Classroom Autonomy

It has been contended that professional autonomy enhances efficiency because employees are given more decision-making power over their own activities (Luthans, 1992, as cited in Gawlik, 2007). Educational organizations have moved toward granting more teacher autonomy since the 1960s, giving instructors more control over their curriculum (Tamir, 1986, as cited in Gawlik, 2007). A more decentralized management of schools has meant that instructors have been more involved in a school's decision-making processes and management than in the past. However, while some instructors embrace teacher autonomy and want the freedom that comes along with it, other instructors may view their own autonomy as a way for principals and administrators to avoid doing what they are paid to do (Frase & Sorenson, 1992, as cited in Pearson & Moomaw, 2006).

Keywords Centralized Management; Classroom Autonomy; Curriculum; High-Stakes Testing; Job Satisfaction; Motivation; No Child Left Behind Act of 2001; Standardized Testing; Standards-Based Curriculum; School-Based Management; Teacher Autonomy

Overview

Autonomy is an abstract concept. By definition, it generally means individual freedoms or rights. For public school instructors, it can have a variety of meanings and there can be a range of degrees of teacher autonomy; the highest degree being complete freedom and the lowest degree being absolutely no freedom. Classroom autonomy can refer to instructors having control over specific aspects of their work life such as scheduling, the curriculum, textbooks used in class, and instructional planning.

Just as instructors can have autonomy, so can schools. An autonomous school is one that governs itself; defines its own goals, develops its own programs and plans to achieve its goals (Carlos & Amsler, 1993, as cited in Gawlik, 2007). An autonomous school has complete control over personnel, including who to hire, who to let go, and how much to pay (Briggs & Wohlstetter, 1999, as cited in Gawlik, 2007). These schools also have sole discretion over professional development opportunities, curriculum and instruction, how funds are allocated, and how instructors will teach (Gawlik, 2007). Autonomous schools also have complete control over the students they serve (Horn & Miron, 2000, as cited in Gawlik, 2007), which effectively rules out public school as being completely autonomous. Autonomous schools are generally private schools, as government funding demands government oversight and regulation.

Between 1983 and 1985 there were still many regulations established by states, and more than 700 statutes were enacted by state legislators. These laws effectively took away a lot of authority that traditionally belonged to instructors, principals, school districts, and parents by regulating instructors and schools, which affects classroom autonomy (Futrell, n.d., as cited in Hicks & DeWalt). The next movement of education reform brought about efforts for instructors, principals, superintendents, school boards, parents, and business and community leaders to work collaboratively to improve their schools and students' education (Hicks & DeWalt, 2006).

It has been contended that professional autonomy enhances efficiency because employees are given more decision-making power over their own activities (Luthans, 1992, as cited in Gawlik, 2007). Educational organizations have moved toward granting more teacher autonomy since the 1960s, giving instructors more control over their curriculum (Tamir, 1986, as cited in Gawlik, 2007). A more decentralized management of schools has meant that instructors have been more involved in a school's decision-making processes and management than in the past. Therefore, teachers are now participating in issues that were once solely a principal or administrator's responsibility, such as budgeting, resource allocation, and finance (Gawlik, 2007). However, while some instructors embrace teacher autonomy and want the freedom that comes along with it, other instructors may view their own autonomy as a way for principals and administrators to avoid doing what they are paid to do (Frase & Sorenson, 1992, as cited in Pearson & Moomaw, 2006).

Perceptions of Autonomy: Principals & Teachers

Perception can also play a role in determining teacher autonomy in schools. Hicks and DeWalt (2006) present a recent survey of elementary school teachers and principals that looked at the differences in teacher and principal perceptions when it comes to teacher autonomy in the classroom. When it came to teacher involvement in determining the curriculum at their schools, 62 percent of teachers and almost 94 percent of principals felt that teacher were involved in curriculum decisions. Every principal that responded to the survey and 86 percent of the elementary teachers felt that instructors were sometimes to almost always involved in deciding on other instructional materials. A little over 61 percent of the teachers surveyed felt that they were seldom or almost never involved in setting student promotion and retention policies whereas almost 73 percent of principals felt that they were sometimes to almost always involved in setting the policies (Hicks & DeWalt, 2006).

Another area where the teachers and principals disagreed was in setting standards for student behavior. Every principal surveyed and only 58 percent of the teachers felt that they were involved in setting these standards. Principals and instructors also differed in their opinions on setting school and school district goals. Almost 91 percent of principals felt that teachers were sometimes to almost always involved in goal setting while only 45 percent of teachers felt that they were involved in the process (Hicks & DeWalt, 2006).

Perceptions of the degree of classroom autonomy attained are also related to factors within each instructor's work environment but not factors such as academic ability, quality of prior training, and years of experience (Pearson & Hall, 1993, as cited in Pearson & Moomaw, 2006). One area where high school instructors seem to have a great deal of autonomy in their classrooms nationwide is with respect to grades. According to a 1997 College Board survey of high schools, almost 85 percent of those schools surveyed reported that instructors could award any distribution of grades they chose to base on student performance. While 85 percent of the high schools surveyed allowed their instructors complete autonomy over grades and grading, only 6.6 percent required their instructors to follow general guidelines and 3.5 percent required their instructors to follow strict guidelines regarding grade distribution (Boston, 2003).

There have been many documented studies that indicate that what constitutes teacher autonomy has changed a lot over the years and continues to change, especially with the passage of the No Child Left Behind Act and increased use of standardized tests. An older concept of teacher autonomy was based on independence through isolation and alienation. A more recent concept views teacher autonomy as being based on collaborative decision making and the freedom to make professional choices concerning what services are given to students (Willner, 1990, as cited in Pearson & Moomaw, 2006). While government mandates seem to be firmly in place, instructors are becoming more involved in the general administration of the school itself. Many instructors feel that they are qualified to be involved in the instructional process because they have expertise in specialized fields, that they have the right to coordinate how learning occurs in their classrooms, and that they formulate their own personalized rules in their classrooms (Pearson & Moomaw, 2006).

Further Insights

Effects of No Child Left Behind

School districts determine how much classroom autonomy instructors have based on how specific they are about the curriculum. Instructors will have less autonomy the more specific the curriculum is. If there are no curriculum mandates, then instructors will have total autonomy and can teach whatever they want. If a district has adopted very specific curriculum standards that note what is to be taught, how it should be taught, and when it should be taught, then teachers have little autonomy over curriculum. In the past, most school districts have allowed extensive autonomy in the classroom. However, since the No Child Left Behind Act and the era of high-stakes testing, more districts have found it necessary to implement curriculum restrictions because of the ramifications if schools and districts do not meet the new mandates. With curriculum requirements being implemented to make sure all competencies are addressed in the classroom, teachers find themselves with less control over what happens in their own classrooms. Those districts that are reluctant to infringe on teacher autonomy in the classroom and yet still want to make sure all the standards are met may make sure that instructors know what will be covered on the high-stakes tests and leave the how and when the material will be taught up to each instructor's discretion (Squires, 2004).

Teacher authority and autonomy can be diminished by a standards-based curriculum and the focus on high-stakes testing performance. Standards-based education makes instructors accountable for making sure their students meet specified standards. These standards are now often predicated on student performance on high-stakes tests. Now, student performance on such tests can have negative impact on students, instructors, schools, and school districts if adequate yearly progress has not been made (Tutwiler, 2005). Proponents of the No Child Left Behind Act have noted that high-stakes test results provide instructors with invaluable information about how well their students are doing so that they can adjust their teaching accordingly. Thus, they still have classroom autonomy (Seaton, Dell'Angelo, Spencer & Youngblood, 2007).

In the advent of high-stakes testing, instructors often take the brunt of criticism if their students do not perform well on standardized tests. Those who oppose such high-stakes testing note that it causes a loss of teacher autonomy and creativity-and even threatens their status as professionals-because they need to be concerned about test scores and focus instruction on meeting those test competencies. High-stakes testing is also considered a threat to teacher autonomy because school districts can mandate approaches to teaching, such as declaring that phonics must be the approach instructors use to try to improve students' reading ability. This further diminishes teacher autonomy because instructors cannot choose which methods they want to use in the classroom (Tutwiler, 2005).

Decentralized Management & Teacher Autonomy

School processes and activities can be divided into two separate entities:

• School wide, which consists of administrative activities such as management, planning, budget, and resource allocation, and

• Classroom, which consists of teaching and educational activities (Barr and Dreeben 1983; Lortie 1969, 1975, as cited in Ingersoll, 1996).

To determine how centralized or decentralized a school is can be judged by how much autonomy teachers have over educational matters in their classrooms. Instructors who have high levels of autonomy over issues of classroom instruction are considered to be more decentralized (Firestone 1985; Meyer & Scott 1983, as cited in Ingersoll, 1996). Schools that give instructors a greater say and more influence in school-wide decisions and policy matters are also more decentralized than those that do not (Ingersoll, 1996).

Research over the past 20 years has shown that authority has been shifting from individual schools to a more centralized model (Allington, 2002a, 2002b; Berliner, 1997; Hoffman, 2000, as cited in Moloney, 2006). This shift has brought about external control over the education process and limited teacher autonomy in the classroom (Allington, 2002b, as cited in Moloney, 2006), by focusing on identifying teaching programs instead of promoting effecting classroom techniques (Duffy & Hoffman, 1999, as cited in Moloney, 2006). This has brought about the contention that these authorities have focused on developing a "teacher-proof" curriculum (Allington, 2002b; Shannon, 2000, as cited in Moloney, 2006), which takes away teacher autonomy in the classroom (Allington, 2002b, as cited in Moloney, 2006).

Proponents of giving instructors more influence and increase in teacher autonomy note that instructors will make better informed decisions about educational issues than district or state officials because they are in the classroom. It is also noted that decisions coming from the top to those in the field generally fail because they do not have the support of those who are responsible for implementing the decisions (Ingersoll & Alsalam, n.d., as cited in Pearson & Moomaw, 2006). In a survey completed by the National Center for Education Statistics, a nationally representative sample of instructors was asked to determine their influence on classroom and school-wide issues. Instructors who responded to the survey indicated that they felt their influence was pretty much limited to classroom issues like textbook adoption and teaching strategies (Shen, 1998, as cited in Pearson & Moomaw, 2006). However, collaborative autonomy in schools can be seen where instructors work with the school's administration to make decisions about curriculum, instruction, and scheduling (Willner, 1990, as cited in Pearson & Moomaw, 2006).

Teacher Accountability

There are some who believe that if instructors are to be empowered and viewed as professionals then they need to have the freedom to do what they deem appropriate for their students and not be required to abide by other dictates (Pearson & Moomaw, 2006). If teachers are to be held accountable, they should have a great deal of autonomy. It is not fair to impose accountability without autonomy, just as it is not a good idea to give teachers too much autonomy over decisions for which they will not be held accountable (Gawlik, 2007). However, with the passage of the No Child Left Behind Act, specific expectations have been stated and need to be achieved in order to avoid the ramifications of not meeting adequate yearly progress. It is up to school administrators and districts to work with instructors to ensure that the balance of teacher autonomy and government mandates with respect to student achievement can work together in the classroom.

Viewpoints

Classroom Autonomy as a Legal Right

For the most part, classroom autonomy is not considered a valid legal defense for teachers who have been dismissed. With few exceptions, the courts side with the school boards as long as their decisions are not attained by any way that implies inappropriate motives on the board's part. Interpretation of court cases regarding public school curricula is on the school board's side, which means that an instructor usually does not have the right to use classroom materials that the school board finds objectionable or inappropriate; and that continued use of material that has been considered objectionable or inappropriate could result in the instructor being dismissed based on continued insubordination. This was noted in the Supreme Court case Board of Education, Island Trees v. Pico. This particular court decision also included language that indicated boards of education should have formal procedures in place for solving curriculum conflicts and any challenge to a teacher's decisions in the classroom (Sacken, 1989).

Local school boards can also implement an approval process for deciding if classroom materials are appropriate and can be used in the classroom, which also severely limits teacher autonomy. This can be interpreted to mean that instructors may have autonomy over curriculum in their classrooms as long as there are not official, comprehensive policies or procedures instituted by their school boards or states. Depending on legal interpretation and the comprehensiveness of school board policies, teachers may still have substantial autonomy in their classrooms. However, with most court cases being decided in favor of the school board, classroom autonomy appears to be more of a privilege than a legal right (Sacken, 1989).

Classroom Autonomy & Teacher Motivation/Job Satisfaction

Classroom autonomy is one common element that shows up when exploring instructors' thoughts on teacher motivation, job satisfaction, stress levels, instructor burnout, professionalism, and teacher empowerment (Brunetti, 2001; Kim & Loadman, 1994; Klecker & Loadman, 1996; Ulriksen, 1996, as cited in Pearson & Moomaw, 2006). Many researchers have found that instructors need to have autonomy for increased motivation and job satisfaction and lower stress levels and job burnout (Erpelding, 1999; Jones, 2000; Wilson, 1993, as cited in Pearson & Moomaw, 2006). Teacher autonomy also appears to be a key variable when education reform policies are debated (Pearson & Moomaw, 2006). While teacher autonomy has been “a common link that appears when examining teacher motivation, job satisfaction, stress (burnout), professionalism, and empowerment,” there are very few studies that specifically address teacher autonomy because autonomy can be difficult to separate from other factors (Pearson & Hall, 1993, as cited in Pearson & Moomaw, 2006, p. 44).

In looking at what motivates instructors both intrinsically and extrinsically, intrinsic motivations included a desire to help their students achieve, wanting to make a difference in society, and having a feeling of satisfaction when their students learn. Extrinsic motivations included the pay received, non-monetary fringe benefits, and recognition of good performance (Ashbaugh, 1982; DeJesus, 1991; Dinham & Scott, 1996; Farrar, 1981; Firestone & Pennell, 1993; Picard, 1986; Porter, 1993; Swanson & Koonce, 1986, as cited in Pearson & Moomaw, 2006). In a 1981 study, the National Institute of Education found that overall intrinsic rewards were a better motivating factor for instructors than extrinsic rewards. Three major intrinsic reasons why instructors decide to quit teaching are:

• The need for personal growth,

• A desire for a philosophy of education, and

• A lack of respect and recognition of their efforts in the classroom (Brown, 1996, as cited in Pearson & Moomaw, 2006).

Five main intrinsic reasons why instructors decide to remain in the teaching profession are:

• A love of learning,

• Their love for children,

• Resilience,

• Collegiality, and

• Reflectivity (Sarafoglu, 1997, as cited in Pearson & Moomaw, 2006).

With teacher autonomy being one component of teacher motivation (Khmelkov, 2000; Losos, 2000; White, 1992, as cited in Pearson & Moomaw, 2006), analyses of instructor job satisfaction and dissatisfaction have been undertaken. Studies have shown that the degree of teacher autonomy perceived by instructors is an indication of their job satisfaction level (National Center for Education Statistics, n.d.; Charters, 1976; Franklin, 1988; Gnecco, 1983; Hall, Villeme & Phillippy, 1989; Pearson & Hall, 1993, as cited in Pearson & Moomaw, 2006). One report on job satisfaction noted administrative “support and leadership, good student behavior, positive school climate, and teacher autonomy as working conditions that are most associated with teacher satisfaction” (Perie & Baker, 1997, as cited in Pearson & Moomaw, 2006, p. 45). Other researchers have found that a lack of autonomy is related to tension, frustration, and anxiety among instructors (Bacharach, Bauer & Conley, 1986; Blase & Matthews, 1984; Cedoline, 1982; Dinham & Scott, 1996; Dworkin, Haney, Dworkin & Telschow, 1990; Evers, 1987; Lortie, 1975; Natale, 1993; Woods, 1989; Yee, 1991, as cited in Pearson & Moomaw, 2006).

Terms & Concepts

Classroom Autonomy: Classroom autonomy can include instructors having control over specific aspects of their work life with respect to scheduling, curriculum, textbooks adoption, and instructional planning.

Curriculum: Curriculum refers to the entire body of courses taught to students.

High-Stakes Testing: High-stakes testing is the use of test scores to make decisions that have important consequences for individuals, schools, school districts, and/or states and can include high school graduation, promotion to the next grade, resource allocation, and instructor retention.

No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 (NCLB): The No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 is the latest reauthorization and a major overhaul of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965, the major federal law regarding K-12 education.

Standardized Testing: Standardized testing is the use of a test that is administered and scored in a uniform manner, and the tests are designed in such a way that the questions and interpretations are consistent.

Standards-Based Curriculum: Standards-based curriculum sets academic standards for what students should learn and be able to do with clear, measurable outcomes for students.

Bibliography

Boston, C. (2003). High school report cards. Retrieved October 11, 2007, from Education Resources Information Center http://www.eric.ed.gov/ERICDocs/data/ericdocs2sql/content_storage_01/0000019b/80/1b/80/37.pdf

Dierking, R.C., & Fox, R.F. (2013). “Changing the way I teach”: Building teacher knowledge, confidence, and autonomy. Journal of Teacher Education, 64, 129-144. Retrieved December 15, 2013, from EBSCO Online Database Education Research Complete. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ehh&AN=85521695&site=ehost-live

Gawlik, M. (2007). Beyond the charter schoolhouse door. Education & Urban Society, 39 , 524-553. Retrieved October 11, 2007 from EBSCO Online Database Academic Search Premier. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=aph&AN=25909823&site=ehost-live

Hicks, G. & DeWalt, C. (2006). Teacher empowerment in the decision making process. Retrieved October 11, 2007 from Education Resources Information Center http://www.eric.ed.gov/ERICDocs/data/ericdocs2sql/content_storage_01/0000019b/80/1b/ed/11.pdf

Ingersoll, R. (1996). Teachers' decision-making power and school conflict. Sociology of Education, 69 , 159-176. Retrieved October 11, 2007 from EBSCO Online Database Education Research Complete. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ehh&AN=9605280988&site=ehost-live

Moloney, K. (2006). Teaching to the test. International Journal of Learning, 13 , Research Complete. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ehh&AN=24978647&site=ehost-live

Ostovar-Namaghi, S. (2012). Constraints on language teacher autonomy: A grounded theory. TESL Reporter, 44, 37-55. Retrieved December 15, 2013, from EBSCO Online Database Education Research Complete. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ehh&AN=79454921&site=ehost-live

Pearson, L. & Moomaw, W. (2006). Continuing validation of the teaching autonomy scale. Journal of Educational Research, 100 , 44-51. Retrieved October 30, 2007 from EBSCO Online Database Academic Search Premier. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=aph&AN=22546271&site=ehost-live

Robertson, L., & Jones, M. (2013). Chinese and US middle-school science teachers' autonomy, motivation, and instructional practices. International Journal of Science Education, 35, 1454-1489. Retrieved December 15, 2013, from EBSCO Online Database Education Research Complete. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ehh&AN=88395760&site=ehost-live

Sacken, D. (1989). Rethinking academic freedom in the public schools: The matter of pedagogical methods. Teachers College Record, 91 , 235-255. Retrieved October 11, 2007 from EBSCO Online Database Education Research Complete. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ehh&AN=19504380&site=ehost-live

Seaton, G., Dell'Angelo, T., Spencer, M. & Youngblood, J. (2007). Moving beyond the dichotomy: Meeting the needs of urban students through contextually relevant education practices. Teacher Education Quarterly, 34 , 163-183. Retrieved October 11, 2007 from EBSCO Online Database Education Research Complete. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ehh&AN=26012201&site=ehost-live

Squires, D. (2004). Aligning and balancing the standards-based curriculum. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.

Tutwiler, S. (2005). Teachers as collaborative partners: Working with diverse families and communities. New York, NY: Routledge.

Suggested Reading

Blase, J. & Blase, R. (2000). Empowering teachers: What successful principals do. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.

Ingersoll, R. (2003). Who controls teachers' work? Power and accountability in America's schools. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Westheimer, J. (1998). Among school teachers: Community, autonomy, and ideology in teachers' work. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.