View/Open - Drake University

7
school i*l~rol'elllcnt and cvel.ything fro111 [he ]unchroom to buses.--
Lullcc,.n of
,the1 ;~lmini~lra~or. Rut he did understand '*our teachcrs rend to be that way too.,.
lo*t viewed the mandates aS posilive overall. and that wllile it
114
take more time.
''3 10t 01 this JLIS~ 11% 10 come on your own to get finished," it was beneficial for students and
ultilnntely the district. A redizati0n had set in with some teaching staff ..it
L.
esn't pay to gripe about it. I think you create \Tour own time."
On]!. a handful of participants questioned the implementation timeline, Recognizing
tnat lar_rer districts might have some personnel expertise that smaller districts could not
aff'ord, it \+*as equally understood that larger districts "may not be as nimble as smaller
districts in responding to pressures for change" (Hannaway & Kimball, 2001, p. 102). Small
school practitioners thought perhaps the size of their districts might have been a blessing as
they u.ere used to functionins district-wide. Conversations about mandates sometimes
referred to as "hall\vay meetings" \yere common before school, at lunch, and during planning
rimes. \\'ith K- 12 \raSf 311 housed at rhe same site, it was not a difficult task to organize
nlecring\ quickl! ;~nd to folloiv up.
\\.(,rklr,rrtl. Panici~ants appreciated the understanding administrators dunonstrated for
r]lc incrpasrd \\.ork]oad. In panicular they vieu.ed the cumculum directors as Partners in the
in~plenlcnt;llion process. Curriculum directors shared this belief realizing the value of
*.cominp up [hrollfh [he s!,.;temm' and having the credibility with the teaching staff that "I
;lSk them to do ;ln\r,hing 1.m no[ doing myself' hecause of the teachins responsibilit?.
cun.iclllum directors carried in addition to their administnti\.e duties. As a group. teaching
st;lff fell 11~:~r the,, somclin~es
ahout their work begn~dgingl~ but the!' got it done. One
lcacllcr enprcsscd rile Fencrnl scnlinlenl this war: "\\T 311 grunt and pronn a little bit "lt 'ye do