View/Open - Drake University

so5pccted ~c~islnli\~e nloti\.es of consolidating or closing small schools; (3) more formalized
osscrsment psocrduses were developed and school reported becoming more data-driven. (4,
"
comlllo11 harriers of time and money existed, but change issues: teacher \.slue systelns. and
teacller ti~sno\~es arere formidable issues as well: (5) skilled leadership was able to pafiner
\\,ith te:sliing staff. the community. and outside agencies to successfully facilitate
iIllplr.mentntion: (6) unintended consequences included increased workload for educators,
di\:lppointnlent o\'er thc perceiImed lack of respect shown to teachers by policymakers, and a
concern o\*er the potential losses of non-mandated programming; and (7) educators hoped
future policy decisions \vould include more voice for those being impacted.
Change \\.as difficult. It became even more so when intent. interpretation, and
implementation \!.ere not conducted in partnership. While HF 2272 was one of the driving
forces in lo\va school accountability. the rank and file educator was left at the local level to
makc the m:indnte< meaningful to students, the community. and ultimately the state.
Hawcl on the Jal;~ g;~rhcred for this stud\'. several conclusions \yere derived:
COnclu\io!l 1 : \!'h;rl \\.en[ before proved critic31 lo \yhat came after.
H! ltlc \ en definition of beins "octi\.e" school districts had a "jump stm" on the
inlplcoien~;~tion of ne\v n1:lndntes. Inten.ieatee< were quick lo point out that their inclusion
:~nd in\.ol\.cnicnr in school inipmvement initinti\.es. dniinp hack to the 1980s hod allo\ved for a
comfm le\.cl III:II illo\ved for tnlst and confidence in 3 process to which they hod gman
:~cci~\lonlcd. Effcclive lc:lcler.;hip nVns
7773
in place 31 multiple levels of the HF -- -
illlplcmcnl;llil,n process. "rl;ln\f of these leaders hnd risen throurh the l ~ teaching d rinks and
had c;lrncd ltlc rc\pccl ;,nd lm.;, of rducnton and conlnlunity nlenlbers.