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

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The article shares some compelling findings from case studies, interviews and action research of teachers' perceptions of tensions and conflicts in their work amidst shifting educational priorities at different phases of the pandemic. Unfortunately, the paper lacks sufficient description of methods, lacks explanation of the theoretical framework (IBTE), needs more focused and thorough literature review, needs more thorough context in relation to ongoing educational priorities in Vermont, and does not report findings that substantiate claims in the discussion.

Here are some notes on strengths and opportunities for improvement.

Journalistic sources rather than scholarly ones are relied on heavily in the introduction to establish the impact of the pandemic and Vermont school responses. Project based learning and outdoor education were both prominent in Vermont schools before the pandemic, especially given years of personalized learning and proficiency based learning initiatives across the state. The shift to emphasize whole child wellness was also well underway with universal Social Emotional Learning (SEL), school climate survey data, and other wellness initiatives commonplace prior to the pandemic.

The literature review begins very broadly, again with journalistic sources, in this case opinions, to set up a very general claim about purposes of schools and how they expanded in the pandemic. The context of issues at play in Vermont are merely a list with a seemingly random selection of policy responses. The scholarly elements of the literature review share findings in the briefest of ways; the research needs more description to communicate the intended meaning convincingly. The last paragraphs summarize topics and some findings of a few state reports and policy consulting reports with claims that stretch across all states; this section needs some rationale for source selection or some more description of the sources in the text to aptly show how this is an impression of context rather than a firm claim about how things were everywhere. This research is still emerging, and this section seems to be just about setting up a general trend towards educating with social emotional and health emphases, and perhaps academics beyond traditionally measured math and literacy achievement. So, it does not need a comprehensive review of scholarly work on related topics in education during the pandemic. Still, more description of source choices and more nuance in describing findings would improve the section.

The conceptual framework is said to be based on Institutional Border Theory of Education (IBTE), which the author designed for this study, but does not elaborate in this section. There is no reference to this theory in a publication and no explanation of the theory to help the reader understand how it frames the research process and findings.

Methods seem apt for the study at hand as far as case studies with thematic analysis are concerned. However, the action research is not sufficiently described (what was the purpose, who was involved and how, etc). The study does not describe the interview questions for the individual nor focus group interviews.

Findings begin with two quotes from teachers to support themes of teachers feeling that schools took on too many services beyond student learning, which leads to a claim “These experiences indicated a need to reevaluate the school’s role within the larger community.” The two quotes and theme they support do not substantiate this claim. LInes 179-188 offer no evidence from the research for the claims and description of the schools, and no reference to the action research.

The findings are most successful when including quotes from participants. Some findings claims are too vague or convoluted to be valuable such as, “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.” This interpretation of interview and focus group data is vague in itself and would benefit from either more direct evidence or less qualified and ambiguous claims. Findings in lines 209-231 offer compelling evidence of teacher perceptions that family involvement in school and school-home communication increased during the pandemic, but the claim that this benefitted students and families is vague – did teachers claim this or report this? Why and how was this beneficial for students and for the families? This needs elaboration.

There are sections of findings that sound like they could be any teaching at any level any time, like the section on fluctuations in parent/family participation and responsibility. This finding does little more than to nuance or contradict the prior notion that parental involvement increased; here, it also fluctuated. The paragraph at line 253 makes a claim about technology differences, but it is not clear how tech plays a role (are the have nots getting paper, so they have fewer math problems, and repetition of math problems is equated with learning gains?).

This sweeping claim, while very believable, does not include any evidence, “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. As a result, the incidence of unsafe and disruptive behavior increased when full time in-person schooling resumed.” Perhaps this is a report from the author’s own experience as part of the action research, but if that is to be part of the evidence, the reader needs to know more about the author’s role in the schools. Similarly, these claims need evidence, “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 numbers of students who had profound academic and social needs.” And the subsequent claim, “Pre-pandemic systems for addressing harmful behaviors were no longer sufficient, resulting in frustration for educators,” would be much more convincing with more elaboration on the prior systems and examples of the behaviors and responses to behaviors that were different during and post- pandemic. 

The section on creating classroom level behavior responses features strong evidence of teacher strategies to deal with increased student needs. However, teachers at this time were also offered professional development in Vermont around adjusting behavior systems and interventions to meet changing student needs. Some context around supports and options for teacher professional learning during this time is needed. Again, some context for behavior incident reporting for context would also be helpful here to support the overall claim that teachers felt like a shift to becoming more of a behavior manager was happening (which they always had been, just their systems had worked better at controlling and pre-empting disruptive behavior, presumably, but this is not stated).

The sections on staffing need to be contextualized with data on actual teacher shortages during the period. This claim, while familiar and believable, needs evidence in the voices of the participants in the study, “Feeling unqualfied, unsupported, or unequipped to successfully fulfill the duties of one’s job has led to 306 the deterioration of morale.”

The quote from the teacher who feels they are doing what experts say, but it is not enough, is powerful. It would be more powerful with some perspective from administrators who observe classroom teachers to validate whether or not teachers “”already do” those practices.

These two realities are not in doubt, “The lack of adequately trained staff and the rise in unsafe student behaviors,” but both need better evidence in hard data from reviewed research and from thick descriptions of the schools in question. The reader needs to see and hear these things.

The section of findings with several quotes from teachers about feeling unsupported, unsuccessful, and unsatisfied in their jobs during the pandemic is very powerful and well supported. This is the strongest section of the paper combined with the section on the perception of inequitable work loads. Here the description is thick and effective, making the case studies offer a clear view of the situation. Most insightful is the section on the double bind facing administrators in demand for 1:1 meetings that take them from supporting and seeing classrooms where behavior needs are changing.

“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.” This claim is supported by a TV report in the literature review, and no rich description from the qualitative research in the study.

Winny, whose views seem to be an outlier, appears over-represented in quotes at the end of the findings section as the quotes are somewhat spectacular in how they express views on gender indoctrination and a conspiratorial view of administration choosing curriculum and controlling teacher discourse so as not to be sued. The author says this was “the only participant who expressed this specific concern,” in each case, so why include it? Neither comment sounds like it is founded in the actual practices of the schools in question, and if either is, description should be offered. Or, better discussion is needed of how these comments play into larger conservative discourses (and how conservative teachers in Vermont who see themselves as a minority pick them up).

The opening part of the discussion, “There was a mutual sense of purpose and resolve” is not emphasized in the findings. IBTE framework, which is never elaborated nor given reference, is mentioned again in discussion. Findings also do not sufficiently support claims that all participants, “reflected on the changes that had occurred, and offered ideas for envisioning a more just future in school operations.” In the discussion, this sentence belies a need for more context for Vermont’s development of several of the focus points of the article, “Movement in this direction [toward schools as community hubs] preceded the pandemic but the urgency to pass legislation and put resources in place to pilot community schools was accelerated by the pandemic.” This same idea can, and should, be said for SEL, project based learning, executive functioning, trauma informed school practices, multi-tiered system of supports, and many other initiatives that the pandemic accelerated in Vermont. The section on “A New Image of Home and School in the Post-Pandemic Context” presents of a view of schools as community hub that is only vaguely connected to the findings, and only in terms of the overwhelm felt by teachers who ended up providing services beyond their usual duties. The other descriptions of services expanding during the pandemic are not backed by evidence. 

The recommendation for a unified vision including families is a good one that is tied to evidence in the findings, but it comes without reference to the many recent efforts in many Vermont schools to do this (see the Portrait of a Graduate initiative at the VT AoE website).

Author Response

Thank you for your thoughtful feedback and suggestions on the article. Please check attachment. 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This paper presents the shifts of the experiences of public elementary school educators since COVID. Utilizing case studies and action research, the authors identified three major themes which include the growing breadth of responsibilities, challenges with staffing, and competing and conflicting demands on educators’ time and attention. These major themes are helpful to understand some educational considerations during COVID and may inform the future improvement of school leadership and educational reform.

 

Here are my comments.

1. The authors mentioned that the goal of the paper was to understand educators’ experiences during COVID and to inform educational reform. However, as a research paper, the motivation of this research is relatively weak. The first consideration is: Are schools coming back to their normal (pre-COVID) operations now? If so, what’s the point of understanding the experiences during COVID? I can think about some possibilities. 1) If some schools still experience lockdown/hybrid instruction/health issues, it’s possible to learn from experiences during pandemic, because these conditions are comparable. 2) If we want to prepare our schools for some global pandemic in the future, that’s something we can learn from the previous one, because the conditions will be comparable. And (3) There are some good practices during pandemic that we can keep using, because they are generally good. The authors should be very clear about their motivation and state their motivation in clear language (and how the motivation translates into the current research).

Moreover, even with clearer motivation, based on my reading of the results and discussion sections, I had a hard time generating a clear message about how the experience during pandemic may inform future education reform. For example, what do we want to know from “staff shortage” or “less-sufficient support” during COVID? These, for sure, were our challenges during COVID, but they are perhaps less relevant in the year of 2025. Also for sure, our schools may experience “staff shortage” or “less-sufficient support” in the year of 2025, but how does that connect to our “experience during COVID”? I really need some help with making this connection.

2. The framework used in this paper, IBTE, helped identify a “third place” that connected home and school. Why do authors consider using this framework? And why boundaries between schools and home? The “boundaries between school and home” appears for the first time in this paper, and that’s the section of conceptual framework. The first and second section didn’t mention this, or explain why the authors focus on the relationship between school and home (parents). In particular the research question at the end of Section 1 didn’t mention any home/family/parents part of this relationship. The use of the IBTE should be justified, so that the readers can really follow the conceptual framework of this paper.
3. This paper primarily utilized interview to conduct analysis. Could the authors explain more about their methodology? In particular, how themes were emerged from the interview transcript? What was the coding process in specific?

Relatedly, there are three main themes as described by the authors. Are there any sub-themes that can be emerged from the coding process (level 2 codes)? The current format of results is too hard to follow.  

Author Response

Point-by-point responses to reviewers in italics:

 

Dear Reviewers:

This was a first attempt to convert one chapter of my doctoral dissertation into an article. Your comments have helped me to understand the complexities of this process. I realize that by focusing on one sub-research question, I needed to carefully reconsider how the evidence supported claims that were also derived from another sub-research question that focused specifically on the ideas for innovation and improvement based on the experiences of participants. While documenting the experiences of educators during the COVID-19 pandemic is an important addition to the literature, their experiences alone did not necessarily indicate solutions. This is where my analysis as the primary researcher ‘connected the dots.’ I hope the latest round of revisions helped to walk the reader through this thought process.

 

I have learned so much from the initial writing and subsequent revisions and even if this article is not deemed worthy of publication, I want to thank you all for the focused attention you have given to my work. I will use what I have learned from this process in future efforts to share my research in academic journals. As a working elementary school teacher, publishing is not central to my professional positionality but given the focus of this special issue, I wanted to offer an historical record of the experiences of educators and use my platform to offer a possible path forward.

Thank you again for your consideration and you will find a point-by-point response to each reviewer’s comments below.

Reviewer 2’s comments:

This paper presents the shifts of the experiences of public elementary school educators since COVID. Utilizing case studies and action research, the authors identified three major themes which include the growing breadth of responsibilities, challenges with staffing, and competing and conflicting demands on educators’ time and attention. These major themes are helpful to understand some educational considerations during COVID and may inform the future improvement of school leadership and educational reform.

 

Here are my comments.

1. The authors mentioned that the goal of the paper was to understand educators’ experiences during COVID and to inform educational reform. However, as a research paper, the motivation of this research is relatively weak. The first consideration is: Are schools coming back to their normal (pre-COVID) operations now? If so, what’s the point of understanding the experiences during COVID? I can think about some possibilities. 1) If some schools still experience lockdown/hybrid instruction/health issues, it’s possible to learn from experiences during pandemic, because these conditions are comparable. 2) If we want to prepare our schools for some global pandemic in the future, that’s something we can learn from the previous one, because the conditions will be comparable. And (3) There are some good practices during pandemic that we can keep using, because they are generally good. The authors should be very clear about their motivation and state their motivation in clear language (and how the motivation translates into the current research).

The purpose of the study is to understand how the disruption to schooling impacted educators. While the findings are unique to the pandemic, disrupted schooling continues to occur in various locations for various reasons. Learning lessons from this time could help to prevent some of the negative impacts around untenable workloads, short staffing, and initiative overload. Returning to pre-pandemic norms of schooling would only set the stage for the same outcomes so this research cautions against this return. However, it is important to note that the findings in this article are only one part of a much larger study and focus specifically on one sub-research question. Another article could focus on solutions, recommendations, and changes that occurred during and after the study as part of the action research component. However, it was not feasible to do both in one article.

Moreover, even with clearer motivation, based on my reading of the results and discussion sections, I had a hard time generating a clear message about how the experience during pandemic may inform future education reform. For example, what do we want to know from “staff shortage” or “less-sufficient support” during COVID? These, for sure, were our challenges during COVID, but they are perhaps less relevant in the year of 2025. Also for sure, our schools may experience “staff shortage” or “less-sufficient support” in the year of 2025, but how does that connect to our “experience during COVID”? I really need some help with making this connection.

The challenges connected to COVID are still relevant as they offer insights on how educational systems can be better prepared for disruptions.

2. The framework used in this paper, IBTE, helped identify a “third place” that connected home and school. Why do authors consider using this framework? And why boundaries between schools and home? The “boundaries between school and home” appears for the first time in this paper, and that’s the section of conceptual framework. The first and second section didn’t mention this, or explain why the authors focus on the relationship between school and home (parents). In particular the research question at the end of Section 1 didn’t mention any home/family/parents part of this relationship. The use of the IBTE should be justified, so that the readers can really follow the conceptual framework of this paper.

Referenced to IBTE have been removed as the conceptual framework is not the focus of this article. However, the references to Boundary Theory, Border Theory, and Chan’s third space concept offer a lens for how this research was approached. Understanding the changes that occurred for educators during the pandemic (the blurring of boundaries and borders) led to possibilities in a figurative third space. Language has been added to this section to make this more clear.

3. This paper primarily utilized interview to conduct analysis. Could the authors explain more about their methodology? In particular, how themes were emerged from the interview transcript? What was the coding process in specific?

More information has been added to this section.

Relatedly, there are three main themes as described by the authors. Are there any sub-themes that can be emerged from the coding process (level 2 codes)? The current format of results is too hard to follow.  

Sub-themes have been added.

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This is an interesting paper that is well organized and clearly written.  I thought in particular that the tone of the authors was very fair in presenting positive and negative aspects of the situations school people encountered during COVID.

The focus of the paper is on the experiences of teachers and administrators in a small, rural school district during COVID.  The conclusion section of the paper at the end talked about opportunities for innovation presented by COVID and the importance of school community partnerships.  However, the case narratives mostly talked about the occupational difficulties of teachers and administrators during COVID.  While the analytic parts of the paper talk about the importance of school/home partnerships there were not stories of these kinds of things in the narrative.  At the same time, it was clear that the staff members who were interviewed had school/community partnerships that were positive and negative.  There could have been more of a spotlight on these moments during the reporting of data.  Of course, it might be that the people interviewed did not provide rich examples of such instances.  If they did provide some rich stories, you might consider including them and providing some examples of what you mean by school/home/community partnerships so that when you get to that part of the paper, you can draw on those examples to enrich the analysis.

Overall, I liked this paper a lot and thought you authors did a good job.

Author Response

This is an interesting paper that is well organized and clearly written.  I thought in particular that the tone of the authors was very fair in presenting positive and negative aspects of the situations school people encountered during COVID.

The focus of the paper is on the experiences of teachers and administrators in a small, rural school district during COVID.  The conclusion section of the paper at the end talked about opportunities for innovation presented by COVID and the importance of school community partnerships.  However, the case narratives mostly talked about the occupational difficulties of teachers and administrators during COVID.  While the analytic parts of the paper talk about the importance of school/home partnerships there were not stories of these kinds of things in the narrative.  At the same time, it was clear that the staff members who were interviewed had school/community partnerships that were positive and negative.  There could have been more of a spotlight on these moments during the reporting of data.  Of course, it might be that the people interviewed did not provide rich examples of such instances.  If they did provide some rich stories, you might consider including them and providing some examples of what you mean by school/home/community partnerships so that when you get to that part of the paper, you can draw on those examples to enrich the analysis.

Overall, I liked this paper a lot and thought you authors did a good job.

Thank you for pointing this out. The findings presented from this article were part of a larger study. This article only focuses on experiences, but another sub-research question focuses on opportunities for innovations. I have used the analysis woven throughout the findings section to help walk the reader through how the experiences of educators can lead to innovation. Perhaps the limitation of an article format made this too much of a leap and would only work if the article focused on the innovative ideas offered by participants rather than their experiences alone. To correct this issue, I have tried to be more explicit in how I arrived at recommendations in the discussion section from analyzing the educators’ experiences in the findings section. Thank you for this feedback.

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The review is much improved in clarifying the methodology, and focusing the context (still would like to see the interview protocol/questions, and position of the researcher in relation to informants). Original review comments on improving literature review research on state and national contexts for whole child and community involvement education reform initiatives have not been addressed, but the more specified claims in discussion along with better organized evidence in the findings sections serves to offset this lack of lit review context. The organization of the findings along with key evidence additions and improved explanations make this a meaningful research article. Discussion and recommendations are rather general, but will encourage readers to consider the ideas expressed.

Author Response

Dear reviewers,

For the latest round of revisions, you will find the following changes:
- Added paragraph on positionality in lines 125-128
- Added two sentences summarizing the content of the interview and focus group guides to lines 134-138
- Added two sentences on protocols including written consent forms, voluntary nature of study, incentives for participation to lines 134-141.
- made formatting adjustments to block indented quotes

In response to reviewer feedback, we have considered the request to add research on "state and national contexts for whole child and community involvement education reform initiatives" to the literature review. However, with the recent revisions to the findings section, we have opted to keep the literature review concise with only the necessary references and citations that align with subsequent sections including the discussion and the claims within. 

We also acknowledge the reviewer's comment on the "discussion and recommendations are rather general but will encourage readers to consider the ideas expressed." We agree that the discussion and recommendations address some areas of the findings and provide space and opportunity for further research and inquiry. 

Thank you again for the feedback.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Good work with revising the paper. The methodology is now clear to me, and the authors have clarified their motivation and framework of this study. Well done!

Author Response

Dear reviewers,

For the latest round of revisions, you will find the following changes:
- Added paragraph on positionality in lines 125-128
- Added two sentences summarizing the content of the interview and focus group guides to lines 134-138
- Added two sentences on protocols including written consent forms, voluntary nature of study, incentives for participation to lines 134-141.
- made formatting adjustments to block indented quotes

In response to reviewer feedback, we have considered the request to add research on "state and national contexts for whole child and community involvement education reform initiatives" to the literature review. However, with the recent revisions to the findings section, we have opted to keep the literature review concise with only the necessary references and citations that align with subsequent sections including the discussion and the claims within. 

We also acknowledge the reviewer's comment on the "discussion and recommendations are rather general but will encourage readers to consider the ideas expressed." We agree that the discussion and recommendations address some areas of the findings and provide space and opportunity for further research and inquiry. 

Thank you again for the feedback.