Renegotiating Borders Between Home and School During Pandemic Times: The Experiences of Rural Vermont Public Elementary Educators

Abstract

This exploratory study examines the experiences of public elementary school educators to understand the shifting educational priorities and renegotiation of borders between home and school during and since the COVID-19 pandemic. The research uses a case study approach through a critical inquiry process that centers the voices of those on the front lines of education. Derived from individual and focus group interviews, the findings illuminate educators’ experiences during different phases of the pandemic, including: the growing scope of their responsibilities, challenges with staffing, and competing and conflicting demands on educators’ time and attention. The study is limited by its geographical concentration and sole focus on the perspectives of school-based personnel. Future studies with larger samples may include educators and parents in various locations. Recommendations based on the findings include partnering with community-based organizations (CBOs) and creating a unifying vision that draws together school staff, families, and the wider community to re-envision the purpose of school in a post-pandemic context.

1. Introduction

The COVID-19 pandemic in 2020 resulted in widespread school closures, impacting millions of students globally. Research shows that students who were unable to attend school in person during the pandemic struggled academically, socially, and emotionally (UNESCO et al. 2021). Achievement gaps between different groups of students have widened due to the disruptions caused by the pandemic (UNESCO et al. 2021). However, the concept of “learning loss” varies depending on the effectiveness and resources of pre-pandemic school systems (Bryant et al. 2022). Some educational leaders are reframing the narrative to focus on whether and which students made learning gains and developed resilience during the pandemic, challenging the emphasis on standardized testing and rankings as the sole measure of student progress (UNESCO et al. 2021).

In the United States, standardized test scores have shown a significant decline in academic progress during the period of school closures due to the pandemic and a widening of the achievement gap between different socioeconomic groups (Mervosh 2022). Marginalized students, including those with disabilities and from minority backgrounds, have been disproportionately affected (Mervosh 2022). In Vermont, schools initially relied on technology and alternative approaches such as project-based learning and outdoor education during the pandemic (Cooney 2022). Some educators focused on child health and wellness rather than academic standards, leading to a shift in educational priorities during this period (Gaiss 2022).

This study investigates the experiences of educators in three Vermont elementary schools to understand how the shifting priorities in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic may inform the ways schools and the connection between home and school are re-imagined. The article explores the following research question: How was the shift in educational priorities in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic experienced by teachers and school leaders in three elementary schools in Vermont?

2. Literature Review

The pandemic sparked a national discussion on the purpose of schooling in the United States, with the New York Times hosting a series of opinion pieces on education in response (McGhee and Ray 2022). Various perspectives were shared including the importance of education as foundational to democracy, schools as a bureaucratic system for indoctrination, and education as an economic necessity as a tool for workforce development. Public education serves cultural, political, and economic functions, as demonstrated during the pandemic when schools provided essential services to students and families beyond academics. The literature review includes a range of sources to con-textualize the specific place and time of this study including journalistic accounts, academic research, and reports from government agencies and policy institutes.

The historic and economic context of Vermont provides a backdrop to the site of this research. A traditionally agrarian state that now relies heavily on the tourist economy, many Vermonters struggle to find and maintain jobs that can support their livelihoods (Albers 2000; Cohen and DeLeon 2021). Vermont faces challenges of economic instability, a limited tax base, the opioid epidemic, and housing insecurity, among other social and economic problems. State efforts to address these issues have included raising the minimum wage, welcoming refugees, and providing free lunch to all students in schools (Cohen and DeLeon 2021; Vermont Department of Health n.d.; Urban Institute 2024).

The onset of COVID-19 affected all facets of society and educational researchers focused on how the sudden disruption to schooling impacted teaching and learning. Marshall et al. (2022) shared the experiences of teachers during school closure and reopening. Teachers felt unprepared and unsupported during the transition to remote learning, with limited training on distance learning pedagogy (Marshall et al. 2022). A qualitative study highlighted teachers’ experiences during the early phases of the pandemic and the need for further research on their challenges and opportunities (Love and Marshall 2022). Other research examined the impact of the pandemic on the purpose of schooling and the importance of holistic education for children beyond academic achievement (Roselle et al. 2022). This study builds on these inquiries to offer another account of educators’ experiences during COVID-19 in three rural Vermont elementary schools.

Policy reports and state recommendations provide another source for understanding the impact of COVID-19 on education. Most of these reports emphasized the broader roles of schools in supporting students’ overall development and community well-being, rather than solely focusing on academic learning loss (Wiener 2020). Recommendations included re-envisioning public education to prioritize equity, social–emotional learning, and community engagement (Lake 2021). State-specific reports highlighted varying approaches to help students recover learning losses due to the pandemic, with some focusing on academic achievement and others prioritizing a wider range of integrated student services (Anderson et al. 2022; Betebenner and Van Iwaarden 2022; Fox et al. 2021; Oakes et al. 2020; Ohio Department of Education 2023). The role of public schools in meeting students’ diverse needs and supporting communities was underscored in these reports (Fox et al. 2021; Oakes et al. 2020). While these are only a small sample of a larger body of educational reports and policy recommendations, they were among the first to document the impact of the pandemic on learning and offer guidance for pandemic recovery.

The literature reviewed includes the specific context of Vermont, early scholarly research on the COVID-19 impact on schooling, and the initial reports and recommendations from state government agencies and policy institutes on pandemic recovery. Educational research over the past five years has grown to include many other studies on how disrupted schooling has impacted teaching and learning. However, for the purposes of the research presented in this article, the reviewed literature includes the earliest available empirical studies and analyses on COVID-19’s impact on education.

3. Conceptual Framework

This study draws on sociological boundary theory to examine the impact of COVID-19 on the boundaries between school and home as experienced by educators. We explore the degree of porousness or the extent of connections and interactions between the realms of home and school (Nippert-Eng 1996). Scholars Gloria Anzaldúa (1987) and Henry Giroux’s (1997) border theory and pedagogy illuminated the power of transcending borders and the possibilities arising from creative crossings of boundaries.

Educational practice that transcends previously understood functions of home and school is grounded in the notion that innovation arises in the third space, where traditional identities and roles are blurred or redeveloped, leading to the emergence of new ideas (Chan 2019). The blurring of borders between home and school may create a figurative third space that reimagines the relationship between the two realms. During the unanticipated disruption of the pandemic, a new image of school as it relates to home and the wider community took form.

4. Research Design and Methodology

This qualitative study was designed to examine problems from multiple participants’ perspectives, including shared understandings and different viewpoints (Mertens 2020). Using a critical approach, the research amplifies the voices of those who work directly with students and families. The perspectives of educators on the frontlines are vital for understanding how the pandemic disrupted school and its relationship to students and families.

This case study focused on three elementary schools in Vermont. A purposive approach to participant sampling was informed by constructivist and transformative research paradigms, including a balance of representation and consideration of power dynamics (Mertens 2020). The study included two educational leaders but prioritized teachers in non-administrative positions. All participants (in

Table 1. Overview of participants.

Pseudonym	Years in Education	Role Within School	Grade Level or Range
Winny	22	Classroom teacher	K–2 (early elementary)
Bess	15	Classroom teacher	K–2
Kai	12	Classroom teacher	4–6 (upper elementary)
Carol	24	Special educator	2–6
Thomas	16	Classroom teacher	4–6
Devin	18	Educational leader	K–6
Charlie	8	Academic support	2–4
Marin	21	Classroom teacher	K–2
Wendy	13	Classroom teacher	K–2
Keeley	17	Educational leader	K–6
Gail	15	Classroom teacher	2–4
Sam	16	Classroom teacher	4–6
Casey	11	Classroom teacher	K–2
Ollie	13	Classroom teacher	4–6
Molly	15	Nurse/health teacher	K–6
Pat	16	Specials teacher (music, art, library, PE)	K–6

) had been employed at their schools since at least 2019, but otherwise, varied in age and responsibilities.

The lead researcher and primary author is an elementary school teacher who has worked in the district where the study was conducted for nearly ten years. The co-author works at an educational non-profit with research interests in US-based K–12 education, community-based organizations, and partnerships.

Methods of Data Collection, Management, and Analysis

A series of individual interviews and focus groups were conducted. The interviews lasted up to two hours and involved twelve participants. The focus groups were comprised of six participants in two separate 60–90 min sessions. Using interview and focus group guides, the semi-structured sessions focused first on the experiences of participants since the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic, followed by a second meeting designed to elicit ideas for improving teaching and learning. For the purposes of this article, only findings related to participants’ experiences are reported.

Written consent was collected from all participants. As a voluntary study, no compensation was offered, but incentives for participation did include the opportunity to share experiences and offer ideas to improve teaching and learning. After obtaining consent, all sessions were recorded, transcribed, and checked for accuracy. Identifying information was removed, and the data were coded using Braun and Clarke’s (2022) process of reflective thematic analysis (RTA), an iterative process consisting of six steps: familiarization, code generation, theme generation, theme review, naming and defining themes, and identifying data that exemplify themes.

The first step of this process began prior to finishing data collection when reviewing the transcripts for accuracy. This was an intentional component of the project’s design so that emergent experiences, reflections, and ideas could be discussed in more depth in subsequent interviews and focus groups. During this initial read-through, compelling sections of the text were highlighted and initial themes noted. Initial themes included: limitations, innovations, uncertainty, and agency.

The second and third steps of the RTA process followed the initial familiarization with the data. Using inductive coding, initial themes were further refined, and code assignment began, such as alternative pedagogies, social–emotional concerns, basic needs, staffing, and structural limitations. Seeing patterns through a mind mapping process, codes were organized into different thematic schemas. Primary codes were created at a thematic level while sub-codes were assigned to data that provided further details within the theme (Saldaña 2021). Moving back and forth between thematic and coding levels, the schema changed upon further analysis of the data. This was followed by deductive coding, whereby codes were assigned to the data based on key terms in the research questions. The deductive coding aligned closely with the concepts at the root of the research, such as priorities, context, shifts, new ideas, experiences, reflections, and improvements.

Both processes of inductive and deductive coding took an iterative, rather than sequential form. The goal during this phase of data analysis was to group themes and sub-themes through both emergent categories and predefined labels based on research questions. At this stage, themes were reviewed, named, and further refined while drawing together key data points in the form of participants’ quotes. Extensive memoing was also an important component of the qualitative data analysis and increased the overall trustworthiness of the study.

5. Situating the Findings

The schools in this study are in a town of 12,000 residents and enroll approximately 700 students across 42 classrooms, with 180 staff members in various roles. While the schools vary in size, they all have similar enrollment demographics, with nearly 70% of students qualifying for free or reduced lunch. About one-fifth of the students have diverse racial, ethnic, religious, and/or linguistic backgrounds. By contrast, the majority of school staff identify as white, English speakers (Vermont Agency of Education 2022).

Educators’ experiences are organized according to the phases of the pandemic as outlined in Figure 1 below:

During each phase of the pandemic, the scope of educators’ jobs evolved in response to the needs of the students and conditions in the larger community. How students engaged with schools impacted educators, who adjusted accordingly within the constraints of available resources. Educators were forced to adapt to the changes, but over time, their capacity to meet the growing demands of their jobs took a toll. Participants in this study were the ones who remained at their worksites while many of their colleagues left the profession during this time.

The COVID-19 pandemic required changes in the way that educators related to students and families within the wider community. Prior to the pandemic, the schools centered in this case study operated mostly from an academic, standards-driven model of instruction. With the onset of the pandemic, there was greater variation in how schools functioned and a less unified vision on the purpose of school.

In the following section, the findings of this study are presented. Educators’ experiences are shared in relation to the different phases of the pandemic outlined in Figure 1. The findings are organized by three themes: educators’ growing breadth of responsibilities, staffing challenges, and competing and conflicting demands on educators’ time and attention. Participant quotes are presented by subthemes within primary themes to highlight both common and unique responses. This evidence is interpreted and analyzed in the findings section, leading to a discussion on how this study may inform the relationship between school and home in the post-pandemic context.

6. Findings: Educators’ Experiences During Pandemic Times

6.1. Educators’ Growing Breadth of Responsibilities

6.1.1. Provisioning Basic Needs: “I’m a Cook…and Counselor… the Teacher Aspect Is at the Very End of What I Do”

The role of schools as a gateway for families to have their basic needs met grew throughout the pandemic. This created a problematic dynamic for educators who were taking on responsibilities that would have previously fallen outside their roles. All teachers in this study shared feelings of frustration, inadequacy, or guilt for not having the skills, resources, and connections to ensure that their students were safe, sheltered, clothed, fed, and able to access physical and mental health care services. Despite the limited capacity of schools to fill these needs, 14 participants felt unable to retreat from this role and expressed their despondency when their students and families could not access the necessary support. For example, Kai, an upper elementary teacher, explained,

Asking school staff to step into the gaps that we’re not qualified for [social worker, mental health worker, etc.] takes us away from teaching and requires brain power that could be put to other things, and that can get really dangerous—to be that far from what you feel qualified to do.

Devin, who served in a leadership role, emphasized that school staff were now responsible for, “feeding kids, getting them appropriate clothing or footwear, making sure they have housing, supporting their parents or guardians or their grandparents in daily life tasks and also in supporting their children… so they [students] can access their learning”. The period of school closure and partial reopening during Phase One set the stage for what became an often untenable situation for educators.

Wendy, an early elementary teacher, shared, “school became a place where families got everything… we’re providing meals, COVID tests, driving things [supplies] to you… an endless list of things that were the job of school and the teacher with no limits whatsoever”. Twelve participants felt that schools had assumed too much responsibility, and a plan needed to be put in place to step back from this role. Gail, a third-grade teacher explained, “we took on and kept on doing all these things and now there’s an expectation”. By extension, Winny added, “the more you give, the more that is expected”. Fourteen participants called for a reevaluation of the school’s role within the larger community.

6.1.2. Remediating Following School Closure: “Priority Was for the Kids to Feel Connected and Safe”

At the start of Phase Two, when all students returned to full-time in-person school in August 2021, there was a disconnect between resuming school as it functioned prior to the pandemic and the needs of many students. All 16 participants reported that due to social isolation and remote learning, many students were unable to access academic content designed for their grade level. Consequently, focusing on academic instruction no longer responded to many students’ needs. Instead, emotional and physical safety had to be ensured before students could engage in academic learning. While social–emotional learning had always been integral to the elementary school experience, it became central as students returned to school with more limited social skills, often exacerbated by deteriorated physical and mental health.

Educators were thrust into a situation where their previous role teaching academic content had to yield to the students’ stunted ability to engage in academic learning. There was a mismatch between students’ readiness for school and the schools’ readiness for students. Twenty-five to 30 percent of students had not attended in-person school for up to 17 months, with limited opportunities for in-person social interaction during the first phase of the pandemic. While some families were able to establish conditions for their children to continue to learn through remote platforms, half of the participants reported that many students minimally participated in remote schooling. Twelve educators participating in this study remembered Phase One as a time when boundaries between their personal and professional lives dissolved and norms around family–teacher interactions shifted. While some students became unreachable, other families interacted with their children’s teachers more frequently. Sam recalled,

There were very few boundaries. Parents were texting and emailing at all hours and expecting a timely response. Many parents were actually attending classes in the background, as kids were often in common spaces during class. It was challenging, but also seemed necessary. The kids that were the most successful were the ones who had parents that were paying attention.

At that point, no one knew the duration of school closures, and in retrospect, half of the participants lamented their decisions to remove barriers between their professional and personal lives. Nine participants shared that frequent contact with families outside of school hours led to increased work-related stress, impacting their personal lives. However, a greater level of engagement between home and school also had positive results for families who were involved in their children’s education during Phase One.

6.1.3. Renegotiating Relationships Between Home and School: “A Foot in Both Worlds”

The blurring of roles between home and school changed the nature of both institutions. For example, Wendy, an early elementary teacher, explained the experience of teaching during the pandemic as having “a foot in both worlds” while she also managed her own daughter’s schooling from home. Both worlds can be understood as the dissonance created when the roles between home and school were obscured during the pandemic.

Half of the participants remembered a time, during Phase One, when deeper relationships with students translated to closer family communications. With fewer students in each class, educators could better communicate with individual households, and the need for more support from school-based staff for families to facilitate remote instruction translated to a higher level of family engagement. While some educators felt that, in hindsight, this level of engagement with families became expected and unsustainable, the strengthening of ties between home and school mostly benefited students, educators, and families. Sam, an upper elementary teacher, had hoped to maintain this level of connection with families in Phase Two when returning to full-time in-person school with larger class sizes, but he has not been able to sustain this level of engagement. He attributed this to the time-consuming nature of reaching out to individual households and the end of remote learning. Families no longer needed the frequent contact with educators to access school, but with fewer interactions, the connection between home and school deteriorated.

Participants also shared their experiences with the shifting of roles between home and school. Ollie, a fourth-grade teacher, reflected on the growing number of families who no longer fulfilled parental responsibilities commonly accepted before the pandemic. According to Ollie, the relationship with families has significantly changed, and “I think the parents just expect us to do everything in a way that when I started teaching, they didn’t as much”. Ten participants shared stories of having to track down paperwork or call families when signed permission forms were never returned to school. A kindergarten teacher shared that she had multiple students whose parents never opened and checked their backpacks. A first-grade teacher reported that she had never met or spoken with some of the parents of her students despite multiple attempts at communication. These accounts demonstrate how the connection between home and school fluctuated throughout the pandemic.

Communication between home and school varied depending on family circumstances and the phase of the pandemic. The gap widened between those students who engaged in school and those who were absent. Sam shared,

The learning gap was increased by the pandemic. Some parents were able to create time, space, and prioritize learning, [and they] worked to hold their kids accountable, [but] many kids were left to manage the situation on their own. Very few elementary kids are self-motivated and organized enough to pull off online learning independently. The gap between the haves and the have-nots was laid bare.

Kai shared how the role of technology made plain this inequity, “During the remote time, I would have kids do 700 math problems [using an online platform]… and kids who did 20, and so the gap grew”. This gap continued to grow while in-person school remained optional, and the extent to which some students returned lacking foundational academic skills contributed to an unstable transition for many. When remote schooling was no longer available, students who had minimally accessed their education returned to in-person schooling with limited academic and social skills. Wendy, an early elementary teacher, explained, “School is what you do, not what you hear”, but when students first returned to school, they were expected to listen to or read instructions, with limited options for play and interaction due to social distancing guidelines. As a result, the incidence of unsafe and disruptive behavior, characterized by physical and verbal outbursts, increased when full-time in-person schooling resumed.

6.1.4. Reacting to Students’ Social and Emotional Needs: “Big Things That Feel Urgent or Intense or Scary Happen Weekly”

All teachers interviewed adjusted their practice in response to students’ changing needs. For example, more time was allocated to community building and social skill development when compared to pre-pandemic times. However, all participants reported a lag in developing a systems-level approach to managing student behaviors. During Phase One, for students who opted for part-time in-person learning, the focus was on ensuring students felt safe and happy to be at school. In Phase Two, schools became overwhelmed by the number of students who had profound academic and social needs. Pre-pandemic systems for addressing harmful behaviors were no longer sufficient, resulting in frustration for educators. Wendy explained that because “we don’t have systems [for behavior], we are reacting differently every time”. This lack of consistency created school atmospheres where expectations and consequences for student behavior were unclear.

In response to students exhibiting dysregulated emotions, educators expended more of their time and energy creating clear behavior support systems within their classrooms. Gail designated an area for students to reset when they were feeling overwhelmed. This was a space within the classroom where students could retreat from the group and quietly process their emotions by drawing, playing with fidgets, or engaging in other relaxation techniques. While prior to the pandemic, this type of space might have been needed by a few students in the class, Gail shared that the reset space was used by the majority of students. In reaction to students’ social and emotional needs, Sam devoted more energy to creating a self-contained classroom environment of predictable routines and explicitly stated and reinforced behavior expectations. He explained, “I don’t think we do kids any favors when we are too soft. Kids need clear boundaries”. Sam further described his students as “now needing more help with social skills and self-regulation tools… kids are emotionally in rough shape”. Gail agreed and described her role as “helping students regulate their emotions and help them understand how to work better together”. Overall, nine teachers described redesigning their classrooms or adjusting their pedagogical approach to better respond to students’ social–emotional needs.

Without clarity on how to prioritize the range of student needs, teachers experienced tension between their role to provide educational opportunities for all learners and the urgent attention demanded by unsafe student behaviors. Feeling less like a teacher and more like a behavior manager was a major shift in roles for many educators during the second and current phases of the pandemic. Kai shared, “There has been a lot of burnout. There has been a lot of turnover because nobody knew what to do about behaviors, everybody is scrambling, nobody felt supported, and this is hard”. This struggle was recognized by all participants.

6.2. Challenges with Staffing

6.2.1. Educator Shortages and Training: “This No Longer Feels Like a Desirable Job to Have”

Staffing shortages have plagued public schools since the onset of the pandemic. The number of qualified applicants to fill positions dropped off precipitously since schools fully reopened in Phase Two. Devin, who is responsible for hiring, reflected, “We used to get 100 applicants for a classroom job. And now I’ve had a job open since April [five months] with no applicants”. This stark reality of the job market was exacerbated by deteriorating work conditions for school-based personnel. Wendy continued, “This no longer feels like a desirable job to have. Paras [support staff] don’t get paid enough. Teachers are leaving this profession because of the [student] behaviors”.

In addition to unfilled positions, during Phases Two and Three, there was also a lack of training or expertise among existing staff to meet the new demands of their positions. Feeling unqualified, unsupported, or unequipped to successfully fulfill the duties of one’s job had led to the deterioration of morale.

During Phase Three, educational leaders focused professional development efforts on meeting the emergent training needs of staff. Outside experts on teaching executive functioning, or the skills students need to plan and meet goals, were brought in, and behavior interventionists were hired to help educators become more successful in their jobs. Half of the participants welcomed these efforts and felt that their concerns had been heard. However, others relayed that training was not enough given the day-to-day reality. Experts and behavior consultants came in, but according to Bess,

Being told how to do something and actually doing it are two different things… I’m already doing all the things they are telling me. I’m not a first-year teacher. I feel insulted. Their goal is to help me … but the things I’ve been given, I already know how to do. It’s not their fault, but it’s not enough… I’m being given support, but it’s not enough support.

The lack of qualified staff to fill essential roles within the school impacted the existing personnel’s relationship with their work. Half of the participants, who formerly intended to be career educators, shared reservations about staying in their jobs due to staffing shortages or lacking the skills to feel successful in their roles.

6.2.2. Teacher Retention and Commitment: “If We Sold Our House, Could I Stop Working?”

The lack of adequately trained staff and the rise in unsafe student behaviors were mutually reinforcing. All participants in this study shared experiences of colleagues leaving the profession. Without ample staff to meet students’ social, emotional, and academic needs, individuals were more likely to react in frustration. This was compounded by the hiring of new teachers who attended teacher training programs during remote instruction, creating a mismatch between their practicum experiences and the realities in their classrooms. Devin shared, “Student teachers that have become teachers never got real-life practice managing a classroom”. Subsequently, the need for mentoring and behavioral staff to support teachers had increased while the availability of professionals with expertise in these areas had become more limited. This cycle impacted staff retention and commitment to persevering in their jobs.

Coming to work every day in the face of feeling unprepared or unqualified to perform one’s job well eroded confidence and job satisfaction for many participants. Keeley, a school leader, reported that nearly half the school-based staff turned over in the past four years. Charlie, who is still early in their career, explained that teachers who have been here through the pandemic, “They’re exhausted. They are burned out by behavior issues. They’re doing all they can, and some kids are not getting what they need and it’s exhausting… they can’t give anything else, so people step away and do something different”. Wendy described Phase Two as a time when she considered leaving her teaching job because of work-related stress. She recounted conversations she had with her spouse,

If we sold our house, could I stop working? I’ve used every sick day, my bank account is empty… we’ve given grace to the community at large, we’re gentle and careful with families, but that grace has not been extended to staff.

Three-quarters of the participants shared this sense of despair and resignation. Thomas echoed this sentiment by explaining, “I really have to leave in order to be in a situation where I’m feeling heard… the longer it [lack of staff and support] goes on, the more I think that’s probably what has to happen”. Gail also lamented that “being here in a public school system is really, really hard right now because I feel like I’m taking a lot of grief, and I don’t have any wins”. The other quarter of the participants did not feel that leaving their positions was a viable option and developed systems of support that kept them engaged in their work.

6.2.3. Lack of Staff Management: “Why Don’t We Have Equity Among the Staff?”

With staff shortages came an increased workload for those who remained in school. In Phase Three, teachers were assigned recess and lunch duties, whereas there had formerly been sufficient support staff to provide coverage during these times. Administrators responded to the increasing incidence of unsafe student behavior by requiring certified teachers to supervise students during non-academic time. During these duties, teachers were stationed in the lunchroom or playground to oversee students, help ensure safe environments, and mediate disputes. Thirteen participants shared feelings that workloads were not shared equitably.

In addition to the perception of inequitable workloads, half of the participants also noted a lack of accountability among staff. Some showed up for work every day, coming early, often staying late. Half of the participants relayed stories of working on weekends and after hours. Three educators expressed resentment towards colleagues who do not devote as much time to their work, and felt administrators were not holding employees accountable to their contractual obligations. One teacher expressed frustration by sharing, “I watch staff stroll in at 8:10 a.m. and stroll out at 2:50 p.m. It creates a lot of bad feelings”. Seeing colleagues who are working significantly fewer hours and who are not being held accountable for their contractual commitments impacted staff morale. From an administrative standpoint, one principal shared her frustration with her staff’s perception of her role,

A lot of folks think that I’m hiding in my office with the door shut… a lot of people don’t know what I’m doing… I’m in more meetings than ever, and it makes me less visible to staff, which has been a problem.

The lack of equity and management of staff had impacted the school culture. School administrators were required to participate in more closed-door meetings and had fewer opportunities to experience firsthand how their staff members’ roles had changed and grown. Subsequently, directives were often perceived as out of touch with the day-to-day realities of the educators who were working most closely with students.

6.2.4. Educator Allocation and Morale: “It’s Not Enough Support”

Educator morale was impacted by how the available staff were allocated in the school. Participants explained that classrooms with the greatest behavior challenges received the most support. By allocating support staff to students and classrooms with the most behavioral needs, teachers were left alone to provide a range of instruction for students with various levels of academic ability and background knowledge. Of the 16 participants, 9 shared stories of mental or physical illness that they attributed to exhaustion from workplace demands. For example, Wendy shared her experience of deliberately dehydrating herself because, for six consecutive weeks, she had no other adult support in her classroom, so she could not leave to go to the restroom. Another classroom teacher shared the physical toll placed on her by the demands of her job when she was sick for over three weeks, missed two weeks of school, and was unable to get out of bed or eat for twelve days.

Some educators took positions at other schools in hopes of finding more functional educational settings. Wendy explained that several of her colleagues had taken positions at schools with strong leadership and explicit expectations for students, families, and staff alike. Casey also dreamed of working in that type of environment and said, “It would be incredible if we had a mission and vision statement for our work together”. Sam, a veteran classroom teacher who had weathered the pandemic relatively well, felt “there are a lot of disgruntled staff members. People don’t feel inspired, share a vision at a school or district level”. While Sam received the support he needed, he recognized the struggles of his colleagues and the overall deterioration of school culture. Despite this, Sam explained his decision to stay because “I love the kids, and I love the team, so I’m not sure how much leadership matters”. Marin felt differently and expressed her wish for “our administrators to have the wherewithal to identify a priority and articulate that”. In addition to impacting the retention, recruitment, and allocation of adequately trained staff, the lack of a clear academic vision and educational priorities has impacted educators’ morale.

6.3. Competing and Conflicting Demands: “When Everything Is a Priority, Nothing Is a Priority”

6.3.1. Adopting New Curricula

The schools in this study are part of a district that adopted three new curricula in the areas of language arts, math, and social–emotional learning (SEL) since Phase Two. The district’s decision to adopt a new language arts curriculum was made after dropping a previous literacy curriculum that had only been in use for a few years. With pandemic relief funds and feelings of dissatisfaction with the previous (but still new) literacy curriculum, administrators made a centralized decision to purchase yet another literacy curriculum. Nearly simultaneously, a new math curriculum was also purchased by the district. Recognizing the strain that two new core curricula would place on teachers, staff were given a choice about which curriculum to pilot and which one to fully implement during Phases Two and Three. At the start of the 2023–2024 school year, it was expected that both the new math and language arts curricula would be in use. Also, in response to the increase in unsafe student behavior, an SEL curriculum was introduced in Phase Three. Reflecting on the number of changes to curricula over the past few years, Winny shared, “I feel like as a district, we change things too quickly. We don’t even have enough time to see if what we are doing is working, and then we change it again”. This idea was reinforced by Carol, who explained, “With new curriculums… let’s not bring in something new, let’s do with what we know and let’s just take a breath and take two steps back”.

Despite resistance to the new academic curricula, two-thirds of the participants in this study were encouraged to see SEL receiving the focus that they felt was needed. Bess, an early elementary teacher, shared, “SEL is a passion of mine. I like reading about brain science. I feel like I have invested my own time into learning about those things”, and having an SEL curriculum legitimized the independent work Bess had done throughout her career. Kai, who teaches older students, felt the SEL curriculum was helpful for giving students a common language to talk about emotions across grade levels. However, the main critique centered on the idea that SEL can be handled as a separate content area. All participants felt that good teachers integrate SEL throughout the day, and according to Bess, SEL should be “built into every lesson. SEL is not its own entity; it is across everything you teach”.

Out of all the participants, none of the classroom teachers felt sufficiently supported and successful in adopting the new curricula. Carol, who is a special educator, explained that the teachers who were best adapting to the new curricular demands were the ones who, “have been able to take a step back—we’re just going to do this part or we’re just going to do this piece and that’s okay”. Without accountability and oversight in place by administrators to ensure that the curricula are being taught with fidelity, many educators relied on this approach to manage the volume of new material and programs. Winny confided that “there’s not a lot of oversight, nobody comes in really and checks on you to see what you are doing. That works to my advantage”. Educators were trying to do what was being asked and expected within the reality of their students’ needs and limited time.

6.3.2. Feeling Unable to Meet Diverse Student Needs: “Growing… Getting What You Need… Should Be for Everyone”

The range of students’ needs required an overhaul of schedules and staff allocations during Phases Two and Three, with unanticipated consequences. When students and staff returned to full-time in-person schooling in Phase Two, building administrators worked with staff to determine how academic and behavior support services would fit into student schedules. This was also complicated by the staffing shortage and larger caseloads for interventionists (professional staff who intervene to provide specialized instruction, academic or behavior supports within or outside the general classroom setting). The lack of cohesion throughout the day and the need for more specialists to work with students were stark contrasts to Phase One. In contrast to Phase One, when alternative educational approaches such as student-led and project-based learning, as well as outdoor and place-based education, were widely practiced, in Phase Three, this became less feasible due to curricular demands and fewer uninterrupted blocks of time. Sam further explained,

With so many kids in need of specialized services, there is a lot of coming and going. Last year [Phase Three], I had a single 40-minute block in my entire week in which I had my full class. It’s a challenge to schedule things because at every point, you’re deciding who can afford to miss what. The momentum required for true project-based learning and following students’ lead is missing.

Nine participants felt that more enrichment opportunities should be provided for their students because teachers could not assume additional responsibilities. Thomas, who teaches upper elementary, explained, “We don’t have an enrichment teacher… those kids, I’m told, oh, they’re fine. I said, ‘Would that be fair to you?’” Five teachers felt that all students benefit from enrichment opportunities, but unsafe behavior was the main obstacle to offering students learning opportunities beyond the classroom setting.

Despite the challenges, educators found creative ways to extend student learning while holding onto teaching practices that reflected their own passions, strengths, and priorities. Kai shared their experience of “trying a new math [practice] this year that is more collaborative and kids hanging out with other people while doing a pretty focused push on academics- finding that balance”. Sam remembered one of the most joyous times of this current school year when a group of teachers played an impromptu soccer game with their students to model good sportsmanship. He laughed, “It felt authentic and real, and it was true modeling”. Sam surmised that the value came from where the idea originated—from the teachers who gave up their recess time to provide a meaningful and fun learning experience for their students rather than a top-down mandate.

6.3.3. Frustration with Data Management, Standards, and Reporting: “You’re Just Doing These Monotonous Tasks for No Reason”

Systems for managing data, changing standards, and misaligned reporting expectations were areas of frustration shared by half of the educators. Eight participants spoke of the lack of cohesive systems for collecting, storing, utilizing, and reporting data. Since Phase Two, students had been assessed using standardized measures multiple times throughout the school year, but the data did not necessarily reflect what was being taught in the curricula, nor were they consistently aligned with grade-level standards and reporting requirements. One-quarter of the participants discussed this disconnect in relation to the prioritized standards developed during Phase One. Through a collective process, educators met with administrators to determine where to focus academic instruction with more limited contact hours with students. Marin described this process as unifying while creating a cohesive outcome. Since Phase Two, priority standards had given way to a confusing and conflicting array of initiatives that often did not align with districtwide reporting practices. The importance placed on data measuring academic progress also conflicted with messages from leadership to prioritize social–emotional learning and alternative educational approaches. Marin shared that the “importance of play [in early elementary] is completely contradicted when we go to the data meetings”. Marin further lamented that this contradiction is rarely discussed head-on because “everyone is so polite”. The process for collecting, storing, and utilizing student data was an area of frustration for half of the participants.

Another common response to the new curricula was in reaction to the academic standards. Since the curricula are designed for a specific grade level, there is an expectation that the students have the skills and background knowledge to access the content at that level. Coming out of the pandemic, fewer than half of the students were considered proficient at grade-level standards for reading and math, which meant they were unable to access grade-level curricula without significant support. Bess, who teaches second graders, shared,

I think we need to shift our thinking academically as far as these kids that missed these chunks of time and learning, but no one is giving us a pause. Everyone is saying show up and keep going and… we are [but] there are still big gaps in kids’ learning and it’s not reflected in the curricula and assessments… They need to shift because if not, I’m referring half my class for an IEP [individual education plan].

Other teachers agreed that the expectations of academic progress should reflect the breadth of skills within a grade level.

Gail, who teaches a younger grade, appreciated the flexibility available to students to “show what they know in different ways”. This allowed Gail to be more creative with student assessments, including the use of more hands-on and less text-based learning for students with limited reading and writing skills. Interestingly, these alternative assessments, while an acceptable measure of students’ learning earlier in the pandemic, no longer necessarily aligned with the assessments in the newly adopted curricula, thus requiring more work on the part of the teacher to create such alternatives. Overall, half of the participants in teaching roles shared frustration with the data management, standards, and reporting systems that complicated rather than streamlined their work.

6.3.4. Navigating Socio-Political Forces: “I Have a BLM and Pride Flag. I Don’t Know If I Could Teach Anywhere Else”

The public perception of educators’ work fluctuated over the course of the pandemic. During Phase One, teachers were regarded as heroes as the public recognized the importance of schools and the services they provided. Sam claimed that one of the main takeaways from the pandemic was that “school really, really matters”. Nonetheless, political divisiveness stoked by pandemic restrictions created deep divisions in the community about when and how to reopen schools and resume operations. The role of schools in anti-racism work and promoting LGBTQ+ rights also became part of the public debate. Kai explained, “We are lucky in Vermont, but other places—not so lucky. I think Vermont teachers are aware of this, like I’m teaching this, and I couldn’t say that in Florida”. Even though educators may feel fortunate to work in a state that supports social justice ideals, one participant still conceded that the national political climate caused them to hedge somewhat and not be as direct when teaching subjects that have become hot-button issues, including issues of race, gender, sexuality, and identity.

Families had gotten a more intimate look at what and how teachers teach, which sometimes led to praise and other times to criticism. Devin, a school principal, explained, “For better or worse, there is more family awareness of what’s going on in school, and so that plays into families saying, ‘I don’t want this to be taught…” Winny spoke passionately about the debate on the school’s role in the development of students’ gender identity:

My job is not to teach…what pronoun to use. They don’t even know what a pronoun is. That is not my job. I am not going to help you decide if you are male or female. I don’t feel like I should be a part of that. No, I probably won’t. I mean, I won’t.

While Winny was the only participant who expressed this specific concern, four other educators shared experiences of how the divided political climate had impacted their teaching. Bess remembered the spring of 2020 as a period of social upheaval following the murder of George Floyd. She described this period as a time when,

From a political standpoint, [the pandemic] really divided people, and we are seeing the ripple effects. With BLM [Black Lives Matter] and all the things that were happening at the same time, how could we manage them? We were so divided… so many struggles and trauma from that.

Sam, an upper elementary teacher, agreed that some of his students had developed a stronger sense of empathy and recognition of their power in liberating others, “I think kids are kinder and more understanding and flexible [now]”.

Despite some pushback from families, nine participants shared that the community’s commitment to social justice was a strength during the pandemic. While most Vermonters are socially progressive, political divisions impact the local community. With a growing population of refugee and immigrant students from religiously conservative backgrounds, school boards, school leaders, and educators were considering how to be inclusive and non-divisive. One teacher speculated that adopting an SEL curriculum was a response to the political climate to control how teachers talk about sensitive issues. Winny speculated that,

I think the administration and teachers are afraid of being sued. It’s a sue happy community and country right now. You can say something that you don’t even realize is offensive, and somebody’s going to sue you or file a complaint… It’s more like a safeguard to say, well, we told our teachers they should be teaching this.

Overall, eight of the participants in this study expressed appreciation for working in a district that promoted social justice. Five participants identified this feature of their jobs as central to their commitment to stay in public education. Within the context of the growing demands placed on teachers, the district’s adoption of social justice standards could have been poorly received by educators. However, most participants in this study felt this was a positive development during pandemic times.

7. Discussion and Recommendations

Based on the findings from this study, the COVID-19 pandemic impacted the way that educators relate to students and families within the wider community. The growing breadth of responsibilities placed on educators, the challenges with staffing, and the competing demands for their time and attention also unveiled possibilities for improving school-based teaching and learning in the post-pandemic context. Despite the challenges, participants recalled times of deep engagement with teaching and learning, a closer connection to families, and a renewed sense of purpose during an unprecedented disruption to schooling. The blurring of boundaries between school and home created conditions for innovation and collaboration. There was a mutual sense of purpose and resolve to ensure the safety of students, families, and the larger community, provide educational opportunities through alternative approaches, and create alliances with families so that systems of support were in place to ensure students could access their education.

However, the initial conditions of the pandemic requiring social isolation hamstrung many of these efforts. Some students disengaged entirely from their formal education during times of school closure and remote learning. This disengagement resulted in an explosion of unsafe student behavior when schools fully reopened, and educators felt ill-prepared, creating conditions that eroded school culture. Educators in this study found themselves in a professionally precarious situation where their training and expertise were mismatched with the new requirements of their jobs. The dissonance this created is the backdrop for Zhao and Watterston’s (2021) argument:

It is incumbent upon all educators to use this crisis-driven opportunity to push for significant shifts in almost every aspect of education: what, how, where, who, and when. In other words, education, from curriculum to pedagogy, from teacher to learner, from learning to assessment, and from location to time, can and should radically transform. (p. 4)

While this discussion focuses on the experiences of educators, the findings also yielded opportunities for envisioning a more just future in school operations. In the following sections, recommendations are put forth based on this study’s findings.

7.1. A New Image of Home and School in the Post-Pandemic Context

Based on the experiences of educators in this study, the disruption of the pandemic offered an opportunity to reimagine the way that schools and families work together and within the wider community. Participants recounted challenges and opportunities that arose during different phases of the pandemic. All agreed that there was no returning to pre-pandemic norms when there were more clearly delineated roles between home and school. Instead, the experiences of educators required a new vision. During the course of this research, a statewide initiative was taking shape that presented a possible path forward.

In June 2021, during the height of the pandemic, the Vermont state legislature passed Act 67, the Community Schools Act, as a means to address many of the stressors placed on schools, families, and communities (Vermont Agency of Education 2024). The community school model re-envisions the role of public schools as resource hubs. The purpose is to, “invest in children, through quality teaching; challenging, engaging, and culturally responsive curricula; wrap around supports; safe, just, and equitable school climate; strong ties to family and community; and a clear focus on student achievement and well-being” (Vermont Agency of Education 2024). Movement in this direction preceded the pandemic, but the urgency to pass legislation and put resources in place to pilot community schools was accelerated by the pandemic. The University of Vermont (UVM) has partnered with the Vermont Agency of Education to fund, assess, monitor, and report on the successes and challenges of adopting a community school model across the state.

In March 2024, UVM faculty and Vermont Agency of Education staff co-authored a peer-reviewed academic article highlighting the community school implementation process (Knox et al. 2024). Taking a qualitative approach, the researchers interviewed principals and community school coordinators to better understand the statewide educational reform aimed at implementing a new model for supporting students and families through community partnerships (Knox et al. 2024). Initial findings indicate that three mindsets or practices play a central role in rural community school implementation based on Vermont’s pilot program (Knox et al. 2024). These include building on preexisting programs and efforts to engage schools with the community; school leadership’s investing in the community school model; and collaborating with a range of stakeholders by sharing leadership in establishing community school practices (Knox et al. 2024).

In addition to the research already published on Vermont’s community school implementation efforts, there is grey material from the Vermont State House Committee on Education demonstrating a statewide trend to position public schools as community schools (Vermont Agency of Education 2024). In many cases, schools in rural areas are de facto hubs for service delivery and community engagement. As one of the only public institutions in rural communities, the community school model provides a framework and resources for schools to intentionally serve and extend their work in this role through formalized partnerships with community-based organizations.

7.2. Create a Unifying Vision

This study reports information on teachers’ experiences during the period of the COVID pandemic and highlights the need for a unified vision on the purpose of public education. The pandemic upended previous assumptions about the primary responsibilities of home and school and created opportunities for reexamining how these institutions can best support the healthy development of children. The roles of families and educators shifted throughout different phases of the pandemic, leading to confusion. At times, trust between school and home deteriorated; at other times, the bond between home and school was strengthened.

Students learn best when families and schools work together (Mapp et al. 2022). Families, educators, and the wider community should engage with each other to create a unified vision of the role of school in the community. This process would help to rebuild public trust in educational institutions while also drawing on the vision and expertise of family and community members.

8. Limitations and Further Research

While this research provides rich data from a case study on the experiences of public school educators in Vermont, there are serious limitations. The data were gathered from three elementary schools in close proximity. Further research could expand on this case study by increasing the size of the sample in diverse communities in and beyond Vermont. Studies are needed to learn the nature and experiences of educators during the COVID pandemic at different school levels from preschool through high school.

This study focuses on the experiences of educators, mainly teachers, but some administrators, and does not include perspectives of families or other educators or leaders in the community. Educators working at community-based organizations (CBOs) within the communities where these schools operate could provide an additional opportunity to explore another subset of educator experiences from the pandemic.