Policy and Sense-Making in a Time of Crisis

• In Event: Leading Through Crisis: Lessons From School Principals' Leadership During the COVID-19 Pandemic

Abstract

Purpose

This paper takes up the question of how district policy and practice influenced school leaders’ efforts to lead change in the immediate aftermath of the COVID-19 pandemic. The primary research questions that guide this study are: How did school districts in a diverse sample of states and contexts respond, communicate and guide principals’ responses to the pandemic? What contextual and individual factors supported or challenged principals’ ability to lead school change?

Framework

In this study we adopt a constructivist view to explain the critical role school leaders play in responding to a crisis situation. A constructivist perspective takes into consideration the systemic aspects of social contexts (Charmaz, 2006). District policy and practice are part of a complex systems dynamic that involves local, district and state context. Understanding leadership therefore requires attention to context and to the actions of the leaders involved. Context shapes leadership but individuals also make policy through their enactment decisions (Weatherley & Lipsky, 1977), as they interpret and adjust policy tenets to fit their priorities and contexts (Authors, 2008). Leading change is part of a sensemaking process that is “grounded in both individual and social activity (Weick, 1995; Weick et al., 2005; Pye, 2005). Understanding organizational leadership demands attention to both.

Data & Methods

The data for this paper comes from the larger qualitative study of leading during the COVID -19 pandemic. We used a stratified sample of interviews from elementary, middle and high schools; in rural, urban and suburban districts in a variety of states. It included 27 principal interviews, all taped and transcribed, as well as school demographic data. Data was coded, themed and analyzed starting with a set of a priori codes that were primarily descriptive and designed to elicit information about leadership and policy in general (Saldana, 2012).

Results

The analysis reveals how principal leadership was influenced by district level responses to the pandemic. Principals’ abilities to respond to the needs of students, parents and community were influenced by the district’s timing of their communication, the degree of autonomy they gave to the principal and the larger state and legal policy context. In some cases, principals had to wait for their district to communicate procedures and protocols, impeding services to students. In other cases, the tensions between centralized and decentralized decision-making led principals to come up with their own plan of action. School leadership found creative ways to address the needs of their school community and communicate with members. District’s with productive responses had an infrastructure already in place and were prepared to utilize the infrastructure to meet students’ academic and social needs. If, for example districts had one-to-one technology and a prepared staff, they could immediately push out instruction. If they had leadership teams and/or principal networks, they had the capacity to engage in responsive and compassionate decision-making.

Significance

Learning how principals interact with district policy during a crisis makes clear the factors that support or challenge effective leadership as leaders struggle to successfully meet the needs of their community.

Authors

• Lea A. Hubbard, University of San Diego

• Hollie Mackey, North Dakota State University

• Jonathan A. Supovitz, University of Pennsylvania