fun project

Research in Educational Administration & Leadership

Volume:6, Issue: 2 / June 2021

The Reopening of a School during the COVID-

19 Pandemic: An Administrative Lens

James A. Martinez University of Tennessee, USA

Lisa R. Amick

University of Kentucky, USA

Sydney McAbee University of Tennessee, USA

Abstract Article

Info

In an effort to investigate school administrator self-efficacy

during the COVID-19 pandemic, two public high school

administrators from the same high school in a Southeastern

U.S. state were interviewed virtually two times a week during

the first six weeks of the 2020-2021 school year. Selection of

participants was accomplished using convenience sampling, as

both persons completed a principal preparation program where

the lead researcher served as an instructor. The participants

were surveyed before and after the study using questions from

the Principal Self-Efficacy Survey (PSES) as well as

researcher-developed questions specifically related to work life

during the pandemic. The study revealed the degree that these

administrators defined their work experiences during this

period, based on four distinct perspectives, including: (a)

structural, (b) symbolic, (c) political, and (d) human resources.

Also, the study revealed administrator perceptions of equity

and access among various constituents at their school,

including teachers, support staff, students, parents, and

members of the broader school community. Using open

Article History:

Received

March 11, 2021

Accepted

June 14, 2021

Keywords:

Administration,

Self-efficacy, Equity,

Pandemic

Research in Educational Administration & Leadership

6(2), June 2021, 515-552

516

systems theory as a theoretical perspective, the study revealed

six emergent themes that related to their work while opening

school during a world crisis: (a) technology access/instruction,

(b) informational/procedural ambiguity, (c) resource

dependency, (d) policy adaptability, (e) stakeholder disposition,

and (f) methods of communication. Focused on a principal and

assistant principal at a single high school, this case-study

illuminates the personal and professional challenges faced by

these administrators during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Cite as:

Martinez, J. A., Amick, L. R., & McAbee, S. (2021). The Reopening of a

School during the COVID-19 Pandemic: An Administrative Lens.

Research in Educational Administration & Leadership, 6(2), 515-552. DOI:

10.30828/real/2021.2.5

Introduction

The importance of school administrators to address issues that

affect student health and learning in today’s schools cannot be

overstated. These issues were exacerbated during the COVID-19

pandemic, affecting the manner in which schools served students,

teachers and non-teaching staff, families and members of their local

communities. Starting in the spring of 2020, school officials

responded to the global pandemic in many ways, to ensure the health

and welfare of all school stakeholders. For schools which continued

in-person instruction, school administrators led the efforts to install

health check procedures for all persons entering school grounds,

mandate personal protective equipment (PPE), adopt procedures for

contact tracing, and enforce strict limits to physical interaction for

persons in their schools. For schools with some or all students

learning remotely, school administrators worked with district office

staff and community members to ensure equitable access to

educational and computer resources, meeting demands that were

Martinez, Amick, & McAbee (2021). The Reopening of a School during the

COVID-19 Pandemic...

517

previously not considered. At the same time, these professionals

assisted teachers and students as forms of instruction were modified

to increase the use of computer-based teleconferencing platforms,

learning management systems, and educational software.

School administrators spearheaded efforts to address the

needs of instructional support staff who support students receiving

specialized services (e.g. special education, English language

learning, gifted and talented, economically disadvantaged). In

addition to instructional support, school administrators continued

their efforts with participation in co-curricular activities (e.g. sports,

clubs) while adhering to health and safety standards. As the COVID-

19 pandemic continued to affect the entire school communities,

administrators were required to effectively communicate up-to-date

information, using a variety of methods, about changes that affected

the way that a variety of school stakeholders could engage in school-

related activities. Additional professional obligations during the

pandemic adversely affected the personal lives of school

administrators, some of whom faced pandemic related health-related

concerns themselves, as well as those experienced by their friends,

colleagues and family members.

According to Bolman and Deal (2013), “life’s daily challenges

rarely arrive clearly labeled or neatly packed” (p. 407). It is clear that

issues related to the administration of schools during the COVID-19

pandemic are unprecedented in terms of complexity and scope. This

research study aspires to illuminate the effects of this global

pandemic on the lives of two U.S. high school administrators during

the first six weeks of the 2020-2021 school year. Participant self-

efficacy and perspective framing provide a basis for understanding

Research in Educational Administration & Leadership

6(2), June 2021, 515-552

518

the effects of the COVID-19 pandemic on their personal and

professional lives.

For the purposes of this study, the terms “school leaders” and

school administrators are not used interchangeably. In general, all

school administrators are considered school leaders, in their capacity

to implement a school vision, enforce policies and procedures, serve

as role models at their respective schools, and the like. However, not

all school leaders are school administrators, as there are other

members of the school community (e.g. board members, attendance

clerks, sports coaches) who contribute to the leadership of the school,

but are not appointed as formal administrators. That said, the terms

“educational leaders” and “school leaders” are used interchangeably,

omitting any references to administrators not serving in elementary

and secondary school sites.

Purpose of the Present Study

The primary purpose of this study is to investigate feelings of

self-efficacy expressed by two school administrators in a

Southeastern US state during the first six weeks of the 2020-2021

school year, coinciding with the COVID-19 pandemic. A secondary

aim was to reveal the degree that these administrators defined their

work experiences during this period, based on four distinct

perspectives, or “frames” (Bolman & Deal, 2013) which include: (a)

structural, (b) symbolic, (c) political, and (d) human resource.

Thirdly, it was the intent of the authors to research the

administrators’ perceptions of equity and access among various

constituents at their school during the study, including teachers,

support staff, students, parents, and members of the broader school

community.

Martinez, Amick, & McAbee (2021). The Reopening of a School during the

COVID-19 Pandemic...

519

Theoretical Framework

This research is guided by the theoretical perspective of

schools as open systems, a subset of systems theory. In general,

researchers use systems theory to understand interactions that occur

in response to actions taken by participants within the system itself.

Orren & Smith (2013) state that individuals in social systems “engage

in input/output exchanges with their social environments” (p. 40).

Schools can be viewed as social systems with interdependent

elements (e.g. teachers depend on principals; students depend on

teachers) (Ee & Gandara, 2020; Anderson & Carter, 1990; Parsons,

1959).

Related Literature

School disasters are characterized by their large-scale

disruption and sudden changes in normal routine to the school and

community. In many instances of disaster, there are marked times of

uncertainty, unexpectedness, and unpreparedness. Disasters stem

from many causes: school shootings; natural disasters that include

hurricanes, tornadoes, earthquakes, flood, and/or fire; and biological

disasters that include epidemics or pandemics that often require

schools to close and considerably alter schools’ normal routines. As a

result, in the time of disaster, school administrators in the affected

school are faced with unique challenges in leadership that include

supporting students, teachers, and the community; adopting new job

duties; and establishing a plan of action. Moreover, school

administrators are responsible for establishing protocols that will be

implemented in a future disaster with similar circumstances, if it

were to occur.

Research in Educational Administration & Leadership

6(2), June 2021, 515-552

520

Educational Leadership in Response to Disasters

Educational leaders are challenged under normal

circumstances, but even more so during crisis/disaster scenarios.

Visibility, accessibility, and engagement, are stressed by leaders in

the midst of a school disaster, and these often involve creative

leadership strategies (Bishop et al., 2015). School administrators

become the link between the school and the community by sharing a

vision and providing support at the community level (Gyang, 2020;

Stone-Johnson and Weiner, 2016). The creativity needed in leading

the community through a disaster involves providing the learning

community important resources and involving stake-holders in the

decision making process (Gyang, 2020). A case study by Tarrant

(2011) highlighted the positive effect school administrators have in

communicating with families after the school disaster and is

supported by the evidence suggesting that community resilience

stems from a school administrators’ actions (Sherrieb et al., 2012).

However, in unprecedented times such as a pandemic, school

administrators lack useful information regarding changes to school

procedures, and this creates uncertainty among the school

population, parent population, and the community in general

(Ahlström et al., 2020). School administrators in the future, though,

can mitigate the level of uncertainty by encouraging participation in

events that provide advance training on drills and protocols that will

be needed in an emergency (Akbaba-Altun, 2005).

Supporting the School and the Community

In times of disaster, the school should not lose emphasis

placed on students and their wellbeing, as well as their academic

success (Bishop et al., 2015; Imberman et al., 2009). School

administrators are responsible for maintaining a positive atmosphere

Martinez, Amick, & McAbee (2021). The Reopening of a School during the

COVID-19 Pandemic...

521

so that students feel hopeful even when distressed (Akbaba-Altun,

2005). According to Fournier et al. (2020), actions related to inclusive

leadership, where the school administrators hold the belief that all

students have the ability to learn and value student input, are

essential under dire circumstances. Sider (2020) suggests that, among

the myriad of concerns that arise in a school disaster, equitable access

to education for students was among the most significant. An

educational leader’s actions, on the other hand, can be limited as they

address inequitable access to resources for particular students. Not all

students have equal access to learning technology (smart phones,

laptops, tablets) necessary for efficient remote learning (Pollock,

2020). Acknowledging that access is a high priority, it is

recommended that school administrators pre-emptively assess the

unique needs of students at their sites so they can implement

strategies to improve student support (U.S. CDC, 2020).

Additionally, school administrators are responsible for the

wellbeing of the teaching staff, as teachers require unique support

during a school disaster (Fletcher and Nicholas, 2016). Inclusive

leadership is beneficial to teachers as professional development is

prioritized, collaboration is encouraged, and diversity of skills among

the staff is celebrated (Fournier et al., 2020). Differing levels of

support should be taken into consideration, especially during a

school’s transition from in-person to remote learning (Li et al., 2020).

Finally, school administrators become the link between the school

and the community by sharing a vision and providing support at the

community level (Gyang, 2020; Stone-Johnson and Weiner, 2016).

Visibility, accessibility, and engagement, are stressed by leaders in

the midst of a school disaster, and these often involve creative

leadership strategies (Bishop et al., 2015).

Research in Educational Administration & Leadership

6(2), June 2021, 515-552

522

Adopting New Job Duties

During past school disasters that have occurred

internationally, increased workload and expanded job duties for

school administrators was required in nearly all instances (Hauseman

et al., 2020; Bishop et al., 2015; Mutch, 2015; Ozmen, 2006; Pollock,

2020). The COVID-19 pandemic has presented new challenges for the

school administrators, and their responsibilities have increased in

coordination with a heightened degree of accountability. With regard

to a viral pandemic, school administrators are faced with legal

challenges in reporting symptomatic students, maintaining a socially-

distanced campus, and enforcing contact tracing and quarantines.

Moreover, the role of school administrators during a pandemic

requires regular collaboration with public health officials to protect

the health of their communities (Pollock, 2020).

Establishing an Action Plan

In addition to supporting the school and community as well

as adopting new job duties, research studies focus on a school

administrator’s role of creating a plan of action for the school in the

midst of a current disaster that develops strategies for opening or

closing the school (Zhang, 2020; Ozmen, 2006). Bishop et al. (2015)

contends that, in making decisions for a school in crisis, the preferred

manner is to act quickly. In identifying actions that will prove to be

most beneficial in planning the course of action for the school, a

school administrator needs to seek advice, demonstrate empathy,

communicate clearly, and envision the long-term goal (O’Connell and

Clark, 2020). Fortunately, school administrators are able to learn not

only from their own schools’ past crisis events, but also from other

school systems’ mitigation strategies used during a disaster. By

Martinez, Amick, & McAbee (2021). The Reopening of a School during the

COVID-19 Pandemic...

523

understanding past experiences, the school administrators can begin

planning for the future (Brown, 2018).

Preparing for Future Disaster

One of the marked characteristics of a school disaster is the

uncertainty that encompasses the school. This uncertainty can be

reduced by pre-emptively establishing a plan, protocols, and/or

strategies in preparation for future disasters. In preparation for a

sudden change to remote learning, professional development and

training of all school staff regarding issues related to technology,

communication, and equity must be completed for a successful

transition (Zhang, 2020; Ozmen, 2006). Moreover, school

administrators should be in contact with other organizations in the

community that play a role in disaster relief to determine the roles

that will be carried out by these respective parties (Akbaba-Altun,

2005). Thoughtful and intentional planning by administrators is

crucial to advance awareness in methods to decrease destructive

effects related to a disaster (Stone-Johnson and Weiner, 2020; Ozmen,

2006).

To synthesize, the literature shows that regardless of the

external factors and happenings, and even with added duties during

a global pandemic, a school’s focus should be kept on the wellbeing

and academic success of the students. School administrators should

continue to value students, fight for equitable instruction for all,

provide sense of hope for everyone, and keep the wellbeing of the

teaching staff of utmost importance. This study looks at the self-

efficacy of two school administrators as they respond to the COVID-

19 pandemic and how they define their work experiences based on

four perspectives: structural, symbolic, political, and human

resources.

Research in Educational Administration & Leadership

6(2), June 2021, 515-552

524

Method

A sequential, mixed methods research design (Teddie &

Tashakkori, 2009) was used so that both quantitative survey and

qualitative interview data could be investigated, both in isolation and

in relation to one another. Participant responses to non-demographic

survey questions collected prior to the first interview, coinciding with

the start of the academic year, were compared to survey data

collected after the interviews had concluded, a span of six weeks.

Audio transcriptions from all interviews were completed and all

members of the research team were either present during, or watched

a recording of, all interviews. Although the interviews were

administered remotely and transcriptions were comprised mostly of

participant voiced responses to questions posed to them, field notes

were recorded by the researchers to include important visual

information (e.g. expressions, gestures).

Participants

Two administrators serving in the same secondary (high)

school in a Southeastern US state were selected as participants for this

study. Prior to them taking on administrative roles, assistant

principal Rachel (a pseudonym) had served as a high school English

teacher, while principal Steven (a pseudonym) had served as a high

school science teacher and coach. The selection of these participants

was purposeful, as both had completed their principal preparation

program (PPP) two years prior to the study in the same university

where the lead researcher served as an instructor. It was important to

the study that participants had developed a level of trust and positive

rapport with the lead researcher, so they would more likely respond

Martinez, Amick, & McAbee (2021). The Reopening of a School during the

COVID-19 Pandemic...

525

substantively to survey and interview questions. Demographic

information from both participants is provided in Table 1.

Table 1.

Demographic Information for Study Participants

Participant Role Sex Age Race

Highest

Education

Years as

Teacher

Years as

Administrator

Rachel Asst. Principal Female 31 White Ed. S. 6 3

Steven Principal Male 33 White Ed. S. 7 3

Note: Neither participant recorded in their questionnaire that, aside from

their administrative credential, they had been certified in instructional

technology.

Instruments

Survey. Prior to, and immediately after, the interview portion

of the study, participants were asked to complete a 19-question

survey, requiring them to provide demographic information and rate

(quantitative, Likert-scaled) statements that reflected their

perceptions of: (a) professional self-efficacy, (b) work habits, (c)

teacher competence, (d) estimations of professional support, (e)

relationships with teachers, (f) equity and access of resources, and (g)

organizational changes and professional concerns related to the

COVID-19 pandemic. In investigating options related to research

design, Creswell (2012) emphasizes that quantitative research is more

applicable when researchers relate known variables, rather than

when they are not clearly defined at the outset (p. 13). Therefore,

survey questions were taken from instruments developed in prior

studies focused on measuring school administrator self-efficacy

(Bandura, 2001; Tschannen-Moran & Gareis, 2004; Martinez, Williams

& Uy, 2020) and in the case of questions related to COVID-19, created

expressly by the researchers for the purpose of this study. The survey

Research in Educational Administration & Leadership

6(2), June 2021, 515-552

526

was first completed by the school administrators the week before the

first student attendance day and the second administration of the

survey was completed six weeks later, days after the final interview.

Both surveys were provided to the participants via email, requiring

them to print a paper copy, complete the survey by hand, scan the

completed survey and attach it to an email message addressed to the

lead researcher.

Interviews. Participants were interviewed for approximately

one half-hour per session, twice a week for the first six weeks of the

school year. Once a week (Mondays) both administrators were

interviewed in the same virtual session. On Wednesdays, the

assistant principal, Rachel served as the lone interviewee and the

head principal, Steven, was the lone interviewee on Fridays. The

timeline for the interviews, as well as significant events occurring

during the study, is provided in Figure 1.

Martinez, Amick, & McAbee (2021). The Reopening of a School during the

COVID-19 Pandemic...

527

Figure 1.

Timeline of Study

Research in Educational Administration & Leadership

6(2), June 2021, 515-552

528

Note. � Combined interview with Rachel and Steven (Mondays

each week between 8/4/20 and 9/28/20, except for Monday 9/7/20

where the interview was moved to Tuesday, 9/8/20 due to Labor Day)

� Interviews with Rachel (Wednesdays between 8/26/20 and

9/30/20)

� Interviews with Steven (Fridays between 8/28/20 and

10/2/20)

The interviews were semi-structured, allowing for

participants to depart from commenting only on the questions posed,

increasing the breadth and authenticity of their responses. The

original plan was to interview the participants in person at their

school, but due to safety concerns related to the COVID-19 pandemic,

the interviews were accomplished using the Zoom teleconferencing

platform. Both audio and video content from the interviews was

recorded in preparation for the qualitative coding process.

The interview questions were created by the researchers to

reinforce concepts in the study’s survey, as well as draw on elements

of self-efficacy as defined in current literature (Hoy & Hoy, 2020) and

accepted models of perspective framing (Bolman & Deal, 2015).

Overall, questions focused on the following concepts: (a) self-efficacy,

(b) work-related resources, obstacles and accomplishments, (c)

vulnerable populations, (d) equity/access, (e) perceptions of

professional skills and knowledge, and (f) organizational

perspectives (or “frames”). Interview questions used in this study are

provided in Appendix A. Football games and athletics are included

as significant events because large groups of students gathered and

this could have contributed to when the school was forced to switch

to virtual learning.

Martinez, Amick, & McAbee (2021). The Reopening of a School during the

COVID-19 Pandemic...

529

Finally, it should be noted that two years before the study

took place, both participants received instruction in a principal

preparation program class taught by the lead researcher which

focused on the practice of “framing” to better categorize and

diagnose work-related occurrences. According to authors Bolman

and Deal (2015), the ability to use frames “requires an ability to think

about situations in more than one way, which lets you develop

alternative diagnoses and strategies” (p. 5). The final question in each

interview required the participants to identify which of the four

frames (structural, symbolic, political, and/or human resource) they

most associated with recent events.

To increase the validity of the study, participants were given

the opportunity to “member check” portions of the manuscript text

that directly or indirectly referred to their responses. This member

checking and use of pseudonyms were used to increase

confidentiality and ensure anonymity. Although assistant principal

Rachel was satisfied with all portions of the analysis which reflected

her views, principal Steven asked for minor adjustments to ensure

that anonymity was preserved (e.g. revision of a statement that

expressed his familiarity with the school having been a student and

teacher at the same site).

There were a number of limitations to the study that were out

of the control of the researchers. The most significant of these are the

changing conditions related to the COVID-19 pandemic, including

restrictions prohibiting the researchers from performing observations

at the site. Also, limiting the study to a single school with defined

characteristics (e.g. enrollment, percentage of students receiving free

or reduced meals, ethnic makeup, teacher qualifications) does not

allow for generalizability to other populations. Albeit allowing the

Research in Educational Administration & Leadership

6(2), June 2021, 515-552

530

researchers to treat the school as a “case-site”, revealing as much or

more about the school than the participants, the sample size for this

study is insufficient for any meaningful quantitative statistical

measurement.

Similarly, there were some delimitations in this study, based

on choices the research team made. Since both participants had

earned their educational specialist degrees from the same principal

preparation program, were only three years out from having done so,

and were serving in the same school, it is likely that many of their

responses would not show a great deal of variability. Due to the

inherent differences in professional roles (i.e. principal and assistant

principal), one cannot directly compare results between the two

participants, Steven and Rachel.

Data Analysis and Results

Results of both quantitative (i.e. survey) and qualitative (i.e.

interview) investigations illuminate study participant understandings

during the first six weeks the 2020-2021 school year. Taken

individually, each instrument provided unique understandings

presented by each of the two school administrators. Collectively, the

data show connections between initial thoughts, day-to-day

perceptions and overall ideas that provide a comprehensive look at

one school through the eyes of these two, public school

administrators.

Survey Results

Quantitative data was collected by the participants as they

completed pre- and post-surveys, gauging their feelings of self

efficacy amidst the COVID-19 pandemic. The pre- and post-survey

Martinez, Amick, & McAbee (2021). The Reopening of a School during the

COVID-19 Pandemic...

531

data were analyzed quantitatively using Microsoft Excel, as well as

comparing scores between participants.

Researchers further analyzed the data to look at which

numerical response was most common, which response was least

common, and how many questions the participants scored with the

same number, and which questions showed relative agreement or

disagreement among the participants.

COVID-Focused Section (31 questions). Both participants,

Rachel and Steven, completed the COVID-focused portion of the

survey before and after the interviews. For these survey questions,

participants were asked to rate each question on a Likert-scale

between one (strongly disagree) and four (strongly agree).

Comparing pre-survey to the post-survey results in this section

revealed changes in participant attitudes about their own capacity to

serve in their professional roles. Of the 31 pre-survey questions,

Rachel responded six times with a “strongly agree” response (19%),

nineteen times with an “agree” (61%), six times with a “disagree”

(19%), and did not respond to any question with a “strongly

disagree” (0%). Her overall pre-survey average was a 2.94. Rachel’s

responses became even more positive from the pre- to the post

survey. Instead of five “strongly agree” responses, she jumped to

twelve (38.7%), her overall average was a 3.35 when her post-survey

scores were averaged, and her average change from pre- to post-

response was a positive 13.9%.

Steven’s pre-survey average was 0.1 less than Rachel’s. As

was the case with Rachel, Steven’s post-survey average similarly

increased compared to his pre-survey average, an increase of 13.4% to

3.22. However, some differences do exist in these data. Where

Rachel’s scores were all twos, threes, and fours on the pre-survey,

Research in Educational Administration & Leadership

6(2), June 2021, 515-552

532

Steven’s spread the entire spectrum with ratings in all four of the

categories. Out of the 31 questions, he responded seven times with a

“strongly agree” response (22.5%), sixteen times with an “agree”

(51.6%), four times with a “disagree” (13%), and responded “strongly

disagree” four times (13%).

Overall, from pre- to post-survey, Rachel dropped her score

on only one question (3%), rated the same on twenty questions

(64.5%), increased her score by one point on eight questions (25.8%),

and increased her score by two points on two questions (6.5%).

Steven, from pre- to post-survey, dropped his score by two points on

two questions (6.5%), kept the same score on seventeen questions

(54.8%), increased his score by one point on ten questions (32%), and

increased his score by two points on two questions (6.5%). The

participants responded with the same score to 15 questions (48%),

responded within one point to 13 questions (41.9%), and responded

within two points to three questions (9.6%). On the post-survey

questions, the participants responded with the same score to 16

questions (51.6%), responded within one to 14 questions (45%), and

responded within two to one question (3%). Data analysis provided a

means to understand differences in ratings by Steven and Rachel.

There were four occurrences where one of the participants increased

their ratings by two points from pre- to post-survey. All four of these

occurrences occurred on questions focused on technology access and

online instruction.

Other highlights from this section of the survey relate to one-

point differences (twenty-one instances, seventeen increasing)

between pre-and post-survey responses. In four instances, one-point

differences were recorded by both administrators while responding

to the same survey question (i.e. 10, 12, 24, and 26), two of which

Martinez, Amick, & McAbee (2021). The Reopening of a School during the

COVID-19 Pandemic...

533

revealed both parties increasing, while the other two questions

revealed one administrator increasing and the other decreasing. Most

significantly, between the pre-and post-surveys both study

participants increased from “disagree” to “agree” on question 10 (“I

have been effective in supporting measures related to equity for

students and their families”) and from “agree” to “strongly agree” on

question 26 (“I have adjusted my expectations for online effective

teaching because of the COVID-19 pandemic”).

Owing to different professional experiences during the same

time period, on question 24 (“I sometimes doubt my ability to

evaluate teachers for online teaching) for example, Rachel decreased

her rating from “strongly agree” to “agree”, while Steven increased

his rating from “disagree” to “agree”. From these data, it can be

surmised that, although coming to their post-survey conclusions from

different directions, both administrators ultimately felt able to

evaluate teachers in their online teaching. Overall, these data suggest

that both administrators went into the academic year with high levels

of self-efficacy and they grew higher over the six week study even

amidst a global pandemic. These data also suggest that past

professional experience as teachers and the administrator preparation

program completed by the participants may have provided them

with the knowledge and tools, and therefore the confidence, to

handle a variety of situations, even those which are ill defined.

Principal Self-Efficacy Survey (PSES) Section (18 questions). A

second part of the pre- and post-survey was not related specifically to

the COVID-19 pandemic, but asked the participants to rate

themselves on self-efficacy using the Principal Self-Efficacy Survey

(PSES). For each of the survey’s questions, participants rated

statements on a scale of one to nine, where 1 equates to “none at all”,

Research in Educational Administration & Leadership

6(2), June 2021, 515-552

534

3 means “very little, 5 is “some degree”, 7 equates to “quite a bit”,

and 9 means “a great deal”. The participants were able to designate

even numbers as well, to fill in the scale. The results of the PSES

section of the surveys are provided in Table 2.

Table 2.

Quantitative Data - Researcher Created, COVID Focused Survey Portion

(includes PSES)

Question Rachel-pre Rachel-post Steven-pre Steven-post

In your current role as administrator,

to what extent can you…

1 facilitate student learning at your

school? 7 7 7 7

2 generate enthusiasm for a shared

vision for the school? 7 6 6 7

3 handle the time demands of the job? 7 8 7 8

4 manage change in your school? 8 7 6 6

5 promote school spirit amount a large

majority of the student population? 6 6 6 6

6 create a positive learning

environment in your school? 8 7 8 8

7 raise student achievement on

standardized tests? 6 5 6 5

8 promote a positive image of your

school with the media? 8 7 6 6

9 motivate teachers? 8 7 6 7

Martinez, Amick, & McAbee (2021). The Reopening of a School during the

COVID-19 Pandemic...

535

Table 2. (continued)

Quantitative Data - Researcher Created, COVID Focused Survey Portion

(includes PSES)

Question Rachel-pre Rachel-post Steven-pre Steven-post

In your current role as administrator,

to what extent can you…

10 promote the prevailing values of the

community in your school? 6 8 5 8

11 maintain control over your own daily

schedule? 9 8 7 6

12 shape the operational policies and

procedures that are necessary to

manage your school? 9 7 8 8

13 handle effectively the discipline of

students in your school? 7 9 6 8

14 promote acceptable behavior among

students? 7 7 8 8

15 handle the paperwork required of the

job? 7 8 7 8

16 promote ethical behavior among

school personnel? 7 8 7 8

17 cope with the stress of the job? 8 8 5 5

18 prioritize among competing demands

of the job? 8 9 7 7

Averages 7.39 7.11 6.83 6.94

Note: 1-none at all, 3-very little, 5-some degree, 7-quite a bit, 9-a great

deal; Themes (a) technology access/information, (b)

informational/procedural ambiguity, (c) resource dependency, (d) policy

adaptability, (e) stakeholder disposition, (f) communication methods

Similar to results gathered in the COVID-19 focused portion

of the survey, there was an overall sense of confidence reported by

Research in Educational Administration & Leadership

6(2), June 2021, 515-552

536

both participants as evidenced by no scores being lower than a “5-

some degree”. Rachel’s average score from all of the pre-survey

questions was a 7.4. Those responses became slightly less positive

from the pre- to the post survey, her overall post-survey average was

7.1 which depicts a change of negative 0.28. Relative to Rachel’s

ratings on the PSES, Steven’s scores were slightly lower overall on

both the pre- and post-surveys. His average score for the pre-survey

was 6.8, three-tenths lower than Rachel’s average, and his post-

survey average was 6.9, two-tenths lower than Rachel’s post-survey

average. According to the PSES results, Steven rated highly in self-

efficacy heading into the academic year and remained steady in those

ratings.

Of the 18 statements provided in the PSES, there was only one

two-point change from pre- to post-survey which was on statement 8,

“In your current role as an administrator, to what extent can you

promote a positive image of your school with the media?” Rachel

recorded an 8 on her pre-survey and then dropped to a 6 on per post-

survey. All other pre- to post- responses were within one point of

each other. To further highlight important results, there were seven

questions on the pre-survey and seven questions on the post-survey

where both Rachel and Steven marked their abilities with the same

score.

That said, there are two examples of where Steven expressed

greater confidence in his abilities, relative to Rachel. For example,

Rachel responded with a 6 on her pre-survey while Steven responded

with an 8 in responding to question 10 asking, “In your current role

as administrator, to what extent can you promote the prevailing

values of the community in your school?”. Also, Rachel scored herself

as a 6 while Steven scored himself a 9 on question 13, which asked the

Martinez, Amick, & McAbee (2021). The Reopening of a School during the

COVID-19 Pandemic...

537

participants about effectively handling discipline. Alternatively,

Rachel reported an 8 and Steven reported a 5 on both pre- and post-

survey to question 17, which inquired, “In your current role as

administrator, to what extent can you cope with the stress of the

job?”.

We can hypothesize that Steven’s higher confidence level

could be contributed to the autonomy of his role as principal, or

possibly due to research that shows that men are more comfortable

with self-promotion than are women (Exley & Kessler, 2021).

Interview Results

Throughout the sessions with the administrators, repetitive

themes emerged from their answers to the questions asked that

describe dilemmas, achievements, and unique situations faced by the

community, students, teachers. The themes described highlight the

changing circumstances of the school and included: (a) technology

access/instruction, (b) informational/procedural ambiguity, (c)

resource dependency, (d) policy adaptability, (e) stakeholder

disposition, and (f) communication methods.

Technology access/instruction. During the first week of

interviews, the school’s principal, Steven, described the beginning of

the school year as going “smoother than we all expected it to be” with

the exception of virtual learning related technology issues. By the end

of the first week, Steven stated that work to address technology

difficulties was the school’s “biggest accomplishment.” The next time

teachers’ comfortability with virtual instruction is mentioned by the

principal, he observed that “teachers [had] developed a level of

comfort.” The improvement continued throughout the sessions,

including circumstances of school experiencing cycles of in-person

and virtual instruction.

Research in Educational Administration & Leadership

6(2), June 2021, 515-552

538

Informational/procedural ambiguity. Additionally, in the midst

of returning the school routine to normal, the administrators

expressed instances of ambiguity that caused normal routine to be

challenging. The ambiguity in communication included direction

from the school district office regarding COVID-19 policies that

impacted teachers as they experienced the vagueness of contact

tracing in the classroom and the uncertainty of the duration they will

be teaching in the classroom or virtual setting. Overall, the

uncertainty infiltrated the school holistically, and in each new issue of

action to take regarding contact tracing, school athletics, quarantine,

or social distancing, “[ambiguity] pops back up, and it’s not popping

back up in the same like tidal wave it was before,” as said by Rachel

in the sixth week.

Resource dependence. Throughout the interviews, dependency

on resources, both material and human, appeared consistently as a

theme. The technological resource in demand was an inadequacy of

internet access for students who came from low socioeconomic status

(SES) homes, highlighting a limitation the school faced in regards to

being unable to ensure reliable internet access for all students. In the

final individual interviews in the sixth week, both Steven and Rachel

commented that technology and access to resources remained

relevant issues.

Aside from technology resource deficiencies, the school

exhibited a substantial need in human resources as well. The lack of

resources in this category includes the need for teachers with

technology support skills, substitute teachers, and specialized

subjects teachers. Steven first indicated teachers’ skills were needed

in the later part of the first week where he stated that “we don’t have

a whole bunch of teachers that are qualified to do [on-site tech

Martinez, Amick, & McAbee (2021). The Reopening of a School during the

COVID-19 Pandemic...

539

resource], so the ones that are qualified right now are just

overworked.” In the second week, Steven cited substitute teachers as

a “major resource shortage” and stated in a later interview that the

shortage could revert the school to closing. Additionally, specialized

skills and staff availability were needed for English language learning

(ELL) and special education students. Although the desire for an ELL

teacher was persistently mentioned by both administrators, on the

twelfth interview, Rachel mentioned that an ELL teacher was hired,

but she remarked in the final interview that she was still concerned

about the ELL students “because they were not served for so long,

and we’re playing catch up now and it’s a group that already was

playing catch up in a lot of ways because of the language barrier.”

Policy adaptability. The abnormal circumstances of the cycle of

in-person and virtual instruction warranted novel school and school

district policies, many of which were developed during the summer

prior to the beginning of the school year and had never been tested in

circumstances that change rapidly.

The most prominent included policy related to student

attendance and athletics. The methods and personnel for monitoring

and reporting student attendance were altered according to in-person

or remote attendance. He remarked that he was concerned that “the

first time we’re going to hear from some of these kids this school year

is when they have to show up in court for truancy.” Fortunately, by

the fifth week, virtual student attendance had improved to mirror the

attendance rate of a typical school year. Finally, Steven stated in the

twelfth interview session that policy regarding student athletics was

a “looming question for our football coaches.” Students planning for

state qualification in golf tournaments resulted in many families of

golf players advocating for games to continue regardless of school

Research in Educational Administration & Leadership

6(2), June 2021, 515-552

540

closure. Steven described the policy changes as “blanket sweeping

guidelines” but there were many specific instances where an

overarching policy was not the best fit.

Stakeholder disposition. The stakeholder disposition is used to

describe the inherent characteristics that the students, teachers,

administrators, and school community possessed throughout the

duration of the interviews with the administrators.

Both Steven and Rachel stated early in the sessions that the

students were compliant with mask and social distancing

requirements but had “disconnected from the learning process

completely” in the third week, according to Steven. Rachel described

early on her disposition as an administrator as her ability “to acquire

new knowledge in the service of someone else.” Steven attributed his

“level of trust from the community” to previous work experience in

the school. Teachers’ dispositions were described in terms of virtual

and face-to-face pedagogical practices. Steven noted that the

commitment to provide “high quality education” in the virtual

setting had diminished by week five. Moreover, Steven stated that

teachers who showed apathetic qualities in a normal school year

exhibit the same qualities in the virtual setting. The teachers’

disposition mattered less about the setting of instruction but rather

more about their practices and attitudes towards instruction in

general.

Communication methods. The majority of the communication

methods mentioned throughout included information disseminated

from the district level. Rachel mentioned in the first session that she

felt “good about the people we have in the building…it’s just the

information that’s coming to us from on high.” Communication from

the district level hindered the administrators’ ability to have a clear

Martinez, Amick, & McAbee (2021). The Reopening of a School during the

COVID-19 Pandemic...

541

vision of the policies being implemented, which ultimately impacted

school functionality, such as the distribution of technology.

Additionally, communication between administrators and

teachers, as well as between administrators and parents, embodied a

unique therapeutic nature as described by Rachel. In two separate

interviews during the fourth week, Rachel noted that her job duty

reflected a “therapist” for teachers and parents in order to assist

students adapting to online learning.

Framing of Experiences. The secondary aim of this study was to

document how each study participant “framed” their experiences as

expressed in the interviews during the six weeks of the study, based

on four distinct perspectives (Bolman & Deal, 2013), namely: (a)

structural, (b) symbolic, (c) political, and (d) human resource. These

frames were presented to the participants, respectively, as items

related to: (a) technical quality, (b) ambiguity and uncertainty, (c)

conflict and scarce resources, and (d) commitment and motivation.

During the interviews, the administrators were asked to indicate

which of these characteristics was most dominant at that time.

In their twice weekly interviews, both administrators

answered most frequently that “ambiguity and uncertainty” defined

their job experiences (Steven 46% of the time and Rachel 50% of the

time). Rachel described this frame as “trying to figure out again how

to translate things and to piece together what different people hear

from different sources.” Steven concluded in the final week that

newly implemented contact tracing guidelines had left the school

“with a lot of ambiguity and uncertainty when you get into the nitty

gritty details.”

Aside from their shared most frequent answer, Steven

responded 23% of the time that “commitment and motivation”

Research in Educational Administration & Leadership

6(2), June 2021, 515-552

542

(human resource frame) dominated his professional outlook, while

Rachel responded with similarly eight percent of the time. Steven first

commented in the third week that he worried that “the longer we

progress through this...it’s going to have a negative effect on (teacher

and staff) commitment and motivation.” Furthermore, Rachel

focused on “conflict and scarce resources” 25% of the time, compared

to 15% of Steven’s responses. This connection to the political frame

was first mentioned by Rachel in the second week in regard to

students lacking internet access.

Discussion

Through surveys and interviews, two administrators from the

same school shared feelings of professional self-efficacy and the

manner in which they “framed” their COVID-19 pandemic

experiences during the first six weeks of the 2020-2021 academic year.

As school administrators, both participants were challenged to garner

support for measures that were required in the first weeks of school

because the pandemic. In the surveys and interviews, both

administrators expressed a deep level of care for members of the

school community, especially for the welfare of the teachers and

students at their site. Since both Steven and Rachel had served at the

school in the years prior to this study as teachers and administrators,

they had established a level of trust with teachers, support staff,

students and parents, in responding to the adverse circumstances

related to the pandemic.

While serving as school administrators at the same site, it is

clear that each had separate areas of influence. In general, principal

Steven was focused on the policies and procedures needed to

effectively govern activities at the school as a whole, communicating

Martinez, Amick, & McAbee (2021). The Reopening of a School during the

COVID-19 Pandemic...

543

to entire groups of constituents, including policies and procedures

formulated specifically to address issues related to the COVID-19

pandemic. Assistant principal Rachel was focused on assisting

individual teachers and students, serving in her words in a

“therapist” role to allow these constituents to express their concerns.

Regardless, the ability for each of these school administrators to be

perceived as trustworthy was necessary for their relative success in

their professional roles. Participant descriptions of the ways they

supported members of the school community is well established in

the literature (Bishop et al., 2015; Imberman et al., 2009; Akbaba-

Altun, 2005).

The surveys provided evidence of the similarities and

differences between the two administration timeframes, as well as

between the two participants when surveyed during the same weeks.

From the pre-survey to the post-survey, both Rachel and Steven

expressed increased confidence in their ability to serve as

administrators. Steven and Rachel's estimations of self-efficacy

related specifically to aspects of the COVID-19 pandemic showed a

greater relative increase than those attributed to the PSES between

the start and end of the study.

Based on the results of the surveys, the interviews provided

more authentic and fine-grained information on topics central to the

study. Although Steven and Rachel regularly expressed their

appreciation of students and teachers to adopt the use of technology

tools related to online instruction, both administrators expressed that

some teachers progressed more slowly with their application of basic

skills than the students. When talking about technological resource

access, Rachel and Steven expressed more concern with the lack of

internet connectivity in student homes (to support student online

Research in Educational Administration & Leadership

6(2), June 2021, 515-552

544

learning) than the lack of availability of hardware/software that was

provided to students. Informational ambiguity was consistently

mentioned prominently by both participants. Understanding the

needs of constituent parties during a transition was also well founded

in previously published literature (Zhang, 2020; Ozmen, 2006).

Although both administrators were concerned with the

amount, timeliness and clarity of information related to the COVID-

19 pandemic (e.g. contract tracing and when/if school was going to

change from fully in-person instruction to fully remote instruction),

principal Steven’s concerns were focused on the of district office

communications to the school, while assistant principal Rachel’s

concerns related to communications which were internal to the

school. Evident in the review of literature (Pollock, 2020, U.S. CDC,

2020), discussions of equity were ever present in the interviews. Both

participants specifically mentioned difficulties that low SES students

were experiencing in obtaining access to the internet in their homes.

The scarcity of resources was also evident during the interviews in

participant choices of which “frame” (in this case, political) most

dominated their professional outlook. That said, “ambiguity and

uncertainty” (symbolic frame) and “commitment and motivation”

(human resource frame) were even more prevalent.

Used as a theoretical framework for this study, open systems

theory was used as a lens to better understand an individual’s

exchanges with their social environment (Orren & Smith, 2013). It is

clear that the interactions between the study’s participants and the

numerous constituent parties in which they came into contact formed

the basis from which professional decisions were made. Although

mainly focused on different tasks with a common group of

constituents for the first six weeks of the 2020-2021 school year,

Martinez, Amick, & McAbee (2021). The Reopening of a School during the

COVID-19 Pandemic...

545

principal Steven and assistant principal Rachel also interacted with

each other, confirming the interdependent nature of open systems.

Motivated by the interactions and results of this study, the

research team encourages future researchers to integrate data which

reveals the perspectives of non-administrator school stakeholders

(e.g. parents, teachers, non-instructional staff, students, community

partners) when exploring the dynamics of learning environments

impacted by large scale change. Also, inspections of administrative

attitudes of self-efficacy (using the PSES and other validated

instruments), “framing” and equity from a greater diversity of school

contexts will serve to more generally describe reactions of a broader

community of educational leaders. Finally, an examination of how a

broader array of school administrators (i.e. type of professional

preparation, years in the profession, age, sexual orientation, gender,

specialized training, etc.) respond to large-scale change will allow for

a broader understanding of a more generalized set of educational

leaders.

References

Ahlström, B., Leo, U., Norqvist, L., & Isling, P. P. (2020). School

leadership as (un)usual. insights from principals in Sweden

during a pandemic. International Studies in Educational

Administration, 48(2), 35–41.

Akbaba-Altun, S. (2005). Turkish school principals’ earthquake

experiences and reactions. International Journal of Educational

Management, 19(4), 307–317.

Anderson, R. E., & Carter, I. (1990). Human behavior in the social

environment: A social systems approach (4th Rev. ed.). New York,

NY: Aldine de Gruyter.

Research in Educational Administration & Leadership

6(2), June 2021, 515-552

546

Bolman, L. G. & Deal, T. E. (2013). Reframing organizations: Artistry,

choice and leadership (5th ed.). Jossey-Bass.

Bishop, W., Fifolt, M., Peters, G., Gurley, D., & Collins, L. (2015).

Perceptions and experiences of K-12 educational leaders in

response to the 27 April 2011 tornadoes. School Leadership &

Management, 35(2), 215–235.

Brown, C. (2018). The role of leadership in surviving a school

shooting. Journal of Cases in Educational Leadership, 21(2), 3–14.

https://doi.org/10.1177/1555458917735357

Ee, J. & Gándara, P. (2020). The impact of immigration enforcement

on the nation’s schools. American Educational Research Journal,

57(2), 840-871. https://doi.org/10.3102/0002831219862998

Exley, C. & Kessler, J. (2021). The Gender Gap in Self-Promotion.

National Bureau of Economic Research Working Paper Series,

Revised May 2021.

https://www.nber.org/system/files/working_papers/w26345/w26

345.pdf

Fletcher, J., & Nicholas, K. (2016). What can school principals do to

support students and their learning during and after natural

disasters? Educational Review, 68(3), 358–374.

https://doi.org/10.1080/00131911.2015.1114467

Fournier, E., Scott, S., & Scott, D. E. (2020). Inclusive Leadership

During the COVID- 19 Pandemic: How to Respond Within an

Inclusion Framework (Canada). International Studies in

Educational Administration, 48(1), 17–23.

Gyang, T. S. (2020). Educational Leadership Response to the COVID-

19 Pandemic Crisis in Nigeria. International Studies in Educational

Administration, 48(3). 73-79.

Martinez, Amick, & McAbee (2021). The Reopening of a School during the

COVID-19 Pandemic...

547

Hauseman, C., Darazsi, S., & Kent, S. (2020). Collaboration,

Communication and Wellness: Response to the COVID-19

Pandemic in Manitoba (Canada) Schools. International Studies

in Educational Administration, 48(2), 70–77.

Hoy, A. W., & Hoy, W. K. (2020). Instructional leadership: A research-

based guide to

learning in schools (5th ed.). Pearson.

Imberman, S., Kugler, A., & Sacerdote, B. (2009). Katrina’s children:

Evidence on the structure of peer effects from hurricane

evacuees.

Li, A., Harries, M., & Ross, L. (2020). Reopening K-12 Schools in the

Era of COVID-19: Review of State-level Guidance Addressing

Equity Concerns. The Journal of Pediatrics.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpeds.2020.08.069.

Martinez, J. A., Williams, C. & Uy, F. (2020). Effects of a collaborative,

technology-based intervention involving school principals to

retain early-career teachers: A scaled, quantitative research

study. Journal of Leadership, Equity and Research. 7 (1). 1-28.

Merriam, S. B. (2009). Qualitative research: A guide to design and

implementation. San Francisco: John Wiley & Sons.

Miles, M. B., Huberman, A. M., & Saldaña, J (2014). Qualitative data

analysis: A methods sourcebook (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA:

Sage.

Mutch, C. (2015). Leadership in times of crisis: Dispositional,

relational and contextual factors influencing school principals’

actions. International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction, 14, 186–194.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijdrr.2015.06.005

Research in Educational Administration & Leadership

6(2), June 2021, 515-552

548

O’Connell, A., & Clarke, S. (2020). A School in the Grip of COVID-19:

Musings From the Principal’s Office (Australia). International

Studies in Educational Administration, 48(2), 4–11.

Orren, D. & Smith, R. (2013). Human Behavior and the Social

Environment. (7th ed.) Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson.

Ozmen, F. (2006). The level of preparedness of the schools for

disasters from the aspect of the school principals. Disaster

Prevention and Management: An International Journal, 15(3),

383–395. https://doi.org/10.1108/09653560610669873

Parsons, T. (1959). The school class as a social system: Some of its

functions in American society. Harvard Educational Review, 29(1),

297–318.

Pepper, M. J., T. D. London, M. L. Dishman, and J. L. Lewis. 2010.

Leading Schools during Crisis: What School Administrators

Must Know. Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield Education.

Pollock, K. (2020). School Leaders’ Work During the COVID-19

Pandemic: A Two-Pronged Approach (Canada). International

Studies in Educational Administration, 48(3), 38–44.

Sherrieb, K., Louis, C., Pfefferbaum, R., Betty Pfefferbaum, J., Diab, E.,

& Norris, F. (2012). Assessing community resilience on the US

coast using school principals as key informants. International

Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction, 2, 6–15.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijdrr.2012.06.001

Sider, S. R. (2020). School Principals and Students With Special

Education Needs in a Pandemic: Emerging Insights From

Ontario, Canada. International Studies in Educational

Administration, 48(2), 78–84.

Martinez, Amick, & McAbee (2021). The Reopening of a School during the

COVID-19 Pandemic...

549

Stone-Johnson, C. and Miles Weiner, J. (2020), "Principal

professionalism in the time of COVID-19", Journal of Professional

Capital and Community, Vol. ahead-of-print No. ahead-of-print.

https://doi.org/10.1108/JPCC-05-2020-0020

Tarrant, R. (2011). Leadership through a school tragedy: A case study

(Part 1 - The first week). Australian Journal of Disaster and

Trauma Studies, 2011-3.

Tarrant, R. (2011). Leadership through a school tragedy: a case study

(Part 2-The Next Two Years). Australasian Journal of Disaster

and Trauma Studies., 2011(3), 77–87. https://doi.org/info:doi/

Teddie, C. & Tashakkori, A. (2009). Foundations of mixed methods

research: Integrating quantitative and qualitative approaches in the

social and behavioral sciences. SAGE Publications.

Tschannen-Moran, M. & Gareis, C. R. (2014). Principals’ sense of

efficacy: Assessing a promising construct. Journal of Educational

Administration, 42(5). 573-585.

U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Guidance for

schools and child care: plan, prepare, and respond to coronavirus

disease 2019 (COVID-19). Accessed July 23, 2020.

https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/community/

schools-childcare/guidance-for-schools.html

Zhang, T. (2020). Learning from the emergency remote teaching-

learning in China when primary and secondary schools were

disrupted by COVID-19 pandemic.

https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-40889/v1

Research in Educational Administration & Leadership

6(2), June 2021, 515-552

550

About the authors

James A. Martinez is an Assistant Professor in the Department of

Educational Leadership & Policy Studies and the Assistant Director

of the Center for Educational Leadership at the University of

Tennessee, Knoxville. He has served as a classroom teacher,

principal, and accreditation chair for the Western Association of

Schools and Colleges (WASC).

Authorship credit details: Conceptualization of the study, designer

of methodology, formal analysis, investigation, allocator of resources,

writing (original draft preparation and review and editing), and

project administration

Email: [email protected]

Lisa R. Amick has ten years of middle level mathematics teaching

experience, is now a Clinical Associate Professor at the University of

Kentucky, and currently serves as Chair for both the undergraduate

STEM PLUS (mathematics) program and the Middle Level Education

program. Her research interests include teacher retention, early

career teacher support, the National Board process for teachers, and

inquiry based mathematics intervention.

Authorship credit details: Formal analysis, investigation, and writing

(original draft preparation and review and editing)

Email: [email protected]

Sydney McAbee is currently a dental student at the University of

Tennessee Health Science Center. She has worked as a research

assistant alongside Dr. James Martinez at the University of Tennessee

at Knoxville. Their research together has included administrative

support of teachers, teacher retention, and administrative response to

school disasters.

Martinez, Amick, & McAbee (2021). The Reopening of a School during the

COVID-19 Pandemic...

551

Authorship credit details: Formal analysis, investigation, and writing

(review and editing)

Email: [email protected]

Research in Educational Administration & Leadership

6(2), June 2021, 515-552

552

Appendix A

Interview Questions

1. How are you feeling about your ability to do your job?

(researcher created)

2. What main obstacle(s) are deterring you from performing at your

best? (researcher created)

3. What accomplishments can you celebrate? (researcher created)

4. Who are the neediest constituents right now and why?

(researcher created)

5. How well do you feel you are attending to issues related to equity

and access?

6. How difficult is the task at hand and what resources are

available? (Hoy and Hoy, 2013, p. 164)

7. Given the situation, do you have the skills and knowledge (to

adequately attend to the task)? (Hoy and Hoy, 2013, p. 164)

8. Are commitment and motivation essential to success (of what you

are taking on)? (Bolman & Deal, 2013, p. 311) (human

resource/symbolic frames)

9. Is the technical quality (of what you are taking on) important?

(Bolman & Deal, 2013, p. 312) (structural frame)

10. Are ambiguity and uncertainty high (to adequately attend of

what you are taking on)? (Bolman & Deal, 2013, p. 312)

(political/symbolic frames)

11. Are conflict and scarce resources significant (to adequately attend

to of what you are taking on)? (Bolman & Deal, 2013, p. 312)

(political frame)