Abstract
This chapter considers the impact the COVID-19 pandemic has had on the reality of educational administrators in U.S.-based institutions of education. Looking closely at 17 educational administrators from both K-12 systems and institutions of higher education, the authors come to a more comprehensive understanding of crisis leadership and its impact on equitable educational practices – both for students as well as for the administrators themselves. This chapter is based on a larger project the authors undertook to explore through narratives and photography the experiences of administrators during the global COVID-19 pandemic that began in early 2020. This chapter illustrates the ways that communication, support, and equitable solutions for the learning community are and are not well articulated by leaders. The authors close out this chapter with recommendations for educational leaders during times of crisis as well as for potential follow-up research.
TopBackground
In the very near past, the World Health Organization (WHO) (2020a) reported in mid-March, approximately 125,260 cases and 4,613 deaths worldwide from COVID-19. These numbers continue to exponentially grow, resulting in the U.S. having the most confirmed number of cases worldwide. This crisis impacts everyone across the globe. Previously, we never considered a pandemic affecting our every facet of life. Our social, health, economic, and political spheres are forever changed. In education, changes were made swiftly, if not overnight. At the same time, educators found themselves drowning in the imperative need to move into the digital environment and provide an array of support to our students, families, and communities.
As Hong Kong returned to remote learning (Chor, 2020), the Los Angeles Unified School District, the second largest U.S. school district, and so many other U.S. K-12 school districts reported they will start the school year online (Hubler & Goldstein, 2020). Simultaneously, major international universities transitioned to mostly online learning, as well. In the midst of the COVID-19 pandemic, the U.S. government continues an aggressive campaign to force educators and students back into the classroom. It is clear that the politicization of the COVID crisis prioritizes the economy and partisan re-elections as more important than the health and safety of this country’s students and educators.
After these announcements, the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) released new resources and schools to support opening schools for in-person instruction. These resources and tools supported how to open schools safely by “promoting behaviors that prevent spread, altering how a school and school day is structured, and outlining how to keep the school environment healthy through cleaning, proper ventilation, and other practices” (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention [CDC], 2020a). In addition, the CDC (2020b) followed up with indicators for dynamic school decision making.
The CDC suggested decision-makers use at least one of the core measures of community burden in addition to the self-assessed measure of school implementation of key mitigation strategies. The recommended measures of community burden are the number of new cases per 100,000 persons within the last 14 days and/or the percentage of COVID-19 tests that are positive during the last 14 days (CDC, 2020b). These measures were coupled with the school’s ability to implement to the largest extent possible and adhere to the following key mitigation strategies: (1) consistent and correct use of masks; (2) social distancing to the extent possible; (3) hand hygiene and respiratory etiquette; (4) cleaning and disinfection; and (5) contact tracing in collaboration with local health department (CDC, 2020b). These indicators and measures were introduced to reduce the risk of introduction and mitigate the spread of COVID-19 within schools and in the larger community.
Key Terms in this Chapter
Post-Bureaucratic Leadership: Not a real system – but an ideal, one grounded in taking from the limitations of bureaucracy to form a new model of leadership built on an expectation of change wherein individuals are empowered to make decisions to follow not the mission of the organization – but to understand the guidelines of action.
K-12 Educational Leaders: Individuals who have agency and leadership beyond the K-12 classroom. These individuals may school-situated (teacher-leaders, department chairs, assistant/associate principals, principals) or orientated within the district office (curriculum development, coordinators, school-board members, superintendents).
Digital Divide: This refers to the differential access of information and technology. This gap further exacerbates already present inequities along the lines of socio-economic status, gender, race, and age.
Higher Education Administrators: Individuals who work in some aspect of administration in higher education. This may be an academic advisor, a residence hall director, a department chair, a vice-president.
Crisis Leadership: The ways that leaders do (or do not) respond during a crisis. This involves leaders taking the time to analyze the situation, situate their focus, and respond despite the on-going emergency.
Photovoice: A research process where people identify, represent, and enhance their community using photography.
Online Penalty: An experience related to the move of education online experienced by one side of those on the digital divide. This may take place in an intrinsic penalty (grades) or an extrinsic penalty (differential understanding of the material being taught).
Arts-Based Educational Research: A qualitative method that is a transdisciplinary approach that combines the tenets of the creative arts to knowledge building and research.
Phenomenology: A qualitative methodology rooted in the philosophy of Edmund Husserl. As part of experiencing a phenomenon, this method asks participants to reflect on their experiences in as much detail as possible.