Teacher Autonomy: A Multifaceted Approach for the New Millennium ...

Reform was less likely to occur if the culture was such that it encouraged reproduction of the current environment, if problems that arose were fixed using current status-quo thinking, and if these problems were seen as defects in the system.

Proactive thinking and attitudes were necessary for reform while reactive thinking and attitudes were associated with status-quo thinking. Teachers who were empowered with the autonomy to reflect and experiment may have been more likely to change their beliefs relative to curriculum than teachers who were handed mandates from above and told to make changes relative to those mandates. In this way, the level of autonomy may affect the way teachers think about change. Therefore, cultures that have experienced the pressure of standards-based reform and the high stakes testing often associated with it may be wise to consider empowering teachers to think about and be proactive about change (Kimonen & Nevalainen, 1996).

Mathison and Freeman (2003) noted that teachers do not reject accountability—in fact, teachers readily accept accountability as long as they feel the system provides high standards. In general, Mathison and Freeman stated that teachers believed that the accountability system associated with NCLB had gone too far and was compromising their sense of professionalism. The authors key in on how teaching to the test affects teacher autonomy.

Mathison and Freeman (2003) agreed that “outcome based bureaucratic accountability” (p. 4) significantly affected teachers’ control over curriculum and pedagogy. They also cited the tension between the current lack of teacher autonomy in public education and the research-based understanding that teachers are central to the success of educational reform.