View/Open - Drake University

cllool eLlucators 2nd hopefully :ll\o be shared with policymakers as they retl1111~ snu rewrite
legisl:~ticln.
Five research questions guided this studv:
I. How did HF 2272 change what districts were requlred to do?
2. Did small districts halve the necessary resources and skills to implement HF 227??
3. \l'har uvus [he process used to implement HF 2272?
4. In \.our opinion of implementation in small districts. why did the le,' o~slature enact
HF 2273'?
5. What recommendntions do vou have for legislators resarding future policy design
and in~plementation?
Tivtnty-four semi-structured intenflews were conducted in three small, rural
school districts \i.ith K-12 populations of less than 300. These in-depth. one-on-one
inter-vie\vc included superintendents. ~rincipals. teachers, and hoard members. Three similar
~'rol(~c-ol\ \! CI.' il\r'd 10 intcn.ic\{. pclnicipanrq dependant on their role aithin the district.
Inlcr\.ir'\\ \ \! crc ~ran\cribc.d. preliminan codin; schemes \\ere developed. and rhe constant
Cr~lllp:lr;~ri\.r' 111'1hocl \\ ;I\ LI\C~ rn cnrepri7e data. Relel.ant school districr documents and
fi~IcI n()rc\ \! crc ;,I\() re\.icn.cd. .4f1er ;lnal!.;rin_r site darn. a repon \!.as \vritren for each
di\lricl. Thc rc\cnrchcr ~hcn looked ncrosz zire repons for emergins themes. Included in the
;Icro\\-\ile repon a.3' a brief rc\.ie\{* of [he lirenture on nccounrabilit!.. standards-hased
rcforni. policy irnplcnlcnrnrion. and Icnderzhip.
73 7
Thcn~e, from rllc :cro\s-si~c repon included: ( I I HF --7- did not hinder
~ch(x>I/~omnlllniI\~ rcl;llions.
perhaps enhanced it: (3) while [he perceived inrent \'as
in~rca\~(l ;~a~,\~nl;~hili[~, snl:lll scllonl cdi~cnlon fell threatened and \!'ere angered a.ith