Abstract
The perspectives of three rural middle school principals as they implement Georgia’s A Plus Education Reform Act of 2000 were investigated in this study. A case study approach was used, employing both within case and cross case analyses. Three interviews were conducted with each of the three participants, resulting in a total of nine interviews. Five perspectives emerged from the data: (1) Evaluation of teacher effectiveness can be indicated only by the results of standardized tests, (2) Supervision consists of classroom visits and observations, (3) Ruralness affects how staff development is delivered, (4) Lack of funding limits the effectiveness of the staff development component of teacher evaluation, and (5) Implementation of A Plus adversely affects the traditional middle school schedule.
Highlights
The perspectives of three rural middle school principals as they implement Georgia’s A Plus Education Reform Act of 2000 were investigated in this study
After more than a decade under the Quality Basic Education Act, educators faced a new roadmap for school improvement
A Plus required that: The placement of teachers on the salary schedule shall be based on certificate level and years of creditable experience, except that a teacher shall not receive credit for any year of experience in which the teacher received an unsatisfactory performance evaluation
Summary
The perspectives of three rural middle school principals as they implement Georgia’s A Plus Education Reform Act of 2000 were investigated in this study. Much of the responsibility for implementation of the A Plus Education Reform Act of 2000 (hereafter referred to as A Plus) rested with administrative personnel, most notably principals, responsible for the supervision, evaluation, and staff development of all certified staff. The purpose of this study was to examine the perspectives and practices of three rural middle school principals who, by state statute, were mandated to implement the teacher evaluation provisions of the bill. A Plus provided that a teacher receiving an unsatisfactory evaluation would not be entitled to a salary increase based on credit for years of experience. Teachers receiving two unsatisfactory annual performance evaluations in the previous five-year period would not be re-certified until the perceived deficiency was remediated.
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
