K-12 school leadership perspectives from the COVID-19 pandemic

K-12 schools challenges

Recent studies on the challenges of COVID-19 faced by K-12 schools in the United States and around the globe have shown some common themes: Massive transition to online learning (Ferdig et al., 2020; Shamir-Inbal and Blau, 2021), unequal access to technological resources for learning (Liu, 2021; NCES, 2021), and rapid responses to constant changes and crises (Babbar and Gupta, 2021; Beauchamp et al., 2021; Harris and Jones, 2020). The pandemic upended the status quo in all aspects of K-12 education. Many governments issued lockdowns in their cities or countries during the pandemic (Babbar and Gupta, 2021). School leaders and educators were expected to pivot to online instruction to minimize the disruption of student learning. While many educators found innovative ways to connect with students (Ferdig et al., 2020), the majority of schools with fewer resources were under-prepared during the rapid transition to online learning. They lacked sufficient pedagogical and technological knowledge to function well (Hubbard et al., 2020; Shamir-Inbal and Blau, 2021).

Unequal access to the Internet and digital devices at home has been a long-existing issue in K-12 education (Liu, 2021; NCES, 2021). Although the pandemic accelerated the acquisition of hardware and software for students in schools, many K-12 students, especially English Language Learners and special education students, did not have access to broadband services (Gao and Hayes, 2021) or effective online instruction (García and Weiss, 2020). Numerous teachers felt ill-prepared to teach online (Pekel et al., 2020), and most students suffered emotionally, socially, and academically from the fallout (Duckworth et al., 2021). Furthermore, school administrators faced the constant challenges of ever-changing school policies, supporting staff shortages and mental health, and managing daily crises related to students, families, staff, and the communities (Beauchamp et al., 2021; Harris and Jones, 2020). The following section reviews specific issues faced by school leaders in the United States and International schools.

Additional studies on the impact and effects of the global pandemic cited an interruption of formal education for students (Chang-Bacon, 2021). For example, Chang-Bacon’s (2021) study focused on Students with Interrupted Formal Education (SIFE) and noted that academic and social disparities existed long before the COVID-19 pandemic. However, the return to routine educational practices remained challenging for educational leaders.

Specific leadership challenges

In the United States, decisions about disseminating federal dollars threatened to impact school budgets and special education funding. Joining forces to survey school superintendents, the School Superintendents Association (AASA) and the Association of Educational Service Agencies (AESA) found that one of the most concerning issues centered on the ability of school districts to meet the needs of students receiving special education services during the current global pandemic (AASA, 2020). According to the study, “almost four out of ten ESAs and three out of 10 school districts anticipated at least one due process complaint related to the inability to meet requirements in students with disabilities' individualized education programs (IEPs) during the pandemic” (AASA, 2020: p. 9). Additionally, the AASA (2020) survey revealed that 54% predicted complaints based on the child not receiving the same quantity of specialized instructional support services as indicated in the child’s Individual Education Plan (IEP); 34% felt their level of concern was growing, 30% predicted they would have to find the resources to respond to at least five due process complaints; 29% reported they felt very worried special education litigation would consume much of their time and resources in the 2020–2021 school year, and lastly, 24% planned to budget $50,000 or more for each special education litigation (AASA, 2020). Although this survey focused on special education issues, all school administrators are responsible for implementing a child’s IEP with fidelity and integrity. These data points underscored the additional leadership concerns school administrators needed to address during unprecedented and unpredictable times.

Furthermore, school leaders needed to recognize staff needs and allocate resources to meet their rising concerns. In a survey of 13,077 Minnesota teachers, support professionals, and administrators, Pekel et al. (2020) identified the four key findings of the educators’ experiences during the early stage of the COVID-19 pandemic: Relationships matter, technology (e.g., connectivity, access, staff development, etc.) is essential, emotional health of teachers needs attention, and teachers embrace new learning opportunities. Educators recognized both challenges and promises in the K-12 learning environments. The primary concern was the ability to socially connect with students during online learning and ensure equity in the distribution of resources.

A study conducted before the opening of the 2020–2021 school year by the National Association of Elementary School Principals (NAESP, 2020) indicated a dramatic shift in how school principals viewed their ability to reopen schools safely, worked with key stakeholders in the decision-making process, and decided how to allocate the federal funds equitably. A total of 798 school administrators from all 50 states responded to critical questions focusing on school safety for students and teachers, funding for necessary resources, a voice in decision-making, learning loss among students, and common concerns among educators. Alarming trends from the NAESP data revealed that only 22% of the respondents were somewhat likely to prepare to protect students and staff from the transmission of the coronavirus if in-person classes resume, 62% have a reopening plan for the forthcoming semester, 17% were not part of the decision-making process regarding school reopening, and only 33% were knowledgeable about school reopening (NAESP, 2020). This national survey data signaled a fundamental change in how principals view their leadership in a pandemic.

Theoretical framework

Recent research on leadership during disruptive times underscored critical areas that require special attention, including student mental health, staff morale, leadership capability, and the digital divide (Harris and Jones, 2020; Parveen et al., 2022). To understand how school leaders build capacities to effect changes during the COVID-19 pandemic, the theoretical frameworks applied to this research study consist of four essential concepts: (a) Trauma-informed approaches to leadership, (b) transformative learning theory, (c) leadership through crisis management, and (d) digital equity. According to Sherman (2021), leaders in a pandemic and post-pandemic world must adopt a trauma-informed approach in their leadership journey. Therefore, we used a trauma-informed leadership lens to understand the underlying issues related to leadership. According to Goldsmith (2007), leaders must rely on a four-prong trauma-informed approach to develop practical interventions designed to address the consequences of trauma and facilitate healing. In the U.S., the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) is the federal agency created to protect the public’s health by using science-based and data-driven practices to monitor pervasive and chronic health problems in the U.S. The four components include a leader who can realize the trauma’s impact, recognize the trauma’s symptoms, respond appropriately to CDC, federal, state, and local policies, and finally, a leader who seeks to reduce the possibility of re-traumatization (Sherman, 2021). Although the trauma-informed approach is grounded in a healthcare model, it can be easily related to school leaders.

Transformative theories serve as the second framework for this study. According to Mezirow (2003), “transformative learning is learning that transforms problematic frames of reference—sets of fixed assumptions and expectations (habits of mind, meaning perspectives, mindsets)—to make them more inclusive, discriminating, open, reflective, and emotionally able to change” (p. 58–59). School administrators may use Mezirow’s (2000) term, “disorienting dilemma” to describe the current pandemic. This dilemma disrupted the routine and balance of the academic experiences for students and staff. Managing new responsibilities related to the global pandemic caused school leaders to reflect and reevaluate their decisions in a new context. Northouse (2019) recognized the leadership paradigm, which focused on transformational leadership. Transformational leaders influence, inspire and motivate followers to exceed the organization’s expectations. In an era of unwritten rules, ambiguous implementation of policies, and new guidelines from the CDC, school administrators must recognize the importance of motivating and inspiring followers to implement safety guidelines.

An examination of school leadership after the 2010/2011 earthquakes in New Zealand led Mutch (2015) to develop a conceptual framework to identify the following three key factors influencing leaders in a crisis: dispositional, relational, and situational. Dispositional factors refer to “what behaviors leaders bring to the event from their background, personal qualities, experiences, values, beliefs, personality traits, areas expertise, and conceptions of leadership” (p. 190). Additionally, Mutch (2015) defined relational factors as “the ways in which leaders offer a unifying vision and develop a sense of community within the organization” (p. 190). Building trust, loyalty, and fostering collaboration also serve as defining features of relational factors which influence leadership. Situational factors can influence school leaders to make timely decisions, demonstrate flexibility, navigate, assess, and respond in a culturally sensitive manner in times of crisis (Mutch, 2015).

Furthermore, Smith and Riley (2012), in a review of crisis management literature, attempted to understand the nature of the leadership necessary for schools to deal with successfully—and learn from—the crises they inevitably will encounter. Additionally, leadership in times of crisis depends on leaders who are empathetic, can manage events, and are perceptive to the concerns of the members of their school community (Smith and Riley, 2012). The abrupt shift to online teaching and learning and the uncertainties related to the pandemic dramatically impacted the resources available to leaders and their ability to establish positive accountability while recognizing the impact of stress on employees. Flexibility and effective crisis communication are key leadership competencies as leaders manage and support employees (Dirani et al., 2020; McGuinness, 2020; Ramos-Pla et al., 2021).

The 2020 pandemic also uncovered an undeniable digital divide in schools (Liu, 2021). One of the most compelling areas of concern centered on equity in digital access for all students. The digital equity framework (Fulton and Sibley, 2003:15) sheds light on the need for novice and veteran school administrators to mitigate the institutional causes of disparities in equitable access to students' learning in the global pandemic. For learners to fully participate in a fair digital learning environment, Fulton and Sibley suggested four critical components as explained below:

• • Access to up-to-date hardware, software, and connectivity;

• • Access to meaningful high-quality, and culturally responsive content along with the opportunity to contribute to the knowledge base represented in online content;

• • Access to educators who know how to use digital tools and resources effectively;

• • Access to systems sustained by leaders with vision and support for change through technology (p. 15).

Learners were at a significant disadvantage when faced with barriers to equitable learning opportunities. To promote quality distance learning, school leaders needed to do more than just provide access to hardware and software. School leaders must also have the vision to provide the infrastructure and support for teaching staff to deliver culturally relevant instruction. Removing barriers to access of all four components was important for students to gain full and equitable participation in educational opportunities. The methodology in this study targeted school leaders from across the United States. We outlined our approach to data collection below.

Procedures

First, researchers administered an online survey to school administrators in the United States through professional networks and social media (e.g., American Educational Research Association [AERA], AERA Special Interest Groups (SIG) on Facebook and Twitter, Minnesota Board of School Administrators [BOSA], etc.) between June and August 2020. The target participants represented licensed superintendents, principals, central office leaders, and university faculty in leadership preparation programs. The survey consisted of standard demographic questions (e.g., gender, ethnicity, licensure areas, etc.), 13 closed-ended, and five open-ended questions (see Table 1). Based on the research questions and the digital equity framework, we designed the closed-ended questions to focus on issues related to leadership preparedness in providing access to digital learning content, hardware and software, and competent teachers. The respondents answered the closed-ended questions using a five-point Likert scale, with one as strongly agree and five as strongly disagree.

Additionally, we asked leaders to reflect on the opportunities, challenges, and recommendations for the transition to distance learning during COVID-19 through open-ended questions. From the survey respondents, we conducted one-on-one interviews with nine participants between September and December 2020 using the interview questions in Table 2. Finally, guided by the four theoretical frameworks, we asked school leaders to contemplate their guiding principles to address the needs of vulnerable students, lead changes, manage crises, and improve equity.

Due to the pandemic, we utilized the Zoom videoconferencing system to record all interviews and have them professionally transcribed. The participants reviewed the transcripts for accuracy. The data were analyzed using NVivo, a qualitative data analysis software. Following the constant comparative method (Glaser and Strauss, 1967), we systematically identified the themes by combining coding with analysis. Specifically, we employed the following steps: (1) Analyzed the themes that emerged from each interview, (2) compared the themes from each interview, and (3) compared all themes from all interviews and placed them into meaningful thematic categories.

Participants

As indicated in Table 3, of the 95 surveyed participants (70.5% women, 27.4% men, 2.1% unspecified), they represented different ethnic backgrounds (69.5% Caucasian, 15.8% African American, 3.2% Hispanic/Latinx, 3.2% Asian/Asian American, 8.5% other), age groups (9.5% younger than 35, 29.5% between 36 and 45, 41.1%, between 46 and 55, 20% older than 56), work experiences (30.1% less than 3 years, 35.5% between 4 and 10 years, 26.9% between 11 and 20, 7.5% more than 21 years), and positions (9.1% superintendent or assistant superintendents, 32.9% principals or assistant principals, 22.7% directors of special education, 35.2% other leaders in the district’s central office or university faculty with admin licensure). Due to the researchers’ affiliations to several professional networks in Minnesota, 60% of the respondents worked in Minnesota, and the rest were from 17 other states, as listed in Figure 1.

For recruiting participants for interviews (see Table 4), we strived to have a balanced representation of school level, position, gender, region, and ethnicity. For the interviews, we recruited nine school leaders (four women and five men) representing different ethnic backgrounds (four African American, one Latinx, and four White) and positions (four principals, two assistant principals, two special education directors, and one associate superintendent). We used aliases to protect the privacy of the interviewees. All interviewees but one was from Minnesota. Each interview lasted between one and 2 h.

Challenges

Key findings from the qualitative data identified five significant challenges facing school administrators. These challenges include the digital divide, staffing shortages, online instructional practices, communication with significant adults in the lives of children, and staff professional development related to the pandemic (see Table 5). We discuss each significant challenge below.

Opportunities

Key findings from the qualitative data identified four key areas:leadership, opportunities to address disparities in access to technology, increasing community-based partnerships, and innovative instructional models (Table 6).

Analysis

Using the theoretical frameworks of trauma-informed approaches to leadership (Sherman, 2021), transformative learning (Mezirow, 2003), leadership through crisis management (Smith and Riley, 2012), and the digital equity framework (Fulton and Sibley, 2003), we coded significant interview data. School leaders used trauma-informed practices as they redefined the school day, adjusted to student needs in an online learning environment, responded to the interruption of time-honored rituals and routines, and the social-emotional needs of faculty, staff, and students. The crisis management lens allowed us to examine how school administrators responded to staffing shortages and address the urgent call to revamp staff development opportunities. The transformative frame required principals and central office leaders to find effective ways to communicate with families, foster new relationships with the community, and skillfully implement CDC guidelines which may have been difficult for staff members to comply with. Finally, the digital equity framework examined equitable access to learning resources (e.g., hardware and software) and competent teachers who could pivot to hybrid teaching successfully.

These findings suggested that the role and responsibilities of school administrators continue to be shaped by the current healthcare crisis. There may be several possible explanations for the findings. First, as new variants of the virus are revealed to the public, school leaders must interpret the impact of new guidelines and make critical decisions based on the needs of their school communities. Second, reimaging a new normal creates unique challenges as well as opportunities to implement innovative policies (Supovitz and D’Auria, 2020).

As principals and central office staff attempt to solve daily staff shortages, they discovered the power of empathetic leadership and trauma-informed practices to allow staff members to assume additional job duties outside their traditional roles (Goldsmith, 2007; Sherman, 2021). Leading in times of crisis calls for a leader who exemplifies the benefits of transformational leadership. According to Northouse (2019), transformational leadership emphasizes that leaders be attentive to the concerns of their followers, empathize with them, and help them to develop their full personal capacities. Effective leadership skills and a flexible approach to school personnel management are essential tools for school administrators to possess in turbulent and unpredictable times in light of a global pandemic. The attention to crisis management as a critical function of the school day dramatically altered the perception of what it means to be a school leader (Hubbard et al., 2020; Kaul et al., 2020; Riley and Smith, 2012). A new awareness of the depth and complex nature of school leadership forced administrative staff to collaborate and forge a sustainable partnership with community stakeholders.

A fundamental paradigm shift and a new emphasis on developing transformative leaders are catalysts for administrative preparation programs. The “disorienting dilemma” (Mezirow, 2000) of leading during unpredictable times caused administrators to critically examine outdated practices such as the unequal distribution of resources, the fixed structure of the school day, and traditional modes of communication with families. Implementing innovative instructional practices paved the way for teachers to learn and embrace new learning management systems, hybrid delivery models, and personalized digital learning content. The pandemic exposed longstanding inequities across all areas related to the education of students (Liu, 2021). Therefore, school leaders became adept and creative at removing barriers to access to high-quality digital content, hardware, and software (Fulton and Sibley, 2003). New opportunities to engage learners through effective professional staff development reframed the importance of meeting the needs of adult learners.