| Chapter 1: | Story of the Research |
|
|
- 1. Can the concept of teacher autonomy be decomposed into subcategories? Specifically, are there differing constructs of teacher autonomy for curriculum, pedagogy, assessment, student discipline, classroom environment, and professional development?
- 2. Do teachers who teach in high-stakes subject areas and/or grades have or desire different levels of autonomy over curriculum, pedagogy, assessment, student discipline, classroom environment, and professional development as compared to teachers who are not direct targets of accountability?
- 3. What implications for school leaders result from more complex views of teacher autonomy in different professional areas?
Background
An Examination of the Contradictions Within Teacher Autonomy
Dangerous Autonomy
Zajano and Mitchell (2001) wrote that there were major contradictions among educational researchers, policy makers, and practitioners concerning autonomy. They said that “many schools are structured to foster independence yet demand dependence; encourage autonomy yet insist on control; aim to develop complex thinking processes yet test for isolated skills” (p. 161). This quote clearly illustrated tensions that relate to teacher autonomy. Zajano and Mitchell further argued that teacher autonomy can be problematic when it is juxtaposed with the concept of equity in education. They focused on how teachers provided or denied their students access to learning depending on how they invoked the power of autonomy in the classroom.
The argument that explores the potential dangers of teach--er autonomy is compelling, specifically as it relates to how autonomous teachers can systematically deny their students access to learning.