1974- Passage of Chapter 20.
The legislature sets forth in 20.9 a list of subjects considered to be mandatory topics of bargaining. In the list, is the topic "evaluation procedures". "Evaluation procedures" was interpreted to include the following: when the evaluation takes place, notice to employees about evaluation, and other procedural elements of evaluation. It was believed that the criteria and standards used as a basis for the evaluation were considered within management's right. Management had full authority to set the expectations for staff used to assess performance.

1988- Aplington Decision at the Supreme Court
The Iowa Supreme Court considers the topic of "evaluation procedures." The ISEA has argued that evaluation procedures should be construed broadly and must include the criteria and the standards. The Iowa Supreme Court decides that "evaluation procedures" does mean, not only,the timelines for evaluation, but also, the "criteria" for evaluation. School districts were required to bargain with the employee representative about the criteria for assessing performance.

1997- House File 2272 is passed
House file 2272 requires that school districts develop comprehensive school improvement goals based upon the needs of students in the district. The district must develop the goals and then the district will be required to annually report out to community on progress toward the goals.

1998- Legislature adds subsection to 279.14 about evaluation
Legislature is persuaded to give districts more authority in determining the expectations for performance. Legislature concludes that if districts will be required to report progress to the community on CSIP goals, the district will need the authority to align performance systems to meet the goals. The legislature does not open 20.9 to make changes in the list of mandatory topics of bargaining. Instead the legislature goes to Section 279.14 of the Iowa Code and adds language that states that "standards of performance" are the exclusive authority of management.
1999- Iowa Association of School Boards files a request for a declaratory ruling with Public Employee Relations Board (PERB) over the meaning of Section 279.14.
PERB concludes that the changes in Section 279.14 of the Iowa Code do not overrule the decision in Aplington, PERB determines that since the legislature used different than "criteria" it did not intend to overrule the established case law. The case is appealed to Polk County District Court and PERB's decision is affirmed.

1999- Waterloo School District and the Education Association file a negotiability dispute over evaluation language.
Waterloo School District and the Education Association disagree about how to categorize evaluation proposals made during bargaining and a negotiability dispute is filed with PERB. PERB, again determines that the evaluation proposal, which attempts to change the criteria used for performance assessment, is a mandatory subject of bargaining. Waterloo Schools appeals to Black Hawk District Court. Black Hawk County District Court sides with the Waterloo School District and determines that the evaluation criteria must be considered permissive to preserve management's authority to successfully manage its operations. The Iowa Education Association appeals the decision to the Supreme Court.

2001- Teacher Quality Bill is passed.
The Teacher Quality bill is passed and contains eight teaching standards that beginning teachers and career teachers will be required to demonstrate. There is language in the bill that suggests that the district's evaluation criteria will need to be changed to comply with the requirements of the bill. The legislature gives authority to the Department of Education to further define the teaching standards by developing criteria. The legislature does not clearly set out the process for local districts to incorporate the standards and criteria with the local districts evaluation system. Questions about the evaluation standards and criteria and its implications for bargaining emerge.

2002- Teacher Quality clean up bill is passed
The legislature goes back into session with specific recommendations about how to clarify issues related to bargaining the evaluation criteria. The legislature determines that the beginning teacher evaluation must include the eight teaching standards and criteria. The legislature provides that local districts and the employee representative may negotiate additional standards and criteria. It appears that the legislature is suggesting that these additional standards and criteria is not a mandatory subject of negotiations, but the legislature did not specifically state that in the statute.

September 2002 – Supreme Court decides Waterloo School District and the Education Association
Iowa Supreme Court affirms the District Court's ruling on evaluation criteria. The Supreme Court agrees that the employer has the exclusive right to set standards of performance, which is the same as evaluation criteria. The court again, reaffirms the lower court's determination that the ability to set the performance expectations is necessary for the employer to deliver services. With this decision, it bolsters the position, that school districts, for career teachers, are not required to negotiate "the additional standards and criteria" alluded to in the Teacher Quality Bill. Districts may choose to negotiate those standards and criteria, but are not required.