View/Open - Drake University

IJiliilfe~~ded Co~tsc~q~~c~~c.rs
There was son'e
120
at the local level concerning the impact of 2172 on (he
d~t~lal insvllction that students received. Elmore pointed to the ambivalence and perhaps the
-t and science that policy ilnplementation is even now: "We do not clearly understand,w he
lid. \$.hat a policy should be until we have thought about hour it will be implemented" (p.
2).
ducators were concerned that aspects of a balanced education might suffer, as HF
r272 became more ingrained in the local district's culture. A board member, on the other
hand. uras quick to offer "they (the state) are spotlighting the three most important areas in
nding if my children are prepared to go on after high school. You need to have well-
rounded students who have exposure to the arts and sports, but to keep math, reading, and
:ience as the top priorities, that's as it should be." Teachers were not so sure that the
I-ocedures required in 2272 were not responsible for the curriculum being overly narrowed,
ointi~i? 10 4pecil'ic arc35 of concern. including the means of assessment. feared losses in non-
rn~ncl;~rc.d 5chool nffrrinss. ethical practices. and compliance requirements.
.~l.~.~~~.~.vn~crlr. Teachers were not happy with the increased emphasis on standardized
tc.\ling. SirOtnik (2002) suggests "Assessment systems are about creatin~ and using ways to
collect inhr111ation on teaching and learning and about making appraisals or Judgements
hascd on that information. Accountability systems are about hat is done with these
(p. 665). Teachers of[entimes Sa\V little orr relation between a'hat the?. a-ere
[e;lchina :lnd aphal ccnain tests nlensnred. The support for more chd'en~ins tests
e\rcrywhclr. ( ~ ~ 200 ~ 1) as ~ :Id"linirtrat@r~
~ l . view them as suPp@rtiye of Pod instruction-
illcsc ,.icWs .ucocnis~ avilh criticisnls of 111~ I~SIS" (p. 160). Hesitant'\'. One