Content uploaded by Chunyan Yang
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Chunyan Yang on Oct 29, 2022
Content may be subject to copyright.
| PROJECT BRIEF
Finding Resilience
During the COVID-19 Pandemic:
Perspectives from School Leaders
March 2022
Project Brief Volume 1 Issue 1
Prepared by: Meg Stomski, Xueqin Lin, Hua Luo, Dr. Rebecca Cheung, Dr. Chunyan Yang
Executive Summary
The COVID-19 pandemic, in addition to the ongoing social and political movements in the United States,
has dramatically impacted the work of school leaders. Over the past year and a half, school leaders have
navigated unprecedented challenges of crisis leadership while finding ways to lead schools for equity
(Grissom & Condon, 2021). Such immense pressures have put school leaders in jeopardy of burnout and
work-related fatigue, which may further escalate the already high turnover of principals. The 21st Century
California School Leadership Academy (21CSLA) and the University of California Berkeley Leadership
Programs launched the Resilient Leadership Project in the spring of 2021 to investigate individual and
contextual factors that influence Californian principals’ resilience and wellbeing. The aim of this longitudinal
project is to better understand which groups of principals are most vulnerable to burnout and what factors
protect them from burnout or exacerbate their risk of burnout. To examine this, our first wave of data
collected information on principals’ personal and school-level demographics, perceptions of self-efficacy in
school-level and district-level improvement, perceived connectedness with schools and districts, perceived
level of professional support, compassion fatigue, core values for pursuing a career in leadership, and within-
school stressors (see sidebar for definitions of each variable). Items and questions were informed by the
content from a pilot study1 that we conducted in the early phase of the pandemic (June 2020). This pilot
study was completed with the support of the Stuart Foundation and data were collected from graduates of
the UC Berkeley and UCLA Principal Leadership Institutes.
With 234 responses, survey results indicated that principals across demographic groups reported high
rates of stress but have different experiences with regard to factors of resilience and wellbeing. Specifically,
gender, multilingual status, school location, and longevity are significantly associated with problems with
connectedness and efficacy. With regard to stressors experienced by principals, new principals (1–2 years)
reported significantly higher levels of school-level stressors compared to mid-career (6–10 years) and
later-career (15 or more years) principals. Across all experience levels, principals rated “issues related to
the reopening of schools” as the most stressful stressor. Additionally, findings indicated that high levels of
connectedness with schools and districts, high levels of efficacy at both school and district levels, and high
levels of professional support contributed to lower levels of compassion fatigue among principals. Finally,
based on principals’ self-reported core values for pursuing a career in leadership, four distinct profiles of
principals were generated. Principals from the four profiles differed from each other with respect to their
personal and school characteristics, suggesting the heterogeneity of principals’ core values and setting
the stage for further research on the correlations between principals’ core values and well-being. Taken
together, the first wave of this study suggests that the experience of stress and burnout, particularly for
certain demographic groups, as well as effective support strategies, are areas where critical investigations
are needed in order to address the broader issues of supporting the wellbeing and resilience of our leaders
as they cope with the repercussions of the COVID-19 pandemic.
1 Please use the following link for more information about this pilot study: https://tinyurl.com/yc6svzmx
2PROJECT BRIEF VOLUME 1 ISSUE 1 – MARCH 2022
fall of 2020 revealed that school principals’ stress levels during
the pandemic varied across demographic groups.2 Based on the
preliminary findings of the pilot study, 21CSLA and the University
of California Berkeley Leadership Programs launched the Resilient
Leadership Project in the spring of 2021 to investigate individual
and contextual factors that influence principals’ resilience and
wellbeing. The project aims to better understand which groups
of principals are most vulnerable to compassion fatigue and what
factors protected them from compassion fatigue or exacerbated
their risk of compassion fatigue. It also focused on a broad
representation of California principals.
Overview of the Principal
Resilience Survey
Open to all who served as K–12 school principals in California
during the 2020–2021 school year, this survey was designed to
identify significant stressors and examine the psychological
factors that protect school leaders from burnout during the
pandemic, including principal self-efficacy and district efficacy,
sense of connectedness to the school and district, professional
support, and professional core values. The survey was distributed
by 21CSLA as well as UC Berkeley and UCLA Leadership Programs
to regional directors of 21CSLA and networks of Leadership
Programs alumni during early spring of 2021. Survey questions
were adapted from the 2020 pilot survey and were split into six
sections, with each response item on a Likert scale ranging from
1 to 5. Below are the descriptions of the key measures and sample
items:
ɖSelf-efficacy in school level and district level
improvement refers to the principal’s belief on how well the
principal and their district are executing the necessary actions to
produce improvements at the school level and district level.
ɒ Example response items for school-level principal
efficacy include: nurture positive changes in your school,
create a positive learning environment in your school, and
improve student learning as demonstrated by formative and
summative outcomes.
ɒ Example response items for district-level efficacy
include: our district has successfully recruited, retained, and
supported high-quality teachers and district staff members
value collective and team leadership.
ɖConnectedness with schools and districts refers to the
principal’s feeling of belonging to the school and district.
ɒ Example response items include: I feel like I belong at my
school/district, I feel I am treated with respect by others at
my school/district, and I feel a sense of community with my
school/district.
ɖProfessional support refers to the job-related support
principals seek out when they need help that goes beyond what
their school site can provide.
Background and Context
The pandemic has dramatically impacted the work of school
leaders and leadership practice. Over the past year and a half,
school principals were challenged to navigate and restructure
ways to lead their schools amidst great changes and uncertainty
(Harris & Jones, 2020). Similar to managing other types of
crises, school leaders need not only to engage in effective
communication and facilitate sensemaking in uncertainty, but
also to be adaptive and attentive to the emotional wellbeing and
health of their employees (McLeod & Dulsky, 2021). However,
the current pandemic crisis differs from other catastrophic
events in its year-long and unequal impacts on individuals and
communities. Therefore, school principals were put in a position
not only to practice crisis leadership (Grissom & Condon,
2021) but also to lead schools for equity, an unprecedentedly
challenging role for many principals. Furthermore, in 2020–2021,
the United States experienced waves of social and political
movements related to both global health and social epidemics.
In California, school leaders also faced financial constraints,
anticipated state budget reductions, and coped with remote
instruction for the bulk of the school year. These challenges
have put school leaders in jeopardy of compassion fatigue and
burnout.
Scholars are starting to understand how school principals have
navigated challenges in the COVID-19 pandemic (Fernandez
& Shaw, 2020; McLeod & Dulsky, 2020; Netolicky, 2020). For
example, Netolicky (2020) explored tensions that principals
have experienced during the pandemic as they try to adapt their
leadership and balance equity, excellence, and accountability
while considering both schools’ outcomes and wellbeing of
students, families, and teachers. However, there has been a
scarcity of empirical evidence examining principal wellbeing
and resilience under the context of the COVID-19 pandemic.
Findings from the aforementioned pilot study conducted in the
ɖ Efficacy in school-level and district-level
improvement: Belief on how well the principal and their
district are executing the necessary actions to produce
improvements at the school level and district level
ɖ Connectedness with schools and districts: Feeling of
belonging to the school and district
ɖ Professional support: Individually-sought job-related
support for principals that goes beyond what their school
site can provide
ɖ Compassion fatigue: Behaviors and emotions resulting
from being exposed to and knowing about a traumatizing
event experienced by others and the stress resulting from
wanting to help a traumatized or suffering person
ɖ Core values: Purpose and motivation for pursuing a
career in leadership
KEY TERMS
2Please use the link below for more information about this pilot study:
https://tinyurl.com/yc6svzmx
SCHOOL TYPE
78%
PUBLIC
22%
NON-
PUBLIC
EDUCATION LEVEL
10%
EdD
1%
PhD6%
BACHELOR’S
83%
MASTER’S
ENVIRONMENT
41%
RURAL
15%
SUBURBAN
44%
URBAN
LANGUAGES
SPOKEN
47%
MULT I -
LINGUAL
53%
ENGLISH
ONLY
GENDER
64%
FEMALE
36%
MALE
RACE
29%
LEADERS OF
COLOR
71%
WHITE
LEADERS
6-10 33.04% 20%
YEARS % OF YEARS
PRINCIPAL
% OF YEARS AT
CURRENT SITE
1-2 20% 32.61%
3-5 30.87% 40%
> 11 16.09% 7.3 0%
PROJECT BRIEF VOLUME 1 ISSUE 1 – MARCH 2022 3
3In order to interpret the responses, we conducted group mean comparisons, multiple regressions, and latent profile analysis using Stata. The group
mean comparisons and multiple linear regressions were used to compare the averages of the variables by certain demographic factors and analyze
if these differences were statistically significant, while controlling for all other variables. Further multiple logistic and linear regressions were used to
examine main and interactive effects of key variables on principals’ compassion fatigue and also examine what factors contribute to the development
of principal self-efficacy. Additional multiple linear regressions were used to detect potential associations between principals’ professional core values
and compassion fatigue, and, in order to gain a more comprehensive understanding of principals’ professional core values, profiles of principals were
generated based on their responses to the professional core value items.
ɒ Example response items include: contact former
program leaders and/or instructors, reach out to peer
colleagues who will assist me, and reach out to others on
social media/support groups.
ɖCompassion fatigue refers to “the natural consequent
behaviors and emotions resulting from knowing about a
traumatizing event experienced by a significant other and the
stress resulting from wanting to help a traumatized or suffering
person” (Figley, 1995, p. 7). For school principals, compassion
fatigue might result from their desire to support their students
and staff who experienced life challenges caused by the
pandemic.
ɒ Example response items include: I find myself distressed
when listening to my students’/families’ stories and situations
and I can feel overwhelmed trying to cope with the
emotional, physical, and psychological responses from my
job.
ɖCore values refer to the purpose and motivation for pursuing
a career in leadership.
ɒ Example items include: make a contribution to the
community, better address the needs of students and
families, and have more decision-making authority and voice.
While anonymous, the survey also collected personal and
school-level demographic information, including the participant’s
credentialing process, current work environment, years employed
as a principal, years employed at current site (regardless of
their role), and years employed at current district (regardless
of their role) to better understand how principal resilience is
distributed across personal and environmental factors within
specific contexts and career trajectories. In order to examine
1) demographic differences across all response variables; 2) key
variables that influence compassion fatigue and principal self-
efficacy; and 3) potential associations between professional core
values and compassion fatigue, we conducted various statistical
analyses.3 The following sections highlight the major findings.
Demographic
Information of Survey
Participants
Data was collected from 234 principals in California during the
spring of 2021. The graphs display the demographic backgrounds
of our participants:
The racial/ethnic backgrounds of our interviewees were as
follows: 66.1% White, 4.8% Asian American, 7.3% Black or African
American, 29% Hispanic or Latinx, 1.6% Native American, 6% two
or more races, and 7.3% identified as another race.
4PROJECT BRIEF VOLUME 1 ISSUE 1 – MARCH 2022
Key Finding #1:
Demographic Differences Affect
Connectedness, Efficacy, and Stress.
We found that gender, multilingual status, school location, and
longevity have statistically significant relationships with issues of
connectedness, efficacy, and stress in the following ways:
Gender
On average, female principals reported utilizing significantly
higher levels of professional support, including support from
their schools, supervisors, and peers, compared to male
principals. This difference was statistically significant, with
female principals reporting 8% higher levels of using professional
support than male principals.
Multilingual Status
Multilingual principals, or principals who speak at least one
language in addition to English, reported significantly higher
perceptions of district efficacy for school improvement and felt
more connected with their district compared to principals who
only speak English. In particular, multilingual principals reported
9% higher levels of district efficacy for school improvement and
their district connectedness compared to English-only principals,
and this difference was statistically significant.
School Location
Principals in rural districts reported significantly higher
perceptions of district efficacy for school improvement than
principals in urban and suburban districts. These differences were
statistically significant, with principals in rural districts reporting
4% higher, on average, than suburban principals and 7% higher,
on average, than urban principals with respect to their district
efficacy for school improvement. Principals in rural districts also
reported significantly higher levels of connectedness to their
districts compared to principals in urban and suburban districts.
These differences were statistically significant, with principals in
rural districts reporting 4% higher, on average, than suburban
principals and 14% higher, on average, than urban principals with
respect to their district connectedness.
Longevity
Principals at all years of practice rated 6 out of 13 stressors at the
moderate to high level, with “issues related to the reopening of
schools” being rated as their highest stressor. Figure 1 depicts the
top seven stressors that were reported by principals across all
years of practice.
In examining differences across years of experience, we found
that new principals (1–2 years) reported significantly higher levels
of school-level stressors compared to mid-career (6–10 years)
and later-career (15 or more years) principals. In particular, new
principals reported 12% higher, on average, than principals who
have worked for 6–10 years in the profession and 12% higher, on
average, than later-career principals with respect to their reports
on within-school stressors. At the item level, principals who
have worked at their current district for less than 10 years rated
“stress about meeting the needs of my school community” as
their second highest stressor, whereas principals who have been
employed at their current district for 11 or more years reported
“instructional issues” as their second highest stressor.
Principals of all years of practice reported feeling often or
almost always connected to their schools. However, principals
with 11–15 years of practice reported significantly higher levels
of connectedness to their schools (12% higher on average) than
principals who have been employed for 1–2 years. These findings
slightly differed by the years employed at the current district:
principals who have been employed at the district for 6–10
years reported 8% higher, on average, than new principals at the
district with respect to connectedness to schools. Additionally,
principals who have been employed at the district for 15 or more
years reported 12% higher, on average, than new principals at the
district with respect to connectedness to schools. The results
suggest that longevity at the school and longevity in the district
both contribute towards stronger feelings of connectedness.
TOP STRESSORS DURING COVID-19
4.05
3.64
3.23
3.1
3.07
3.05
2.97
1 2 3 4 5
I have been stressed about issues related to the reopening of schools
I have been stressed about meeting the needs of my school community
I have been stressed about technology-related issues
I have been stressed about my family members’ health and safety
I have been stressed about school or district politics
I have been stressed about issues related to school climate
I have been stressed about facility issues
LIKERT SCALE RESPONSES
TOP STRESSORS
PROJECT BRIEF VOLUME 1 ISSUE 1 – MARCH 2022 5
Key Finding #2:
Principal Beliefs and Attitudes Impact
their Resilience.
We found that principals’ connectedness and perceptions of
efficacy are significantly related to compassion fatigue.
Connectedness Reduces Compassion Fatigue.
Principals’ sense of connectedness with both their schools
and their districts also plays a significant role in affecting their
perceived compassion fatigue. Principals with a high sense of
school connectedness were 27% less likely to have high levels
of compassion fatigue than principals with a low sense of
school connectedness . Principals with a high sense of district
connectedness were 24% less likely to have high levels of
compassion fatigue than principals with a low sense of district
connectedness.
Self-Efficacy Also Reduces Compassion Fatigue.
On average, principals with a higher sense of self-efficacy
experienced lower levels of compassion fatigue than those with
a lower sense of self-efficacy. Principals reporting a high sense of
self-efficacy at the school level were 21% less likely to have high
levels of compassion fatigue than those reporting a low sense
of self-efficacy at the school level. Similarly, principals reporting
a high sense of self-efficacy at the district level were 34% less
likely to have high levels of compassion fatigue than principals
reporting a low sense of self-efficacy at the district level.
Principals’ sense of efficacy in improving their school is shaped
by the following: how strongly they feel connected to their
school; how strongly they believe in the district’s efficacy for
school improvement; and how strongly they feel professionally
supported.
PROFESSIONAL SUPPORT
CO MPA SSI ON FATIG UE
1
2
3
4
5
0
6
LOW HIGH
Low Efficacy at School Level
High Efficacy at School Level
Key Finding #3:
Professional Support has a Strong and
Positive Influence on Resilience.
Principals who reported a high level of professional support
were 32% less likely to have high levels of compassion fatigue
than principals who reported lower levels of professional
support.
Key Finding #4:
Professional Support Alone is Not
Always Sufficient.
Professional support and efficacy beliefs do not impact
principals’ resilience independently; instead, they interactively
influence principal resilience. Principals with a combination of
lowest levels of professional support and lowest levels of
efficacy beliefs in both district- and school-level improvement
reported the highest levels of compassion fatigue.
Moreover, principals with a combination of highest levels of
professional support and lowest levels of efficacy beliefs in
both school-level and district-level improvement reported the
lowest levels of compassion fatigue. This counterintuitive
finding indicates that among principals who perceived higher
levels of professional support, those with lower self-efficacy
beliefs might be more resilient (as indicated by lower level of
compassion fatigue); and among principals who perceived lower
levels of professional support, those with higher self-efficacy
beliefs might be more resilient (as indicated by lower level of
compassion fatigue).
6PROJECT BRIEF VOLUME 1 ISSUE 1 – MARCH 2022
Principals were provided a list of 14 core values and were asked
to indicate their level of agreement with each of the options as
their motivation for pursuing a career in leadership (1 = Strongly
Disagree; 5 = Strongly Agree). Based on principals’ responses
to the four most representative core values (as shown in the
legend of the picture below), four profiles of principals that were
conceptually meaningful and statistically fit were determined
based on a series of latent profile analyses. While the four
LATENT PROFILES OF PRINCIPALS BASED ON FOUR CORE VALUES
1.oo
0.00
2.00
3.00
4.00
5.00
Advocate for the needs of under-performing and under-resourced communities
Improve instruction
Create a more orderly environment
Advance in my professional career
Profile 2 (34% of sample, n=83)
4.36
3.93
3.55
3.34
Profile 3 (10% of sample, n=25)
4.44
5.00
3.55
2.99
Profile 4 (5% of sample, n=13)
2.72
5.00
3.16
4.00
Profile 1 (51% of sample, n=125)
4.77 5.00
3.78
4.16
Key Finding #5:
Heterogeneity in Professional Core Values.
profiles varied in the number of respondents in each category,
each profile provides a distinct and comprehensive summary
of the principals’ motivation for pursuing a career in leadership.
These profiles, as shown in the figure below, include Profile 1 (51%
of respondents, or n = 125); Profile 2 (34% of respondents, or n
= 83 respondents); Profile 3 (10% of respondents, or n = 25); and
Profile 4 (5% of respondents, or n = 13).
PROJECT BRIEF VOLUME 1 ISSUE 1 – MARCH 2022 7
Profile 1
ɖ is more likely to include principals from rural areas;
Profile 3:
ɖ is more likely to include principals with a highest degree
of EdD, principals from schools with the lowest percentage
of students who are eligible for free and reduced lunch,
principals from schools with the lowest percentage of
students who are English language learners, principals from
suburban schools, and principals from private schools;
Profile 2:
ɖ is more likely to include principals with a highest degree
of PhD, and principals from suburban schools;
Profile 4:
ɖ is more likely to include principals from schools with the
highest percentage of students who are eligible for free
and reduced lunch, principals from charter schools, and
principals from urban schools.
STATISTICAL DIFFERENCES BETWEEN
THE FOUR PROFILES
Principals in these four different profiles are statistically
different from each other in terms of their (1) education level, (2)
percentage of students at their schools who are eligible for free
and reduced lunch, (3) percentage of students at their schools
who are English language learners, (4) school categories, and (5)
school location.
Results from this person-centered analysis highlight the
heterogeneity of principals’ core values and set the stage for
future research on the connections between principals’ core
value profile membership and their perception of compassion
fatigue.
Next Steps
The first wave of our Resilient Leadership Project suggests
that school principals experience high levels of school-level
stressors and compassion fatigue, some of which are unique to
the unprecedented challenges of crisis leadership. Finding ways
to effectively support our leaders through increasing levels of
professional support, self-efficacy, and connectedness is critical
to reducing compassion fatigue and turnover. How can we
effectively reduce the stressors experienced by new principals?
How can we better support our new leaders by making them feel
more connected to their schools and districts?
Participant responses suggest that professional circumstances
such as increased networks and support may contribute to the
resilience of some principals. How can more supportive networks
be developed and how do preparation/induction programs play
a role? Given the enduring pandemic and the return of California
schools to in-person learning, the Resilient Leadership Project
will continue to investigate issues of principal resilience and
wellbeing. It is imperative to continue to monitor the protective
and compassion fatigue factors that principals experience as we
enter a different phase of the pandemic, in which leaders will
be expected to juggle existing challenges while managing new
challenges that arise from the return to in-person learning. Our
next steps include collecting a second wave of data in the fall of
2021 from our returning participants to monitor how their levels
of compassion fatigue and wellbeing differ across the phases of
the pandemic. Furthermore, as prior research has suggested that
demographic characteristics, such as gender, race, educational
level, and years of working are important factors to examine
when investigating principal turnover (Rangel, 2018), we will
continue to collect extensive demographic information to inform
our analysis. We will also collect data from new participants in
hopes of gaining a comprehensive understanding of California
leaders’ experiences across different districts. Together, our
data will inform how districts, policymakers, and preparation
programs can combat leader compassion fatigue and increase
support during times of crisis.
About 21CSLA
The original California School Leadership Academy was
established by Senate Bill 813 in 1983 and administered by
the California Department of Education until 2003. Senate
Bill 75 re-authorized the 21st Century School Leadership
Academy (21CSLA) in 2019. The grant is dedicated to the
professional learning and support of California’s educational
leaders—teacher, site, and district—to create more equitable
learning environments that improve success for underserved
students. Headquartered at UC Berkeley Graduate School of
Education, 21CSLA is led in partnership with UCLA School of
Education and Information Studies, the California Subject
Matter Project, and seven Regional Academies across the
state.
The 21CSLA initiative provides high-quality, equity-centered
professional learning for educational leaders of schools and
districts in California that receive Title II funds. Programs
are free to participants and include leadership coaching,
communities of practice, and localized professional learning
to improve instruction and achievement outcomes for
multilingual learners, students with disabilities, low-income
students, and other historically marginalized students.
21CSLA Equity Statement
Leaders for equity transform education to improve access,
opportunity, and inclusion for students and adults, especially
those who are systemically marginalized and historically
underserved, so that they can thrive.
Follow us
21CSLA website:
gse.berkeley.edu/21csla-state-center
Sign up for our mailing list:
tinyurl.com/21CSLAmail
References
Fernandez, A. A., & Shaw, G. P. (2020). Academic leadership
in a time of crisis: The coronavirus and COVID-19. Journal of
Leadership Studies, 14(1), 39–45.
https://tinyurl.com/3vxazwkr
Figley, C. R. (1995). Compassion fatigue as secondary traumatic
stress disorder: An overview. In C.R. Figley (Ed.), Compassion
fatigue: Coping with secondary traumatic stress disorder in those
who treat the traumatized (pp. 1–20). Brunner/Mazel.
Grissom, J. A., & Condon, L. (2021). Leading schools and districts
in times of crisis. Educational Researcher, 50(5), 315–324.
https://tinyurl.com/mryz3w3m
Harris, A., & Jones, M. (2020). COVID 19—school leadership
in disruptive times. School Leadership & Management, 40(4),
243–247.
https://tinyurl.com/2p8ap8uk
McLeod, S., & Dulsky, S. (2021). Resilience, reorientation, and
reinvention: School leadership during the early months of the
COVID-19 pandemic. Frontiers in Education, 6, 70–83.
https://tinyurl.com/muaabenn
Netolicky, D. M. (2020). School leadership during a pandemic:
Navigating tensions. Journal of Professional Capital and
Community, 5(3/4), 391–395.
https://tinyurl.com/yc2ka2sz
Snodgrass Rangel, V. (2018). A review of the literature on principal
turnover. Review of Educational Research, 88(1), 87–124.
https://tinyurl.com/4v2ha8pw
