Abstract
As the accountability movement has gained momentum, policy makers and educators have strived to strike a difficult balance between the sometimes competing demands at the local, state, and federal levels. Efforts to improve accountability and teacher evaluation have taken an especially unique route in Iowa, where local control and resistance to state mandated curricular standards have been popular topics from the statehouse to the convenience store. This research explores principals’ impressions of Iowa’s state-mandated standards for best-practice teaching (as opposed to state mandated curricular standards). Further, the research examined the extent to which the Iowa Teaching Standards (ITS) and accompanying Iowa Evaluator Approval Training Program (IEATP) have impacted the way teacher evaluations are conducted in the state’s rural schools. Evidence indicates that most principals felt that ITS and the accompanying IEATP made them feel adequately or very well prepared to conduct teacher evaluations. In addition, 65% of respondents reported that IAETP had changed the way teachers are evaluated.
Highlights
The accountability movement in education has appeared in many forms across all levels of education
More than 30% percent of responding rural administrators indicated that the Iowa Evaluator Approval Training Program (IEATP) program made them feel “very well prepared” to conduct teacher evaluations using the Iowa Teaching Standards (ITS) standards and criteria
More than 65% reported that IEATP had “adequately” prepared them, leaving only a handful who reported that IAETP had left them poorly prepared
Summary
The accountability movement in education has appeared in many forms across all levels of education. Regardless of their personal politics, K-12 educators are actively engaged in processes they hope will meet the requirements of the No Child Left Behind (NCLB) legislation, as well as a host of accompanying requirements from state departments of education. The presence of sanctions for schools failing to meet required levels of performance has clearly raised the stakes. Many (e.g., Danielson and McGreal, 2000; Daggett, 2005; Ravitch, 2006; Tellez, 2003; Wasley and McDiarmid, 2003) have noted how standards specify what students should know and be able to do, as well as expecting improved student test scores. Many (e.g., Danielson and McGreal, 2000; Daggett, 2005; Ravitch, 2006; Tellez, 2003; Wasley and McDiarmid, 2003) have noted how standards specify what students should know and be able to do, as well as expecting improved student test scores. Lane and Stone (2002) added that, “Most states have implemented assessment programs that are being used for high-stakes purposes such as holding schools accountable to improved instruction” (p. 24)
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 call
