system and getting them in contact or infecting families at home was a huge decision
maker for us.
Even though they wanted students to return to school, these meetings helped shape the
perspective and broaden the focus to the community at large.
Superintendents H and I met regularly with the county superintendent of schools. In these
frequent meetings, they learned information they then shared with other local superintendents.
As Superintendent H noted,
We met with our county superintendent and the county department of public health
frequently. There were times when we were meeting weekly, and there were times where
we met bi-weekly, and it’s spread out a little bit as we’ve gotten forward. I think that
we’ve worked very closely with them, and then, of course, I met with our regional
superintendents pretty much on a weekly basis, particularly early on in the in the
pandemic. Knowing that the department of public health has had a challenging job.
Everybody wants them to have the answers, and yet they were learning, too. So, again,
early on, there was much more of a need to kind of lean on them and meet with them
regularly. There were some times where I got one answer at nine o’clock in the morning
[and] I got a separate answer at two o’clock in the afternoon.
57
These frequent changes in information required frequent meetings and collaboration with
stakeholders and community partners.
Communicate
Throughout the pandemic, there were varying levels of concerns for these districts’
stakeholders. Superintendent G stated the community, staff, and students, as a portion of the
community, were about 50/50 about the requirement to wear masks inside classrooms. District H
mentioned having very vocal extremes; the most vocal were either extremely concerned about
the dangers associated with COVID-19 or the idea that it was not dangerous at all. As the school
leaders continued to educate within this polarized system where guidelines were vague and
occasionally misaligned with the requirements in public, they all mentioned that communication
was critical. As Principal I mentioned, “over-communication with the community was essential.”
Superintendent I sent out newsletters every day, Monday through Friday, in the beginning
of the pandemic. Superintendents G and H both sent out weekly communiqués. Being
transparent and leaning on guidelines was important when communicating district and school
plans. Superintendent H discussed how vocal parents were during School Board meetings, but
those complaints, frequently emotional, rarely led to policy changes because the school was
following guidelines handed down from the county and state. Superintendent I and Principal I
discussed the benefit of hosting town-hall-style meetings to share information and hear
community concerns in a more casual environment than board meetings. As Principal I
described, the town hall meetings helped her to alleviate many fears:
I did town hall meetings by grade level. I made it very specific to the grade level because
parents are a little more concerned about the little babies. I had those town halls, and I
had a presentation, and I mean, everything down to ingress and egress.
58
Utilizing this format allowed Principal I to meet and address specific concerns from families, and
as stated, the message was tailored to the particular audience. In that way, the message could
meet the specific needs of those students and families.
Superintendent I discussed how communication changed through the pandemic. He
mentioned that in addition to sending out newsletters, which slowed as the pandemic progressed,
he began recording “three in three” videos. In these videos, the superintendent discussed the top
three issues in 3 minutes. These videos were posted on the district website for the community to
view. In this way, information was shared in a more personal manner than through newsletters.
Superintendent I considered the videos an effective way to connect with the community.
Research Question 3
The third research question asked, “What was the role of union negotiations in K–12
Southern public school districts’ response to the pandemic?” While the consensus was that
students should return to school, there was concern among the staff at these three districts’
schools regarding safety and how students would return to school. When schools closed to in-
person instruction, teachers shifted to educating virtually and with this shift came many
questions about the requirements of teaching in this new format. With teachers and students in
class remotely, staffing needs at the school site changed. For example, security and custodial
needs were greatly diminished because there were no students on campus. Due to collective
bargaining agreements, employees remained employed and needed appropriate work. Within this
context, superintendents, assistant superintendents, and principals needed to work with their
unions to create memoranda of understanding (MOUs) for these employees.
As shown in Table 6, union negotiations affected all participating schools and districts
with most of these school leaders agreeing that union negotiations influenced the ways the school
59
and district responded to the COVID-19 pandemic. Additionally, most respondents said they
agreed that negotiations with the teacher’s unions impacted the quality of instruction during
distance learning. With the idea that union negotiations were a factor, interviewing these leaders
provided further insight into how the schools and districts worked with these groups of
employees.
Table 6
Survey Responses for Questions 11 –13
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% 0.00% 22.22% 66.67% 11.11%
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% 22.22% 77.78% 0.00%
Negotiations with the teacher’s
union impacted the quality of
instruction offered to students
during distance learning.
0.00% 22.22% 22.22% 44.44% 11.11%
60
To gain further insight, respondents answered the following four interview questions:
1. What were the most important issues negotiated with your teacher’s union, and how
were they resolved?
2. What were the most important issues negotiated with your classified union, and how
were they resolved?
3. In what ways, if any, were instructional programs influenced by union negotiations in
your district?
4. In what ways, if any, were safety protocols influenced by union negotiations in your
district?
From the interviews, common trends emerged: the teachers wanted their virtual time to
be clarified, classified staff wanted to work safely at school, and everyone wanted what was best
for the students.
Teacher Time
A major concern for teachers was the time required of them while working from home in
a virtual capacity. Principals G and I both mentioned that teachers wanted to create schedules
that limited how long they would be online and what hours they needed to be available to
students outside of their virtual classrooms. Principal G said,
Initially, they [union negotiations] were around scheduling, as we sent kids home.
We had to negotiate the schedule that we were going to offer to families and how we
were going to support teachers in the creation of a brand-new curriculum, basically for
the students at home. So, that whole scheduling option, how many hours are we with
students, how many are we not, what are planning times. That was a big deal.
61
Teachers reported that students frequently reached out with questions outside of what
used to be regular school hours, and teachers wanted clarification about what their new work
hours were given that they could access their digital classroom at any time. Assistant
Superintendent H stated,
They want to make sure that the teachers aren’t taking advantage of either. So, we made
sure that we put schedules together. We want to make sure that they’re not on Zoom for 6
hours straight. That is not our goal. You’d go nuts sitting on a Zoom call for 6 hours a
day, 5 days a week. So, we help to put together schedules and put in office time so they
can be there, and if kids need something, they can pop in for questions.
There was an understanding that teachers should not teach virtually for the same length of time
they had students in class, but they also needed to be available to their students.
Safety for Classified Staff
When schools closed for in-person learning in March 2020, many classified staff
members were required to continue working on site. Enduring their safety was a priority for all
participants. Leaders worked to alleviate fears and worries by making sure safety items were
purchased and stocked, safety procedures were in place, and staff members were following them.
While all of these respondents mentioned masks and hand sanitizer, other items were more
specific and unusual. Superintendent H talked about the need to upgrade the heating, ventilation,
and air conditioning (HVAC) system:
Safety was a big one as well and making sure that they had the right amount of personal
protective equipment. We’re in the process of re-outfitting our HVAC units so that we
can handle MERV 13 filters. I didn’t even know what MERV 13 was before then.
62
Superintendent I mentioned the need for barriers in addition to the need for masking and hand
washing: “Barriers that we had to have in place and ensuring mask-wearing and handwashing
stations and all of that. That was very early on, and that became an expectation.”
Doing What Is Best for Students
When each of these district and school leaders were asked about negotiations, the
conversation started with a sense of pride that so many staff members did what was necessary for
the students’ best interest. Speaking about the classified staff, Assistant Superintendent G said,
I have to say they were amazing. They stepped up, and they said, “Whatever we need.”
Then we wrote [an MOU] so that they understood that it’s okay to work out of their
classification at this time to help support. Everybody goes where they’re needed. For
example, during distance learning, we don’t really have use for our campus assistants,
necessarily, so they stepped in to work in the office or help with some Zoom meets. They
would pop in and help manage a group or something.
The willingness of staff to do what was needed was a common theme and seemed to be sparked
further by the needs created by the pandemic. As Principal I said,
Generally, classified employees, pre-pandemic, and know this is my job, this is my role,
and I don’t step out of that. To me, a cup-half-full person, during the pandemic, the
classified were expected to be more flexible so that we can put them wherever we needed
them. During that time, even during the virtual time, we had campus monitors doing
small groups on the computer and things like that. I mean, I have fantastic classified
they’ve always done anything else for their role.
Superintendent G talked about the willingness of the certificated members to quickly write an
MOU so they could help get students back to school quickly:
63
I have to say that although those [union negotiations] are oftentimes the most contentious
moments. Our union was extremely supportive of getting back to work and returning
students to classrooms, 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.
Research Question 4
The fourth research question asked, “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?” The
intent was to determine if and how schools met students’ and families’ needs when schools
initially closed and understand the families’ concerns about reopening schools. When schools
closed to in-person instruction and students and teachers were required to create a new school
environment virtually, districts and schools were tasked with providing the resources to make
this happen. The first concern was communication: how to communicate, what to communicate,
and when to communicate. Since guidelines and operational procedures changed so frequently, it
was critical that districts and schools had strong methods to communicate with families. After
addressing communication, districts were also tasked with providing the meals students would
have received in school. As mentioned in Chapter Three, 1.1 billion meals were missed across
the country (Kinsey et al., 2020). District leadership needed to get meals to students.
Next, participants were asked about their students’ technology needs. This need consisted
of two parts: computers or Chromebooks and access to the internet. Because the additional
funding allowed for purchasing this technology, these leaders were asked if those needs were
64
actually met. While students were learning remotely and away from the social setting of school,
their emotional wellbeing was a consideration about which leaders were asked: were the schools
able to meet the students’ social-emotional needs? Respondents were then asked if they felt they
met families’ health and safety needs. With the varying degrees of concern about the COVID-19
pandemic, the leaders were asked if they thought they could meet the families’ needs in the areas
of health through social distancing and masking policies and safety through cleaning and
sanitation policies. Lastly, respondents were asked if they felt they met students’ academic needs
within the virtual format.
In response to the surveys, all participants agreed that families’ needs were met in the
areas of communication and appropriate computer and internet service. Additionally, most of
these leaders felt families’ nutrition needs were met. However, these leaders felt family needs
were not met in some areas. About half responded that family needs in health and safety were
met. Additionally, only a third of participants said the needs of students and families were met in
the areas of academics and social-emotional wellbeing. Lastly, a third disagreed with the
statement that the district or school met students’ and families’ social well-being needs. Table 7
shows the responses to the survey questions about each of these needs.
65
Table 7
Survey Responses for Questions 14 –20
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% 77.78% 22.22%
My district met the needs of students
and families in the area of nutrition.
0.00% 0.00% 11.11% 44.44% 44.44%
My district met the needs of students
and families in the area of
technology (computers/devices).
0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 66.67% 33.33%
My district met the needs of students
and families in the area of
technology (internet service).
0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 88.89% 11.11%
My district met the needs of students
and families in the area of social
emotional well-being.
11.11% 22.22% 33.33% 33.33% 0.00%
My district met the needs of students
and families in the area of health &
safety.
0.00% 11.11% 33.33% 44.44% 11.11%
My district met the academic needs of
students.
0.00% 11.11% 55.56% 33.33% 0.00%
To gain further insight, each respondent answered the following two interview questions
about funding during the pandemic:
1. In what ways did your district gather input from and communicate to the community?
2. What were the biggest concerns from your district’s community and how were they
addressed?
The second question also included five probing questions:
66
1. Were there any safety concerns?
2. Were there any nutrition concerns?
3. Were there any academic concerns?
4. Were there any technology concerns?
5. Were there any re-opening concerns?
The first interview question asked how participants communicated with the students,
families, and communities. In March 2020, superintendents expected schools would return to
normal within a few weeks. As Superintendent H stated,
I laugh at it now, but as I was meeting with our regional superintendents, we thought this
is going to be a week by week thing, you know. We never really thought we’d be sitting
here 2 years later and going, “Wow, we’re still in this.”
In the beginning, when talks shifted from opening soon to not opening for the rest of the
year, school and district leaders surveyed families to learn how they preferred to be educated
about their safety needs. As Assistant Superintendent G said,
Lots of surveys regarding comfort with return to in-person. In the fall of 2020, and really
even at the end of the 2021 school year, and even a couple of times during this school
year, we surveyed to determine how to build a system. And even as recently as this
school year, we look to build after-school programs and other things for parents. So, lots
of parent surveys. We’ve used the thought exchange tool to ask parents to give their
thoughts on a variety of topics, and that has allowed there to be adjustments to our LCAP.
Our most recent youth survey, we got about 7000 students to respond out of 13,000 so
getting close to half, which is just actually an incredibly high response rate. Families’ was
more like 2000.
67
In addition to the surveys, districts and schools sent newsletters and shared and received
information through school board meetings and town hall meetings. Having strong
communication channels was essential for students’ success.
In regards to the second interview question, these leaders shared three main points:
nutritional services were very effective, safety was and is a concern for staff and community
although which safety measures should be required was a topic of frequent debate, and rural
students have internet issues that could have prevented instruction.
Nutrition Services
Superintendents’ respondents regarding nutrition services personnels’ work were
positive. As Superintendent I said, “Nutrition services never missed a day,” providing meals to
students and families while students were learning virtually. All three districts had grab-and-go
meals available for students. In addition, Districts H and I used school buses to deliver meals to
students, whether directly to homes or to bus stops to assist families with pick-ups. While no
number was estimated on the number of meals distributed during this time, the superintendents
were very pleased they could meet this need. As Superintendent H stated,
Our nutrition services immediately answered the call, so we had lunch pick-ups, meal
pick-ups, providing multiple meals to families. We set them in different areas of the
community, and then we ended up incorporating buses. Since buses weren’t being used to
get kids to school, we’re using buses to get lunches to them.
Superintendent I’s response to the efforts of nutrition services was,
I’m just so proud of our nutrition services department because they were the very first
ones. It was Friday the 13th, March 13, and we shut down here in this county. You go
through the weekend, and on Monday, March 16, they were up and providing. Literally,
68
it ended up being hundreds and hundreds of thousands of meals in such a short period of
time … to benefit our kids.
Other responses were very similar in the pride expressed about the efforts of nutrition services
and the response to students’ and families’ needs.
Safety
As noted previously, District G’s community was roughly evenly divided regarding how
to respond to COVID-19, especially in regards to wearing masks, as mentioned by
Superintendent G. With all three districts, there was frequent debate about safety concerns in
school operations. Superintendent I shared some of the community concerns about safety:
If my child is going to go to school, is he or she going to come back safely? With all of
the protocols that you say are going to be in place, Superintendent, are you going to live
by that? And we’ve struggled with that. Still to this day, the area masking is an example
of that. Well, you know, I heard you keep saying, Superintendent, that you were going to
wear a mask, but I hear that’s not the case. So, I think that’s been probably one of the
biggest challenges.
Assistant Superintendent G also shared some of the concerns brought to her attention:
We had the spectrum from “Why are we wearing masks, they don’t work” to “My child,
everybody, needs to be wearing a mask.” How are we going to ensure that the kids can
wash their hands, or do they have sanitizers? That was part of that was another one, and
then they were also asking on the playground. That was an issue for our elementary
parents. Are they going to be able to play on the playground? If so, how are we going to
ensure their safety that they’re not touching? Those were concerns, and some didn’t want
to come back.
69
With the conflicting views of the community, Superintendent H’s response about not
being a doctor helped shift the argument from him to those who make determinations about
safety protocols.
Internet
While all three of these districts met the ADA requirements for this study, they each have
a large population of students who live outside of the city or town boundaries in rural areas.
Students living within city limits had easy access to the internet, whether in their home, at a local
hot spot, or through a district-purchased hot spot. Because these hot spots relied on cellular
service, the students within city limits had good access to the internet. All three districts supplied
hot spots to students in need, helping to eliminate that concern for families who did not have
internet prior to the pandemic.
A larger concern for these districts was the students who lived outside of the reach of the
cellular service. Even if they received a computer and a hot spot, those students had no access to
the internet and were unable to access their classes. To help alleviate this problem, these districts
boosted the WiFi at their schools so students could come to school parking lots and work in their
vehicles. Superintendent I also mentioned that one school brought all desks outside, and students
could come to school and participate in their classes. Being at school helped the students focus
on being in school.
Summary
Chapter Four presented the results regarding how participants viewed their districts’ and
schools’ responses to the COVID-19 pandemic. The results were that the money was useful. All
leaders were grateful to have received the additional funding to support safety and provide for
the new student needs as education moved from in-person to virtual. These leaders also
70
discussed frustration with the frequently changing guidelines and the fact that the guidelines
issued were recommendations rather than directives, leaving them open to interpretation, which
caused additional confusion among all stakeholders. Adding to this confusion, schools fall under
Cal OSHA and not directly under the California Department of Public Health, which was
generally the group updating the public on safety protocols, and guidance from these two
agencies did not always align. All three district leaders were happy with their employees’
response and appreciated the willingness to go above and beyond to meet the students’ needs.
These leaders were also happy with the ability to provide computer and internet access to their
students to help facilitate their continuing education. They were also happy with the nutrition
services personnels’ response in meeting families’ nutrition needs. These leaders did mention
issues about safety protocols because of differing political beliefs of the families in their
communities, specifically social distancing and masking policies. Relying on the guidance and
not trying to oppose any policy helped these leaders mitigate some of these concerns.
Chapter Five will provide a larger analysis comparing these districts, all located within a
general region, to others outside of this region to determine commonalities and differences. As
part of a research cohort, I worked closely with another researcher who conducted similar
research on three other districts. Together, we used all of our data to provide examples for the
comparative analysis of all six districts.
71
Chapter Five: Discussion
The COVID-19 pandemic disrupted K–12 school districts in Southern California, causing
unforeseen consequences in the education system and highlighting financial implications, the
impact of agencies and negotiations with unions, and the impact on students and the community.
This public health crisis shifted school leaders’ roles and scope. One of this study’s limitations
was the participants’ scope. The results presented in Chapter Four highlight the struggles and
successes of the three districts but do not necessarily apply to all school districts. Understanding
that this lack of data could be detrimental to the overall purpose of this study, I worked with a
research partner who conducted a parallel study on three other districts. Using these six districts,
we analyzed how the studies’ participants worked through pandemic-related challenges. This
chapter will discuss that analysis and offer some recommendations for future research and
implications for practice.
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. Doing so required an examination of district and site
administrators’ experiences and decision-making responsibilities in light of the pandemic’s effect
on students, families, leaders, schools, and districts. This study focused on leaders’ influence
over administrative practices, student achievement, financial responsibility, union leadership,
and community/parent support. Four research questions guided this 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?
72
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?
Comparative Analysis of Emerging Themes
The findings in this study were based on interviews and surveys from superintendents,
assistant superintendents, and principals. The results emerged from quantitative and qualitative
data analysis and connected to the literature. The results were compared to the results obtained
by other research team members. Our research team consists of two researchers, each
investigating three school districts. We assigned codes to ensure districts’ anonymity. Researcher
1 investigated Districts A, B, and C. Researcher 2 investigated Districts G, H, and I. Table 8
shows demographic information for all six districts compared in this analysis.
73
Table 8
Six District s’ Demographics Comparison
District Grade
levels
Student
population
Socioeconomically
disadvantaged
Homeless English
learners
District A P–8 1,635 32.10% 0.20% 5.60%
District B P–8 14,332 89.00% 4.50% 13.80%
District C P–8 6,131 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 7,450 69.60% 2.60% 10.20%
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?” The
following sections present a summary of the results pertaining to this question. Data analysis
yielded two themes.
Loss of Average Daily Attendance Funds
One of the themes was the existing challenges associated with California’s ADA funding
formula and the uncertainty of their communities’ needs. District leaders appreciated the hold-
harmless provision for the 2020–2021 school year, but when the state lifted it for the 2021–2022
term, these leaders expressed varying concerns about the financial implications due to declining
enrollment. The literature supports this theme. According to Roza (2021), states typically fund
districts based on student counts, so at districts reporting shrinking enrollment, leaders worry
74
about shrinking dollars. Participating district leaders reported a rapid decrease in daily
attendance throughout the pandemic and continue to worry about a fiscal cliff. According to
Hong (2022), in 2018–2019, California schools lost about 23,000 students. Between the 2019–
2020 and 2020–2021 school years, more than 160,000 students dropped out. If the state does not
amend the ADA policy, districts could struggle with increased students’ needs and limited
resources. We must begin by understanding the financial cost of meeting these exacerbated
inequities and increased needs that will 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 structured
specifically tied to staffing shortages. Participants spoke about their appreciation for additional
funding but discussed the rigid spending timelines and their inability to hire people to implement
the programs they needed. 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 the current spending timelines
and staffing shortages, there is a likelihood that one-time dollars may be spent on material
resources. The literature supports this study’s findings. State leaders must remove funding
barriers and instructional constraints, such as seat time requirements. Federal policymakers
should direct near-term stimulus funding to meet the most urgent needs at the hardest-hit school
systems (Zhour et al., 2021). Concerns about spending restrictions, reporting requirements, and
federal timelines mean these dollars might underwrite fragmented services, ineffective but
familiar programs, or faddish offerings. 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 resort to what is safe over what is successful (Hess, 2021).
75
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?” The following sections summarize the results. The study’s
results presented two themes.
Inconsistent Multi-Agency Guidance
One of the themes was inconsistent multi-agency guidance. Superintendents contended
with guidance from county health departments, the California Department of Education,
teachers’ unions, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and other groups (Jones,
2020). As policymakers debated when and how to reopen schools, the effects of closure efforts
had to be mitigated for 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
on returning students to in-person instruction to attend to their academic and social-emotional
needs while ensuring they did not lose any student or staff member 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 district met the students’ needs and kept employees safe. The literature
reflects these participants’ sentiment. Many asked for federal and state leadership, calling
primarily for improved health guidance and pointing out that districts created their own action
plans due to none from state or federal levels. Others pointed out the lack of state and federal
guidance 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. Participants discussed strategies ranging from weekly meetings with
76
cabinet members and principals to impromptu meetings with district and site leaders as changes
in guidance occurred. They discussed using their school districts’ websites, email, and social
media accounts to maintain consistent communication with stakeholders. They also credited their
communication effectiveness to consistent over-communication with standardized messaging to
ensure all stakeholders received the same information. Key attributes of crisis leadership were
flexibility, providing hope and encouragement to motivate employees, and coordinating a
collective response. 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 and 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 districts’ response to the COVID-19 pandemic?” Two themes emerged from data
analysis. The following sections summarize the results.
Certificated Union Negotiations Focus on Safety
Safety was the central theme in superintendents’ and assistant superintendents’
experiences working with certificated labor unions: safety. Participants discussed the conditions
under which certificated employees transitioned to working from home due to abrupt school
closures and its impact on teachers’ reopening concerns. District and school site leaders
discussed certificated personnel’s fear of returning to in-person learning. Superintendents shared
the safety measures they implemented, 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
77
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 working conditions outlined in contracts could exacerbate teachers’ morale and lead to
labor unrest (Hemphill & Marianno, 2021).
Important Issues Negotiated with Classified Unions
Comparing survey and interview responses across all six districts showed two significant
concerns that influenced negotiations with unions: safety and job-duty expectations. Safety was
the most important issue; however, all district leaders also felt it was important to meet all the
safety measures requested by classified personnel’s labor unions. District leaders expressed
gratitude and appreciation for their classified employees as they risked their health 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 employee
jobs with students no longer on campus. The literature supports district approaches to moving
forward during the pandemic. States and districts will need to provide new flexibility 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 (e.g., counselors, paraprofessionals, instructional coaches) to execute new
strategies (Borne, 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 (Kaiser, 2020).
78
Research Question 4
The last 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 data analysis.
As schools began to reopen, parents’ primary concern was safety. However, prior to
schools reopening, parents were concerned about meeting their children’s nutritional needs.
District leaders expressed a sense of pride in their response to their communities’ nutritional
needs. Some districts distributed food daily, and others provided 7 days’ worth of grab-and-go
meals at a time so that families did not have to drive to school sites each day.
Another theme that emerged was related to technology. While all participating districts
rapidly disseminated devices to students, they also expressed their discovery that many students
did not have access to 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 used the hotspot in one home. During the COVID-19 pandemic, home
internet connectivity and learning devices became the digital school buses that take students to
their classes and instructors (Bailey, 2020). Students struggled to connect in districts large and
small (Goldstein et al., 20200). Research participants discussed parents’ concerns about their
children falling behind academically, which was a common concern among parents of K–12
students (Horowitz et al., 2020).
79
Comparative Analysis: Summary of Common Themes
This study’s methodology involved two researchers collecting and analyzing data from
interviews and surveys, enabling triangulation. Triangulation is critical for cross-checking the
data and supporting the study’s findings (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). Research participants in
both studies were school superintendents, assistant superintendents, and principals at Southern
California K–12 public school districts. This study involved collecting qualitative data from
interviews and quantitative from surveys. The researchers worked individually, collecting and
analyzing data from six school districts. Additionally, the two researchers worked together more
closely to analyze the data to identify 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 participants appreciated the additional funds provided 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 superintendent indicated they had
13 to 20 unfilled positions each day. District leaders indicated that staffing shortages hindered
their ability to use the funds to respond to new needs how they would have liked. However,
districts used the funding to invest in technology. They purchased hotspots for students,
equipped buses with Wi-Fi, and extended Wi-Fi capabilities at school sites to ensure families had
an option to come to any school 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 superintendents indicated that the funds were not an
incentive to reopen and return to in-person instruction.
80
Another common theme 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 cabinet and site
leaders to ensure a common understanding and answer questions. 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 classified staff unions’ willingness to work
outside of regular job duties and support district leadership to bring students back to in-person
learning. The largest concern for unions was safety. It was important to all participating
superintendents to ensure safety measures that did not require negotiation. They sought to
demonstrate to their staff that they were willing to do what was right for everyone’s safety
without having to engage in negotiations.
Results revealed three common themes in the data analysis. Parents were concerned
about safety, and their worries ranged from being very conservative in their efforts to protect
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 had the guidance been uniform, consistent, and delivered as mandates instead
of recommendations. However, all expressed a sense of pride in their nutrition departments’
ability to meet their students’ and larger communities’ nutritional needs. Services ranged from
daily grab-and-go locations, community food pantries, food delivery services, and providing
families with 7 days of meals during one pick-up. There was 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 students’ and caregivers’
81
health. In other districts, while parents were more concerned about students’ academic progress
and unfinished learning, superintendents were more focused on students’ social-emotional
health.
Implications for Practice
Chapter Three presented the conceptual framework (Figure 1) used in this study. Three
theoretical frameworks worked together as a cycle of growth. If we take the challenges created
by the pandemic and the participants’ responses and look at them through the lens of this
conceptual framework, some lessons can apply to future practice. Participants’ responses show it
is imperative to increase school funding during crises. Additionally, it is important that school
leaders remain focused on the students and the school’s vision while maintaining communication
with stakeholders. Also, employees’ flexibility allowed for change to best meet students’ needs.
Increase Funding
In previous school closures, a common theme was the lack of funding to meet districts’
and schools’ needs. That was not the case for schools during the COVID-19 pandemic. The
funding provided to districts allowed them to implement safety practices to keep students and
staff safe. Additionally, the funds allowed for hiring additional staff, such as counselors and
psychologists. The additional funding was central to these schools’ success.
Focus on the Vision and Students
A significant challenge was the vagueness of information directing school operations.
Due to the lack of concrete language and frequently shifting guidance or recommendations,
districts were left to determine how to operate based on recommendations. This allowed districts
to operate differently, which led to confusion among the public, students, and school staff. A
couple of the superintendents focused on their districts’ goals. They understood they were not in
82
place to offer valid arguments either for or against these recommendations, so they took them at
face value. If there was a recommendation to wear masks, those superintendents mandated mask-
wearing, eliminating room for challenges. Through this stance, these leaders were better able to
focus on students and not policies they could not change.
Communicate, Over-Communicate
Another implication was the importance of communication, frequently referred to as
“over-communication” by the participants. From the beginning, each superintendent
communicated frequently with their students, staff, and communities. In fact, the longest interval
between communication was weekly, and most of the superintendents communicated to the
community multiple times a week as new information emerged. Several of the superintendents
also noted they felt responsible for offering hope and positivity in their communication. Focusing
on the students and visions for their schools, these leaders worked through the crisis by
communicating with stakeholders effectively.
Be Flexible
Participants addressed the importance of flexibility. Due to continually changing
guidance and needs, leading during this time required reflection, growth, and making changes to
meet their various stakeholders’ needs. By working closely with their staff and being honest
about challenges, these school leaders collaborated with their stakeholders to provide the best
educational experience possible for their students.
Conceptual Framework
These implications demonstrate the importance of addressing challenges through the
framework to best meet the needs of students, staff, and communities during a crisis. Given
vague messages, these leaders had to implement new policies and procedures, requiring
83
appropriate messaging to the various groups. After setting policy, these leaders had to
continuously reflect, learn, and change to meet the requirements set forth in changing guidance.
In the event that a new situation causes schools to close, utilizing this conceptual framework can
help strengthen leaders’ approach to leading their district or school.
Recommendations for Future Research
The research on the pandemic’s impact on students, schools, and families needs to
continue. This study began during the pandemic, and much of the information shared came from
superintendents, assistant superintendents, and principals still working through the crisis.
Nearing the 2-year anniversary of the initial shutdown on March 13, 2020, the state announced
that the requirement for students in public schools to wear masks indoors would be discontinued
on March 12, 2020 (Hong, 2022). Symbolically, eliminating the mask mandate for students in
classrooms signifies a return to normal, or the way students attended school prior to the
pandemic. If this is truly a shift out of the pandemic crisis, future reflection on this time will be
critical.
During the COVID-19 pandemic, districts and schools implemented many program
changes that will need to be analyzed in case of another similar situation. From virtual classroom
spaces to housing all class resources and assignments in digital classrooms, the educational
landscape had to change to meet safety needs. As students are returning to the physical space,
superintendents expressed a desire to transform the educational space by incorporating new
learning applications.
• If this trend continues, monitoring students’ success and achievements within this
reformed landscape can guide school leaders as they improve students’ educational
experience.
84
• Further research should examine the impact of union negotiations on school sites.
California Assembly Bill 86 provided an incentive for schools to reopen to in-person
learning. The need for an incentive suggests there was resistance to that idea. In this
study, all six superintendents noted they were anxious to return to school and that the
incentive, while appreciated, did not factor into the decision to open.
• This analysis only incorporated the input of six school districts, so a wider array of
schools would be needed to determine if these funds did incentivize districts to open
earlier than they would have if not for these additional funds.
• Continued research will need to examine the effects of pandemic-related stresses on
students’ and staff members’ social and emotional well-being. During this time, many
students and staff members lost family members to COVID-19, increasing stress
significantly. Thus, each superintendent in this research hired more support personnel
to help with this problem. While a consequence of this stress is an increase in
behavior issues, future research should seek long-term strategies to better meet
students’ needs.
Conclusion
On March 13, 2020, the educational landscape in the United States was severely
disrupted. As schools closed to in-person learning, district and school leaders worked with
teachers, students, and families to find ways to best educate students in a new landscape.
Superintendents, assistant superintendents, and principals were tasked with continuing to carry
out the challenge of educating in an environment seemingly set up to prevent that education.
Working collaboratively, these leaders overcame most of these challenges to meet their students’
and families’ needs, both educationally and nutritionally. While there were significant struggles
85
with student and staff social and emotional wellbeing, the districts and schools learned how to
support those needs. None of this could have happened without the additional funds directed to
schools due to the COVID-19 pandemic.
86
References
ABC, Inc. (2021, March 5). Los Angeles teachers union rejects return to classroom until
demands are met. https://abc7.com/los-angeles-teachers-union-utla-return-to-
class/10392567/
Anderson, E., Hayes, S., & Carpenter, B. (2020). Principal as caregiver of all: Responding to
needs of others and self. Consortium for Policy Research in Education
https://repository.upenn.edu/cpre_policybriefs/92
Bhamani, S., Makhdoom, A., Bharuchi, V., Ali, N., Kaleem, S., & Ahmed, D. (2020). Home
learning in times of COVID: Experiences of parents. Journal of Education and
Educational Development, 7(1), 9–26. https://doi.org/10.22555/joeed.v7i1.3260
Bipartisan Policy Center. (2020). New survey: Growing pandemic challenges for parents as fall
approaches. https://bipartisanpolicy.org/press-release/new-survey-growing-pandemic-
challenges-for-parents-as-fall-approaches/.
Bloom, S. (1997). Creating sanctuary: Toward the evolution of sane societies. Routledge.
Bolman, L. G., & Deal, T. E. (2017). Reframing organizations: Artistry, choice, and leadership.
John Wiley & Sons.
Braunack-Mayer, T. (2013). Understanding the school community’s response to school closures
during the H1N1 2009 influenza pandemic. BMC Public Health, 13(1), 344–344.
https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2458-13-344
Burke, M. (2020, March 30). Thousands of Los Angeles high school students are not accessing
online learning during school closures. EdSource. https://edsource.org/2020/thousands-
of-los-angeles-high-school-students-are-not-accessing-online-learning-during-school-
closures/627448
87
California Department of Education. (2020, March 27). State Superintendent Tony Thurmond
announces preliminary federal approval of testing and accountability waivers for 2019-
20 school year. https://www.cde.ca.gov/nr/ne/yr20/yr20rel15.asp
California Department of Education. (2021a). CARES Act funding
https://www.cde.ca.gov/fg/cr/caresact.asp
California Department of Education. (2021b). Federal stimulus funding.
https://www.cde.ca.gov/fg/cr/
California Department of Education. (2021c). Learning loss mitigation funding.
https://www.cde.ca.gov/fg/cr/learningloss.asp.
California Department of Public Health. (2021). About.
https://www.cdph.ca.gov/Pages/About.aspx
California School Employees Association. (2021a). About us. https://www.csea.com/about-us.
California School Employees Association. (2021b). FAQs. https://www.csea.com/cvfaq
California State Government. (n.d.). Your actions save lives: Keep California healthy.
https://covid19.ca.gov/
California State Government. (2021a). Definitions.
https://schools.covid19.ca.gov/pages/definitions
California State Government. (2021b). Tracking COVID-19 in California.
https://covid19.ca.gov/state-dashboard/
Castelo, M. (2020). How to prepare and support educators teaching from home. Technology
Solutions That Drive Education. https://edtechmagazine.com/k12/article/2020/04/how-
prepare-and-support-educators-teaching-home
88
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. (n.d.). Guidance documents.
https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/communication/guidance-
list.html?Sort=Date%3A%3Adesc&Page=10
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. (2019). 2009 H1N1 Pandemic (H1N1pdm09 virus).
https://www.cdc.gov/flu/pandemic-resources/2009-h1n1-pandemic.html
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. (2020a). Considerations for school closure.
https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/downloads/considerations-for-school-
closure.pdf
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. (2020b). Guidance for cleaning and disinfecting.
https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/community/pdf/reopening
_america_guidance.pdf
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. (2021). Mission, role and pledge.
https://www.cdc.gov/about/organization/mission.htm
Chen, M. (2020, December 10). For some workers, schools never closed. The Nation.
https://www.thenation.com/article/society/covid-school-workers/
Cipriano, C., & Brackett, M. (2020). Teachers are anxious and overwhelmed. They need SEL
now more than ever. Yale Center for Emotional Intelligence.
https://greatergood.berkeley.edu/article/item/how_to_support_teachers_emotional_needs
_right_now
Cohen, J. (2020, October 2). President Trump has consistently undermined White House
Coronavirus Task Force. Forbes.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/joshuacohen/2020/10/02/trump-has-perpetually-
undermined-white-house-coronavirus-task-force/?sh=45e1ef5e66ad
89
Cowie, H., & Myers, C. (2021). The impact of the COVID‐19 pandemic on the mental health
and well‐being of children and young people. Children & Society, 35(1), 62-74.
doi:10.1111/chso.12430
de Figueiredo, C. S., Sandre, P. C., Portugal, L. C. L., Mázala-de-Oliveira, T., da Silva Chagas,
L., Raony, Í., & Bomfim, P. O. (2021). COVID-19 pandemic impact on children and
adolescents’ mental health: Biological, environmental, and social factors. Progress in
Neuro-Psychopharmacology and Biological Psychiatry, 106, 110171.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pnpbp.2020.110171
Denzin, N. K. (2016). Critical qualitative inquiry. Qualitative Inquiry, 23(1), 8–16.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1077800416681864
Diliberti, M., Schwartz, H. L., Hamilton, L. S., & Kaufman, J. H. (2020). Prepared for a
pandemic? How schools ’ preparedness related to their remote instruction during
COVID-19. RAND Corporation. https://www.rand.org/pubs/research_reports/RRA168-
3.html
Education Data Partnership. (n.d.). 2019-20 School District Financial Data. https://www.ed-
data.org/
Education Data Partnership. (2021). Negotiating teachers ’ contracts in California.
Exceptional Lives. (2019). Special education: A glossary of terms and acronyms.
www.exceptionallives.org/blog/special-education-a- glossary-of- terms-and-acronyms
Exec. Order No. N-33-20, 3 CFR (2020).
Fauzi, I., & Sastra Khusuma, I. (2020). Teachers’ elementary school in online learning of
COVID-19 pandemic conditions. Jurnal Iqra ’: Kajian Ilmu Pendidikan, 5(1), 58-70.
https://doi.org/10.25217/ji.v5i1.914
90
Fein, A. H., & Isaacson, N. S. (2009). Echoes of Columbine: The emotion work of leaders in
school shooting sites. American Behavioral Scientist, 52(9), 1327–1346.
Fensterwald, J. (2020, July 1). Guide to California ’s education budget deferrals: pros, cons and
costs of delayed payments. EdSource. https://edsource.org/2020/guide-to-californias-
budget-deferrals-pros-cons-and-costs-of-delayed-payments/634950.
Fensterwald, J., Burke, M., Stavely, Z., & Johnson, S. (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
Flott, E., & Simpson, C. (2020). 6 ways coaches can support teachers during distance learning.
Learning Forward. https://learningforward.org/2020/05/19/6-ways-coaches-can-support-
teachers-during-distance-learning/
Fullan, M. (2014). The principal: three keys to maximizing impact. Wiley.
Gainey, B. (2009). Crisis management’s new role in educational settings. The clearing house. 82.
267-274. 10.3200/TCHS.82.6.267-274
Glesne, C. (2011). Becoming qualitative researchers: An introduction.
The Glossary of Education Reform. (2021). Cohort. https://www.edglossary.org/cohort/
Goddard, R. D., Hoy, W. K., & Hoy, A. W. (2000). Collective teacher efficacy: Its meaning,
measure, and impact on student achievement. American Educational Research Journal,
37(2), 479–507.
Goldman, A., & Byrnes, S. (1994, February 23). Earthquake: The road to recovery : Shaky
return to school : Education: Disoriented Kennedy high students receive maps to
bungalows five weeks after quake damaged their campus. they learn to adapt. Los
91
Angeles Times. Retrieved March 7, 2022, from https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-
xpm-1994-02-23-me-26226-story.html
Gouwens, L. (2008). School Leadership in changing cultural contexts: How Mississippi
superintendents are responding to Hurricane Katrina. Journal of Education for Students
Placed at Risk, 13(2-3), 273–296. https://doi.org/10.1080/10824660802350276
Hemphill, A. A., & Marianno, B. D. (2021). Teachers’ unions, collective bargaining, and the
response to COVID-19. Education Finance and Policy, 16(1), 170–182.
https://doi.org/10.1162/edfp_a_00326
Herold, B. (2020). The scramble to move America’s schools online: Already in crisis mode, K–
12 schools must now figure out how to educate tens of millions of children stuck at home
due to the coronavirus pandemic. Education Week, 39(28), 14.
Hong, J. (2022, February 28). California mask mandate for schools to end after March 11.
CalMatters. Retrieved March 3, 2022, from https://calmatters.org/education/k–12-
education/2022/02/california-mask-mandate-schools/
Javed, B., Sarwer, A., Soto, E. B., & Mashwani, Z. (2020). The coronavirus (COVID‐19)
pandemic’s impact on mental health. The International Journal of Health Planning and
Management, 35(5), 993-996. doi:10.1002/hpm.3008
Jones, C., & Freedberg, L. (2021, March 4). California Legislature approves plan to encourage
schools to reopen for in-person instruction. EdSource.
https://edsource.org/2021/california-legislature-approves-plan-to-encourage-schools-to-
reopen-for-in-person-instruction/650493
92
Kaden, U., & Martin, K. (2020, October 20). Covid-19 school closure experiences in rural
Alaska and reimagining the roles of Education and teachers. PDXScholar. Retrieved
March 7, 2022, from https://pdxscholar.library.pdx.edu/nwjte/vol15/iss2/11/
Kinsey, E. W., Hecht, A. A., Dunn, C. G., Levi, R., Read, M. A., Smith, C., Niesen, P.,
Seligman, H. K., & Hager, E. R. (2020). School closures during COVID-19:
Opportunities for innovation in meal service. American Journal of Public Health,
110(11), 1635-1643.
Klaiman, T., Kraemer, J., & Stoto, M. (2011). Variability in school closure decisions in response
to 2009 H1N1: a qualitative systems improvement analysis. BMC Public Health, 11(1),
73–73. https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2458-11-73
Klein, A. (2006, March 24). Schools get Katrina aid, uncertainty. Education Week.
https://www.edweek.org/policy-politics/schools-get-katrina-aid-
uncertainty/2006/03#:~:text=The%20%241.4%20billion%20hurricane%2Drelief,Hurrica
ne%20Katrina%20or%20Hurricane%20Rita.
Kuhfeld, M., Soland, J., Tarasaw, B., Johnson, A., Ruzek, E., & Liu, J. (2020). Projecting the
potential impact of COVID-19 school closures on academic achievement. Educational
Researcher, 49(8), 549–565. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X20965918
Kurtz, H. (2020). In-person learning expands, student absences up, teachers work longer, survey
shows. Education Week. https://www.edweek.org/leadership/in-person-learning-exp
Lake, R., & Makori, A. (2020, June 16). The digital divide among students during COVID-19:
Who has access? Who doesn ’t? Center on Reinventing Public Education.
https://www.crpe.org/thelens/digital-divide-among-students-during-covid-19-who-has-
access-who-doesnt
93
Lambert, D., & Washburn, D. (2018, December 4). Tears, hugs mark reunion of Paradise
students and teachers. EdSource. https://edsource.org/2018/tears-hugs-mark-reunion-of-
paradise-students-and-teachers/605582.
Learning loss definition. The Glossary of Education Reform. (2013, August 29). Retrieved
March 7, 2022, from https://www.edglossary.org/learning-loss/
Lee, A., Cheng, F., Yuen, H., & Ho, M. (2003). How would schools step up public health
measures to control spread of SARS? Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health,
57(12), 945–949. https://doi.org/10.1136/jech.57.12.945
Lee, J. (2020). Mental health effects of school closures during COVID-19. The Lancet Child &
Adolescent Health, 4(6), 421. https://doi.org/10.1016/s2352-4642(20)30109-7
Lieberman, M. (2020a, November 19). 5 Things You Need to Know About Student Absences
During COVID-19. Education Week. https://www.edweek.org/leadership/5-things-you-
need-to-know-about-student-absences-during-covid-19/2020/10#
Lieberman, M. (2020a, December 4). Air purifiers, fans, and Filters: A COVID-19 explainer for
schools. Education Week. https://www.edweek.org/leadership/air-purifiers-fans-and-
filters-a-covid-19-explainer-for-schools/2020/10
Lochmiller, C. R., & Lester, J. N. (2017). An introduction to educational research: Connecting
methods to practice. Sage Publications.
Los Angeles Times. (2021, March 11). The pandemic Year: March 2020 to March 2021.
https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2021-03-11/the-pandemic-year-march-2020-to-
march-2021
Los Angeles Unified School District. (2021). At-home learning: A California education
partnership. LAUSD. https://achieve.lausd.net/pbs
94
Mahnken, K. (2020). Half of all school employees aren ’t teachers. This recession will endanger
their jobs. https://www.the74million.org/article/half-of-all-school-employees-arent-
teachers-this-recession-will-endanger-their-jobs/
Malkus, N., Christensen, C., & Shurz, J. (2020). School district responses to the COVID-19
pandemic: Round 6, ending the year of closures. American Enterprise Institute for Public
Policy Research. https://www.aei.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/06/School-district-
responses-to-the-COVID-19-Pandemic-Round-6.pdf
Malkus, N., Christensen, C., & West, L. (2020a). School district responses to the COVID-19
pandemic: Round 1, districts ’ initial responses. American Enterprise Institute for Public
Policy Research.
Malkus, N., Christensen, C., & West, L. (2020b). School district responses to the COVID-19
pandemic: Round 2, districts are up and running. American Enterprise Institute for
Public Policy Research.
Maxwell, J. A. (2013). Qualitative research design: An interactive approach. SAGE.
Mayer, B. W., Moss, J., & Dale, K. (2008). Disaster and preparedness: Lessons from Hurricane
Rita. Journal of Contingencies and Crisis Management, 16(1), 14–23.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-5973.2008.00531.x
McLoughlin, G. M., McCarthy, J. A., McGuirt, J. T., Singleton, C. R., Dunn, C. G., & Gadhoke,
P. (2020). Addressing food insecurity through a health and equity lens: A case study of
large urban school districts during the COVID-19 pandemic. Journal of Urban Health 97,
759–775.
Merriam, S. B., & Tisdell, E. J. (2016). Qualitative research: A guide to design and
implementation. Jossey-Bass.
95
National Conference of State Legislatures. (n.d.). Labor and employment.
https://www.ncsl.org/research/labor-and-employment/covid-19- essential- workers-in-
the-states.aspx#
National Conference of 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
Nierenberg, A., & Pasick, A. (2021, January 29). The impact of teacher deaths. The New York
Times. https://www.nytimes.com/2021/01/29/us/the-impact-of-teacher-deaths.html.
Oblack, R. (2020). How New Orleans went back-to-school after Hurricane Katrina. ThoughtCo.
https://www.thoughtco.com/back-to-school-after-hurricane-katrina-3443854.
Restore the Mississippi River Delta. (2017). Hurricanes. https://mississippiriverdelta.org/our-
coastal-crisis/hurricanes/
San Diego County Office of Education. (2020). San Diego Unified closes schools, anticipated
closure of other county schools. https://www.sdcoe.net/news/Pages/20-03-12-Updates-
Guidance-COVID-19.aspx
San Francisco Unified School District. (2020). Schools will close to students for 3 weeks.
https://www.sfusd.edu/about/news/current-news/schools-will-close-students-3-weeks
Schwartz, S. (2020). Flood of online learning resources overwhelms teachers. Education Week.
https://www.edweek.org/teaching-learning/flood-of-online-learning-resources-
overwhelms-teachers/2020/03.
Singer, B. J., Thompson, R. N., & Bonsall, M. B. (2021). The effect of the definition of
‘pandemic’ on quantitative assessments of infectious disease outbreak risk. Sci Rep 11,
2547. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-021-81814-3
96
Spinelli, M., Lionetti, F., Pastore, M., & Fasolo, M. (2020). Parents’ stress and children’s
psychological problems in families facing the COVID-19 outbreak in Italy. Frontiers in
Psychology, 11. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2020.01713
State of California. (2020a, March 18). Governor Newsom issues executive order to suspend
standardized testing for students in response to COVID-19 outbreak.
https://www.gov.ca.gov/2020/03/18/governor-newsom-issues-executive-order-to-
suspend-standardized-testing-for-students-in-response-to-covid-19-outbreak/
State of California. (2020b, December 30). Governor Newsom unveils California ’s Safe Schools
for All Plan. https://www.gov.ca.gov/2020/12/30/governor-newsom-unveils-californias-
safe-schools-for-all-plan/
Stern, C. (2009). Closing the schools: Lessons from the 1918–19 US influenza pandemic:
Ninety-one years later, the evidence shows that there are positive and negative ways to do
it. Health Affairs, 28(Supplement 1), w1066–w1078.
https://doi.org/10.1377/hlthaff.28.6.w1066
United States Government Accountability Office. (2011). Hurricanes Katrina and Rita.
Temporary emergency impact aid provided education support for displaced students.
Retrieved from https://www.gao.gov/products/gao-11-839
United States Department of Labor. (2021). Personal protective equipment.
https://www.osha.gov/personal-protective-equipment
United States Government Accountability Office. (2011). Hurricanes Katrina and Rita.
Temporary emergency impact aid provided education support for displaced students.
https://www.gao.gov/products/gao-11-839
97
USAFacts. (2020). More than 9 million children lack internet access at home for online
learning. https://usafacts.org/articles/internet-access-students-at-home/
Valdepena, B. (2020, September 7). Op-ed: School custodians like me are considered essential
workers. We’re not treated like it. Los Angeles Times.
https://www.latimes.com/opinion/story/2020-09-07/school-custodians-essential-workers-
classified.
Wang, G., Zhang, Y., Zhao, J., Zhang, J., & Jiang, F. (2020). Mitigate the effects of home
confinement on children during the COVID-19 outbreak. The Lancet, 395(10228), 945–
947. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0140-6736(20)30547-x
Westover, J. (2020). Districts on the move: Leading a coherent system of continuous
improvement. Corwin.
Will, M., Gewertz, C., & Schwartz, S. (2021, January 19). Did COVID-19 really drive teachers
to quit? Education Week. https://www.edweek.org/teaching-learning/did-covid-19-really-
drive-teachers-to-quit/2020/11
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
www.ed-data.org/article/Negotiating- Teachers%27-Contracts-in-California
Xiong J;Lipsitz O;Nasri F;Lui LMW;Gill H;Phan L;Chen-Li D;Iacobucci M;Ho R;Majeed
A;McIntyre RS; (2020, December 1). Impact of covid-19 pandemic on Mental Health in
the general population: A systematic review. Journal of affective disorders. Retrieved
March 7, 2022, from https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32799105/
98
Zimmerman, K. (2017). In tragedy-touched Newtown, parents oppose school closing plans.
Fairfield County Business Journal, 53(1), 5.
99
Appendix A: Superintendent Invitation Letter
Date
Dear Superintendent ___________,
My name is [USC STUDENT’S NAME] and I am currently completing my doctoral
dissertation at the University of Southern California’s Rossier School of Education under the
guidance of Dr. Rudy Castruita. I am writing to invite you to participate in a 15-minute survey
and 35-minute virtual interview. In addition, I am also requesting your permission to administer
a survey and conduct an interview with an assistant superintendent and principal in your district.
Within the survey is a place for you to recommend an assistant superintendent and a principal
from your district to participate in this research. Collecting data from highly effective leaders
such as yourselves would be greatly appreciated and is essential for the success of this study.
The ultimate purpose of the study is to analyze the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on
K–12 school districts. We aim to understand what district and site administrators have learned
from their experiences and their decision-making responsibilities in managing the crisis.
This research study has been reviewed and approved by the University of Southern
California Institutional Review Board for Human Subjects Research (IRB). The IRB believes
that the research procedures safeguard your privacy, welfare, civil liberties, anonymity, and
rights. Please be assured that your participation and answers will be kept confidential and
anonymous. The results will be analyzed solely for this dissertation and no identifying
information will be used.
Please click on this survey link to participate.
If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me at -----------@----. Thank you
very much for your time and assistance.
100
Sincerely,
[researcher’s name]
Doctoral Candidate
Rossier School of Education
University of Southern California
101
Appendix B: Assistant Superintendent Invitation Letter
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]
102
Doctoral Candidate
Rossier School of Education
University of Southern California
103
Appendix C: Principal Invitation Letter
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]
104
Doctoral Candidate
Rossier School of Education
University of Southern California
105
Appendix D: Superintendent Survey Instrument
Thank you for participating in this research project. The goal is to understand how the
COVID-19 pandemic affected K–12 school districts, and in doing so, transformed the role of
district and school site leaders into crisis managers. You were chosen to participate in this survey
because you demonstrated leadership as a superintendent during the COVID-19 crisis.
Your participation in this study is entirely voluntary. Your identity, position, and any
identifying information about your district will be anonymized to secure confidentiality. Thank
you again for your participation. We also invite you to take part in a virtual 35-minute interview
to be scheduled at your convenience after the survey.
The following section details each survey question and the corresponding response
selections:
1. How many years have you served as a superintendent?
a. Less than 1 year
b. 1 to 2 years
c. 3 to 5 years
d. 6 to 10 years
e. Over 10 years
2. How long have you been superintendent at your current district? Less than 1 year
a. 1 to 2 years
b. 3 to 5 years
c. 6 to 10 years
d. Over 10 years
3. The CARES Act met my district's funding needs in the area of personnel.
106
a. Strongly Disagree
b. Disagree
c. Neither Agree nor Disagree
d. Agree
e. Strongly Agree
4. The CARES Act met my district's funding needs in the area of personal protective
equipment (PPE).
a. Strongly Disagree
b. Disagree
c. Neither Agree nor Disagree
d. Agree
e. Strongly Agree
5. The CARES Act met my district's funding needs in the area of technology.
a. Strongly Disagree
b. Disagree
c. Neither Agree nor Disagree
d. Agree
e. Strongly Agree
6. The CARES Act met my district's funding needs in the area of professional learning
and/or training.
a. Strongly Disagree
b. Disagree
c. Neither Agree nor Disagree
107
d. Agree
e. Strongly Agree
7. The CARES Act met my district's funding needs in the area of facility upgrades.
a. Strongly Disagree
b. Disagree
c. Neither Agree nor Disagree
d. Agree
e. Strongly Agree
8. The federal, state, and local health guidelines were clear in providing information to
support the safe reopening of schools.
a. Strongly Disagree
b. Disagree
c. Neither Agree nor Disagree
d. Agree
e. Strongly Agree
9. I understood how to safely bring back staff during the fall of 2020 to work sites based on
the public health guidelines.
a. Strongly Disagree
b. Disagree
c. Neither Agree nor Disagree
d. Agree
e. Strongly Agree
10. The health guidelines impacted our district's return to school plan in the spring of 2021.
108
a. Strongly Disagree
b. Disagree
c. Neither Agree nor Disagree
d. Agree
e. Strongly Agree
11. Negotiations with certificated unions influenced the way my district effectively
responded to the COVID-19 pandemic for students and families.
a. Strongly Disagree
b. Disagree
c. Neither Agree nor Disagree
d. Agree
e. Strongly Agree
12. Negotiations with classified unions influenced the way of my district effectively
responding to the COVID-19 pandemic for students and families.
a. Strongly Disagree
b. Disagree
c. Neither Agree nor Disagree
d. Agree
e. Strongly Agree
13. Negotiations with the teacher's union impacted the quality of instruction offered to
students during distance learning.
a. Strongly Disagree
b. Disagree
109
c. Neither Agree nor Disagree
d. Agree
e. Strongly Agree
14. My district maintained good communication with families during the pandemic.
a. Strongly Disagree
b. Disagree
c. Neither Agree nor Disagree
d. Agree
e. Strongly Agree
15. My district met the needs of students and families in the area of nutrition.
a. Strongly Disagree
b. Disagree
c. Neither Agree nor Disagree
d. Agree
e. Strongly Agree
16. My district met the needs of students and families in the area of technology
(computers/devices).
a. Strongly Disagree
b. Disagree
c. Neither Agree nor Disagree
d. Agree
e. Strongly Agree
110
17. My district met the needs of students and families in the area of technology (internet
service).
a. Strongly Disagree
b. Disagree
c. Neither Agree nor Disagree
d. Agree
e. Strongly Agree
18. My district met the needs of students and families in the area of social emotional well-
being.
a. Strongly Disagree
b. Disagree
c. Neither Agree nor Disagree
d. Agree
e. Strongly Agree
19. My district met the needs of students and families in the area of health & safety.
a. Strongly Disagree
b. Disagree
c. Neither Agree nor Disagree
d. Agree
e. Strongly Agree
20. My district met the academic needs of students.
a. Strongly Disagree
b. Disagree
111
c. Neither Agree nor Disagree
d. Agree
e. Strongly Agree
21. The board of education supported my district’s response to the COVID-19 pandemic?
a. Strongly Disagree
b. Disagree
c. Neither Agree nor Disagree
d. Agree
e. Strongly Agree
22. District administrators supported my district’s response to the COVID-19 pandemic?
a. Strongly Disagree
b. Disagree
c. Neither Agree nor Disagree
d. Agree
e. Strongly Agree
23. District facilities and operations teams supported my district’s response to the COVID-19
pandemic?
a. Strongly Disagree
b. Disagree
c. Neither Agree nor Disagree
d. Agree
e. Strongly Agree
24. Teachers supported my district’s response to the COVID-19 pandemic?
112
a. Strongly Disagree
b. Disagree
c. Neither Agree nor Disagree
d. Agree
e. Strongly Agree
25. Classified staff supported my district’s response to the COVID-19 pandemic?
a. Strongly Disagree
b. Disagree
c. Neither Agree nor Disagree
d. Agree
e. Strongly Agree
26. Families supported my district’s response to the COVID-19 pandemic?
a. Strongly Disagree
b. Disagree
c. Neither Agree nor Disagree
d. Agree
e. Strongly Agree
Additionally, the following two questions were asked of superintendents in order to help
coordinate the participation of an assistant superintendent and principal:
27. I recommend the following assistant superintendent from my district to participate in this
study.
28. I recommend the following principal from my district to participate in this study.
113
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.
114
Appendix E: Assistant Superintendent Survey Instrument
Thank you for participating in this research project. The goal is to understand how the
COVID-19 pandemic affected K–12 school districts, and in doing so, transformed the role of
district and school site leaders into crisis managers. You were chosen to participate in this survey
because you demonstrated leadership as an assistant superintendent during the COVID-19 crisis.
Your participation in this study is entirely voluntary. Your identity, position, and any
identifying information about your district will be anonymized to secure confidentiality. Thank
you again for your participation. We also invite you to take part in a virtual 35-minute interview
to be scheduled at your convenience after the survey.
The following section details each survey question and the corresponding response
selections:
1. How many years have you served as an assistant superintendent?
a. Less than 1 year
b. 1 to 2 years
c. 3 to 5 years
d. 6 to 10 years
e. Over 10 years
2. How long have you been an assistant superintendent at your current district?
a. Less than 1 year
b. 1 to 2 years
c. 3 to 5 years
d. 6 to 10 years
e. Over 10 years
115
3. The CARES Act met my district's funding needs in the area of personnel.
a. Strongly Disagree
b. Disagree
c. Neither Agree nor Disagree
d. Agree
e. Strongly Agree
4. The CARES Act met my district's funding needs in the area of personal protective
equipment (PPE).
a. Strongly Disagree
b. Disagree
c. Neither Agree nor Disagree
d. Agree
e. Strongly Agree
5. The CARES Act met my district's funding needs in the area of technology.
a. Strongly Disagree
b. Disagree
c. Neither Agree nor Disagree
d. Agree
e. Strongly Agree
6. The CARES Act met my district's funding needs in the area of professional learning
and/or training.
a. Strongly Disagree
b. Disagree
116
c. Neither Agree nor Disagree
d. Agree
e. Strongly Agree
7. The CARES Act met my district's funding needs in the area of facility upgrades.
a. Strongly Disagree
b. Disagree
c. Neither Agree nor Disagree
d. Agree
e. Strongly Agree
8. The federal, state, and local health guidelines were clear in providing information to
support the safe reopening of schools.
a. Strongly Disagree
b. Disagree
c. Neither Agree nor Disagree
d. Agree
e. Strongly Agree
9. I understood how to safely bring back staff during the fall of 2020 to work sites based on
the public health guidelines.
a. Strongly Disagree
b. Disagree
c. Neither Agree nor Disagree
d. Agree
e. Strongly Agree
117
10. The health guidelines impacted our district's return to school plan in the spring of 2021.
a. Strongly Disagree
b. Disagree
c. Neither Agree nor Disagree
d. Agree
e. Strongly Agree
11. Negotiations with certificated unions influenced the way my district effectively
responded to the COVID-19 pandemic for students and families.
a. Strongly Disagree
b. Disagree
c. Neither Agree nor Disagree
d. Agree
e. Strongly Agree
12. Negotiations with classified unions influenced the way of my district effectively
responding to the COVID-19 pandemic for students and families.
a. Strongly Disagree
b. Disagree
c. Neither Agree nor Disagree
d. Agree
e. Strongly Agree
13. Negotiations with the teacher's union impacted the quality of instruction offered to
students during distance learning.
a. Strongly Disagree
118
b. Disagree
c. Neither Agree nor Disagree
d. Agree
e. Strongly Agree
14. My district maintained good communication with families during the pandemic.
a. Strongly Disagree
b. Disagree
c. Neither Agree nor Disagree
d. Agree
e. Strongly Agree
15. My district met the needs of students and families in the area of nutrition.
a. Strongly Disagree
b. Disagree
c. Neither Agree nor Disagree
d. Agree
e. Strongly Agree
16. My district met the needs of students and families in the area of technology
(computers/devices).
a. Strongly Disagree
b. Disagree
c. Neither Agree nor Disagree
d. Agree
e. Strongly Agree
119
17. My district met the needs of students and families in the area of technology (internet
service).
a. Strongly Disagree
b. Disagree
c. Neither Agree nor Disagree
d. Agree
e. Strongly Agree
18. My district met the needs of students and families in the area of social emotional well-
being.
a. Strongly Disagree
b. Disagree
c. Neither Agree nor Disagree
d. Agree
e. Strongly Agree
19. My district met the needs of students and families in the area of health & safety.
a. Strongly Disagree
b. Disagree
c. Neither Agree nor Disagree
d. Agree
e. Strongly Agree
20. My district met the academic needs of students.
a. Strongly Disagree
b. Disagree
120
c. Neither Agree nor Disagree
d. Agree
e. Strongly Agree
21. The board of education supported my district’s response to the COVID-19 pandemic?
a. Strongly Disagree
b. Disagree
c. Neither Agree nor Disagree
d. Agree
e. Strongly Agree
22. District administrators supported my district’s response to the COVID-19 pandemic?
a. Strongly Disagree
b. Disagree
c. Neither Agree nor Disagree
d. Agree
e. Strongly Agree
23. District facilities and operations teams supported my district’s response to the COVID-19
pandemic?
a. Strongly Disagree
b. Disagree
c. Neither Agree nor Disagree
d. Agree
e. Strongly Agree
24. Teachers supported my district’s response to the COVID-19 pandemic?
121
a. Strongly Disagree
b. Disagree
c. Neither Agree nor Disagree
d. Agree
e. Strongly Agree
25. Classified staff supported my district’s response to the COVID-19 pandemic?
a. Strongly Disagree
b. Disagree
c. Neither Agree nor Disagree
d. Agree
e. Strongly Agree
26. Families supported my district’s response to the COVID-19 pandemic?
a. Strongly Disagree
b. Disagree
c. Neither Agree nor Disagree
d. Agree
e. Strongly Agree
Closing
We appreciate your willingness to participate in the survey. Your responses will help us
better understand the perspectives of district assistant superintendents during the COVID-19
pandemic and experiences as crisis-managers.
We will be in touch to invite you to take part in a virtual 35-minute interview to be
scheduled at your convenience.
122
Appendix F: Principal Survey Instrument
Thank you for participating in this research project. The goal is to understand how the
COVID-19 pandemic affected K–12 school districts, and in doing so, transformed the role of
district and school site leaders into crisis managers. You were chosen to participate in this survey
because you demonstrated leadership as a principal during the COVID-19 crisis.
Your participation in this study is entirely voluntary. Your identity, position, and any
identifying information about your school will be anonymized to secure confidentiality. Thank
you again for your participation. We also invite you to take part in a virtual 35-minute interview
to be scheduled at your convenience after the survey.
The following section details each survey question and the corresponding response
selections:
1. How many years have you served as a principal?
a. Less than 1 year
b. 1 to 2 years
c. 3 to 5 years
d. 6 to 10 years
e. Over 10 years
2. How long have you been a principal at your current district?
a. Less than 1 year
b. 1 to 2 years
c. 3 to 5 years
d. 6 to 10 years
e. Over 10 years
123
3. The CARES Act met my school’s funding needs in the area of personnel.
a. Strongly Disagree
b. Disagree
c. Neither Agree nor Disagree
d. Agree
e. Strongly Agree
4. The CARES Act met my school’s funding needs in the area of personal protective
equipment (PPE).
a. Strongly Disagree
b. Disagree
c. Neither Agree nor Disagree
d. Agree
e. Strongly Agree
5. The CARES Act met my school’s funding needs in the area of technology.
a. Strongly Disagree
b. Disagree
c. Neither Agree nor Disagree
d. Agree
e. Strongly Agree
6. The CARES Act met my school’s funding needs in the area of professional learning
and/or training.
a. Strongly Disagree
b. Disagree
124
c. Neither Agree nor Disagree
d. Agree
e. Strongly Agree
7. The CARES Act met my school’s funding needs in the area of facility upgrades.
a. Strongly Disagree
b. Disagree
c. Neither Agree nor Disagree
d. Agree
e. Strongly Agree
8. The federal, state, and local health guidelines were clear in providing information to
support the safe reopening of schools.
a. Strongly Disagree
b. Disagree
c. Neither Agree nor Disagree
d. Agree
e. Strongly Agree
9. I understood how to safely bring back staff during the fall of 2020 to work sites based on
the public health guidelines.
a. Strongly Disagree
b. Disagree
c. Neither Agree nor Disagree
d. Agree
e. Strongly Agree
125
10. The health guidelines impacted our school’s return to school plan in the spring of 2021.
a. Strongly Disagree
b. Disagree
c. Neither Agree nor Disagree
d. Agree
e. Strongly Agree
11. Negotiations with certificated unions influenced the way my district effectively
responded to the COVID-19 pandemic for students and families.
a. Strongly Disagree
b. Disagree
c. Neither Agree nor Disagree
d. Agree
e. Strongly Agree
12. Negotiations with classified unions influenced the way of my district effectively
responding to the COVID-19 pandemic for students and families.
a. Strongly Disagree
b. Disagree
c. Neither Agree nor Disagree
d. Agree
e. Strongly Agree
13. Negotiations with the teacher's union impacted the quality of instruction offered to
students during distance learning.
a. Strongly Disagree
126
b. Disagree
c. Neither Agree nor Disagree
d. Agree
e. Strongly Agree
14. My school maintained good communication with families during the pandemic.
a. Strongly Disagree
b. Disagree
c. Neither Agree nor Disagree
d. Agree
e. Strongly Agree
15. My school met the needs of students and families in the area of nutrition.
a. Strongly Disagree
b. Disagree
c. Neither Agree nor Disagree
d. Agree
e. Strongly Agree
16. My school met the needs of students and families in the area of technology
(computers/devices).
a. Strongly Disagree
b. Disagree
c. Neither Agree nor Disagree
d. Agree
e. Strongly Agree
127
17. My school met the needs of students and families in the area of technology (internet
service).
a. Strongly Disagree
b. Disagree
c. Neither Agree nor Disagree
d. Agree
e. Strongly Agree
18. My school met the needs of students and families in the area of social emotional well-
being.
a. Strongly Disagree
b. Disagree
c. Neither Agree nor Disagree
d. Agree
e. Strongly Agree
19. My school met the needs of students and families in the area of health & safety.
a. Strongly Disagree
b. Disagree
c. Neither Agree nor Disagree
d. Agree
e. Strongly Agree
20. My school met the academic needs of students.
a. Strongly Disagree
b. Disagree
128
c. Neither Agree nor Disagree
d. Agree
e. Strongly Agree
21. The board of education supported my school’s response to the COVID-19 pandemic?
a. Strongly Disagree
b. Disagree
c. Neither Agree nor Disagree
d. Agree
e. Strongly Agree
22. School administrators supported my school’s response to the COVID-19 pandemic?
a. Strongly Disagree
b. Disagree
c. Neither Agree nor Disagree
d. Agree
e. Strongly Agree
23. School facilities and operations teams supported my school’s response to the COVID-19
pandemic?
a. Strongly Disagree
b. Disagree
c. Neither Agree nor Disagree
d. Agree
e. Strongly Agree
24. Teachers supported my school’s response to the COVID-19 pandemic?
129
a. Strongly Disagree
b. Disagree
c. Neither Agree nor Disagree
d. Agree
e. Strongly Agree
25. Classified staff supported my school’s response to the COVID-19 pandemic?
a. Strongly Disagree
b. Disagree
c. Neither Agree nor Disagree
d. Agree
e. Strongly Agree
26. Families supported my school’s response to the COVID-19 pandemic?
a. Strongly Disagree
b. Disagree
c. Neither Agree nor Disagree
d. Agree
e. Strongly Agree
Closing
We appreciate your willingness to participate in the survey. Your responses will help us
better understand the perspectives of school principals during the COVID-19 Pandemic and
experiences as crisis-managers.
We will be in touch to invite you to take part in a virtual 35-minute interview to be
scheduled at your convenience.
130
Appendix G: Superintendent Interview Questions
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?
A. What, if any, are the financial implications that the COVID-19 pandemic has had on
K–12 districts and how have district leaders addressed these implications?
1. What have been the biggest financial implications of the pandemic on your
district?
2. In what ways, if any, would more spending flexibility/structure have
benefitted your district?
131
3. In what ways has COVID-19 related funding been used to meet student needs
in your district?
4. To what extent, if any, did financial incentive influence your district’s
reopening plan/timeline?
B. What, if any, have been the impact of Federal, State and Local Health agencies on K–
12 school districts, and what strategies have districts followed to address the
suggested guidelines?
5. In what ways did your district collaborate with federal, state, and local
government agencies and community organizations to support your school
district during COVID? What agencies or organizations?
6. To what degree, if any, did the various agencies align COVID-19 guidance for
schools?
7. What strategies have been effective for your district in implementing health
guidelines/policies?
8. Who in your district was primarily in charge of interpreting and implementing
the health guidelines/policies?
C. How, if at all, have union negotiations played a role in K–12 district’s response to the
COVID-19 Pandemic?
9. What were the most important issues negotiated with your teachers union and
how were they resolved?
10. What were the most important issues negotiated with your classified union
and how were they resolved?
132
11. In what ways, if any, were instructional programs influenced by union
negotiations in your district?
12. In what ways, if any, were safety protocols influenced by union negotiations
in your district?
D. How, if at all, has your district addressed the concerns of the parent community
regarding safety, nutrition, distance learning, lack of technology, academic standing,
and how and when to open schools due to the COVID-19 pandemic?
13. In what ways did your district gather input from and communicate to the
community?
14. What were the biggest concerns from your district’s community and how were
they addressed?
a. Were there any safety concerns?
b. Were there any nutrition concerns?
c. Were there any academic concerns?
d. Were there any technology concerns?
e. Were there any re-opening concerns?
Conclusion
Thank you for your time and willingness to meet with me and for all the valuable
information you provided for this study.
133
Appendix H: Assistant Superintendent Interview Questions
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?
A. What, if any, are the financial implications that the COVID-19 pandemic has had on
K–12 districts and how have district leaders addressed these implications?
1. What have been the biggest financial implications of the pandemic on your
school?
2. In what ways, if any, would more spending flexibility/structure have
benefitted your school?
134
3. In what ways has COVID-19 related funding been used to meet student needs
in your school?
4. To what extent, if any, did financial incentive influence your school’s
reopening plan/timeline?
B. What, if any, have been the impact of Federal, State and Local Health agencies on K–
12 school districts, and what strategies have districts followed to address the
suggested guidelines?
1. In what ways did your school collaborate with federal, state, and local
government agencies and community organizations to support your school
school during COVID? What agencies or organizations?
2. To what degree, if any, did the various agencies align COVID-19 guidance for
schools?
3. What strategies have been effective for your school in implementing health
guidelines/policies?
4. Who in your school was primarily in charge of interpreting and implementing
the health guidelines/policies?
C. How, if at all, have union negotiations played a role in K–12 district’s response to the
COVID-19 pandemic?
1. What were the most important issues negotiated with your teachers union and
how were they resolved?
2. What were the most important issues negotiated with your classified union
and how were they resolved?
135
3. In what ways, if any, were instructional programs influenced by union
negotiations in your school?
4. In what ways, if any, were safety protocols influenced by union negotiations
in your school?
D. How, if at all, has your district addressed the concerns of the parent community
regarding safety, nutrition, distance learning, lack of technology, academic standing,
and how and when to open schools due to the COVID-19 pandemic?
1. In what ways did your school gather input from and communicate to the
community?
2. What were the biggest concerns from your school’s community and how were
they addressed?
i. Were there any safety concerns?
ii. Were there any nutrition concerns?
iii. Were there any academic concerns?
iv. Were there any technology concerns?
v. Were there any re-opening concerns?
Conclusion
Thank you for your time and willingness to meet with me and for all the valuable
information you provided for this study.
136
Appendix I: Principal Interview Questions
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?
A. What, if any, are the financial implications that the COVID-19 pandemic has had on K–
12 districts and how have district leaders addressed these implications?
1. What have been the biggest financial implications of the pandemic on your
school?
2. In what ways, if any, would more spending flexibility/structure have benefitted
your school?
137
3. In what ways has COVID-19 related funding been used to meet student needs in
your school?
4. To what extent, if any, did financial incentive influence your school’s reopening
plan/timeline?
B. What, if any, have been the impact of federal, state and local health agencies on K–12
school districts, and what strategies have districts followed to address the suggested
guidelines?
1. In what ways did your school collaborate with federal, state, and local
government agencies and community organizations to support your school school
during COVID? What agencies or organizations?
2. To what degree, if any, did the various agencies align COVID-19 guidance for
schools?
3. What strategies have been effective for your school in implementing health
guidelines/policies?
4. Who in your school was primarily in charge of interpreting and implementing the
health guidelines/policies?
C. How, if at all, have union negotiations played a role in K–12 district’s response to the
COVID-19 Pandemic?
1. What were the most important issues negotiated with your teachers union and
how were they resolved?
2. What were the most important issues negotiated with your classified union and
how were they resolved?
138
3. In what ways, if any, were instructional programs influenced by union
negotiations in your school?
4. In what ways, if any, were safety protocols influenced by union negotiations in
your school?
D. How, if at all, has your district addressed the concerns of the parent community regarding
safety, nutrition, distance learning, lack of technology, academic standing, and how and
when to open schools due to the COVID-19 pandemic?
1. In what ways did your school gather input from and communicate to the
community?
2. What were the biggest concerns from your school’s community and how were
they addressed?
i. Were there any safety concerns?
ii. Were there any nutrition concerns?
iii. Were there any academic concerns?
iv. Were there any technology concerns?
v. Were there any re-opening concerns?
Conclusion
Thank you for your time and willingness to meet with me and for all the valuable
information you provided for this study.
Abstract (if available)
Abstract
In March 2020, the COVID 19 pandemic changed public education in Southern California. From the initial closures to reopening in a hybrid format to fully reopening, all with their own safety protocols, Superintendents, Assistant Superintendents, and Principals led their districts and schools through the frequent changes. This study starts with a brief look at past educational crises to set a foundation. The focus then shifts to how three superintendents, three assistant superintendents, and three principals in Southern California have worked through this crisis. Four main research questions guided this study which sought to find out how the financial implications, union negotiations, governmental guidance, and local communities impacted the operations of these school districts. The study found that while massive influxes of money helped support districts and schools, vague and frequently changing guidance compounded by safety concerns from staff and community caused the shift from teaching virtually to reopening in-person to be cumbersome. Each of the leaders credit communication and a willingness to work together for the benefit of students as keys to success. Further research will need to be conducted on the long-term impact the COVID-19 pandemic had on student academics and the social emotional wellbeing of students and staffs.
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
Analyzing the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic On K-12 southern California public school districts and understanding what district and site administrators…
PDF
The impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on K-12 public school districts in southern California: responses of superintendents, assistant superintendents, and principals
PDF
The impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on K–12 public school districts in southern California: responses of superintendents, assistant superintendents, and principals
PDF
The impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on K-12 public school districts in southern California: responses of superintendents, assistant superintendents, and principals
PDF
The impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on K–12 public school districts in southern California: responses of superintendents, assistant superintendents, and principals
PDF
The impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on K–12 public school districts in southern California: responses of superintendents, assistant superintendents, and principals
PDF
The impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on K–12 public school districts in southern California: responses of superintendents, assistant superintendents, and principals
PDF
The impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on K-12 public school districts in southern California: responses of superintendents, assistant superintendents, and principals
PDF
The impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on K–12 public school districts in southern California: responses of superintendents, assistant superintendents, and principals
PDF
The impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on K–12 public school districts in southern California: responses of superintendents, assistant superintendents, and principals
PDF
The impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on K–12 public school districts in southern California: responses of superintendents, assistant superintendents, and principals
PDF
The impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on K-12 public school districts in southern California: responses of superintendents, assistant superintendents and principals
PDF
The impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on K–12 public school districts in southern California: responses of superintendents, assistant superintendents, and principals
PDF
The impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on K–12 public school districts in southern California: responses of superintendents, assistant superintendents, and principals
PDF
The impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on K–12 public school districts in southern California: responses of superintendents, assistant superintendents, and principals
PDF
The impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on K-12 public school districts in southern California: responses of superintendents, assistant superintendents, and principals
PDF
The impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on K–12 public school districts in southern California: responses of superintendents, assistant superintendents, and principals
PDF
The impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on K-12 public school districts in southern California: responses of superintendents, assistant superintendents, and principals
Asset Metadata
Creator
Olmstead, Jason
(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 (On Line)
Degree Conferral Date
2022-05
Publication Date
04/12/2022
Defense Date
03/16/2022
Publisher
University of Southern California
(original),
University of Southern California. Libraries
(digital)
Tag
assistant superintendents,COVID-19,distance learning,educational crisis,OAI-PMH Harvest,principals,school closures,superintendents
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
jasonolm@usc.edu,olmstead.jason@gmail.com
Permanent Link (DOI)
https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-oUC110936907
Unique identifier
UC110936907
Document Type
Dissertation
Format
application/pdf (imt)
Rights
Olmstead, Jason
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 superintendents
COVID-19
distance learning
educational crisis
principals
school closures
superintendents