TEACHER AUTONOMY
LAST UPDATED: 08.12.14
The concept of teacher autonomy refers to the
professional independence of teachers in schools,
especially the degree to which they can make
autonomous decisions about what they teach to
students and how they teach it.
In recent years, teacher autonomy has become a
major point of discussion and debate in American
public education, largely as a result of educational
policies that, some argue, limit the professionalism,
authority, responsiveness, creativity, or effectiveness
of teachers.
While teacher autonomy is most frequently
discussed in terms of what teachers teach to
students and how they teach it, the issue may also
manifest in other ways. For example, some schools
are entirely led and managed by teachers—i.e., the
schools do not have formal administrators; teachers
assume administrative roles, usually on a revolving
basis. In addition, the composition and negotiation
of teacher contracts may also vary significantly from
place to place. For example, local teachers unions
will negotiate annual contracts with school districts
in some states, while most states have statewide
teacher contracts that are negotiated by state
teachers unions. Depending on its provisions,
teaching contracts can directly affect professional
autonomy, given that contracts may, for example,
determine the specific number of hours that
teachers can work each week or limit the roles that
teachers can play in a school or district.
For a related discussion, see autonomy.
Debate
While debates related to teacher autonomy vary
from place to place, the professionalism of teachers
is typically a central issue in the debates. Many
educators, and groups such as teachers unions or
membership-based professional organizations for
teachers, may argue that infringing on teacher
autonomy in the classroom undermines the
professional status and expertise of teachers. In
this view, attempts to micromanage teaching
strategies or teacher performance through more
prescriptive policies, greater administrative
oversight, or strict curriculum requirements will
undermine job satisfaction or the perception that
teachers are skilled professionals who have earned
a degree of public trust in their abilities.
Advocates of greater teacher autonomy may also
argue that because teachers are in the best position
to make informed decisions about a student’s
education, they should be given as much autonomy
as possible when it comes to choosing instructional
strategies, designing lessons, and providing
academic support. In this view, more stringent
regulations, tougher job requirements, greater
administrative oversight, or more burdensome
teacher-evaluation procedures, for example, will
inevitability stifle the instructional creativity and
responsiveness of teachers, which could produce a
variety of negative results, including lower student
performance or higher job dissatisfaction and
attrition rates among teachers. Given that no policy
that is applied to all teachers can take into account
the myriad abilities and needs of students, the
reasoning goes, important decisions about
educating students should be left to teachers.
Similarly, local school leaders and administrators
are better positioned to determine the performance
of teachers, rather than blanket policies that are
applied to all teachers in a district or state, such as
valued-added measures —i.e., formulas used to
estimate or quantify how much of a positive (or
negative) effect individual teachers have on student
learning during the course of a given school year.
Critics of teacher autonomy tend to cite evidence
that teaching quality is uneven, and that problems
such as achievement gaps or low graduation rates
indicate that measures need to be taken to improve
the effectiveness of teachers and public-school
instruction. While the proposed solutions to
ineffective teaching are numerous, proposals may
include greater administrative oversight, increased
educational and professional requirements for new
teachers, prepackaged or “scripted” curriculum
materials, more demanding evaluation systems for
job performance, or penalties for poor-performing
teachers, for example.
The following examples will help to illustrate a few
of the primary issues giving rise to debates about
teacher autonomy:
Testing policies: High-stakes tests—exams used to
make important decisions about schools, educators,
or students—are widely considered to cause a
phenomenon known as “teaching to the test”—i.e.,
educators focusing their instruction on the topics
that are most likely to be tested, or spending
classroom time prepping students for tests rather
than teaching them knowledge and skills that may
be more important. If penalties are imposed on
schools, educators, students, or teachers due to test
results, critics argue, teachers will inevitably have
less autonomy over the instructional process
because they will be forced to “teach to the test.”
As the use of standardized tests has grown in the
United States in recent decades, educators have
increasingly expressed concern about the
consequences of such policies, including the
consideration of student test scores in the job-
performance evaluations of teachers—a highly
controversial subject among educators and teachers
unions.
Standards policies: All fifty states in the United
States have developed and adopted learning
standards—concise, written descriptions of what
students are expected to know and be able to do at
a specific stage of their education—that establish
learning goals for students in kindergarten through
high school. Consequently, when schools “ align ”
their academic programs and curriculum with the
learning goals described in standards, some argue
that teachers will have less “autonomy” in
determining the knowledge, skills, and content they
teach to students. The extent to which learning
standards limit the autonomy of teachers remains a
subject of ongoing discussion and debate, but
many educators argue that standards do not impose
significant limitations on the professional autonomy
of teachers. For example, some argue that
standards only describe broad learning expectations,
and that they do not tell teachers how to teach or
even, to a great extent, what to teach. For example,
a standard that requires students to demonstrate
understanding how “checks and balances” and
“separation of powers” work in American
government does not require teachers to teach
those ideas in any specific way—they can use any
number of instructional approaches, learning
materials, or historical examples to teach students
the concepts described in the standards.
Curriculum policies: Some states, districts, and
schools have policies related to curriculum that may
affect teacher autonomy to a greater or lesser
extent. For example, some districts and schools
require teachers to use “scripted curriculum”—i.e., a
prescriptive, standardized, prepackaged form of
curriculum that may require teachers to follow a
particular sequence of prepackaged lessons and, in
some cases, read aloud from a teaching script in
class. Though the term is now considered
pejorative and rarely used, forms of scripted
curriculum were called “teacher-proof curriculum” in
past decades. Clearly, the professional autonomy of
individual teachers will be significantly limited when
such a curriculum system is mandated. In other
districts or schools, teachers may be required to
use certain texts or instructional approaches, or
follow “pacing guides” that outline a specific
sequence of lessons and content. For example,
teachers may be required to have students reading
a designated chapter in a particular textbook on a
certain day of the school year. Depending on the
level of prescription, and whether they are voluntary
guidelines or mandates, curriculum policies can
directly affect the instructional autonomy of
teachers.
Promotion policies: Some states, districts, and
schools have policies related to grade promotion or
graduation that may limit the ability of teachers to
play a role in the process of deciding how and
when students will be promoted. For example, a
district policy may require that students be
automatically held back if they fail a course, which
could, in some circumstances, supersede a
teacher’s recommendation that the student be
promoted due to certain extenuating factors. Some
states may also require students to pass a
standardized test before they are promoted to the
next grade level or eligible to receive a high school
diploma (for a related discussion, see high-stakes
test). Other policies may require a particular course
of corrective action when students fail a course,
which could also have implications for teacher
autonomy. For example, students who fail a course
may be required to complete a credit-recovery
program—such as an online course or summer-
school program—that may not mirror the content
taught in the course the student failed. In this case,
the teacher may not have a say in how their
students “recover” the credit they failed to earn in
the teacher’s class.
Evaluation policies: Discussions and debates about
“teacher evaluation” and “teacher accountability”
have grown more prominent—and contentious—in
recent years. Depending on the systems, methods,
and criteria used in the job-performance evaluations
of teachers, evaluation policies may affect teacher
autonomy. If evaluation processes, expectations,
and requirements are more stringent or
burdensome, it could influence the way that
teachers instruct students. For example, if
standardized test scores are used in the evaluation
process, and if compensation decisions (salaries,
bonuses, or “merit-based” pay) are connected to
test scores, teachers will be more likely to modify
how and what they teach to improve student test
results.
LAST UPDATED: 08.12.14
The concept of teacher autonomy refers to the
professional independence of teachers in schools,
especially the degree to which they can make
autonomous decisions about what they teach to
students and how they teach it.
In recent years, teacher autonomy has become a
major point of discussion and debate in American
public education, largely as a result of educational
policies that, some argue, limit the professionalism,
authority, responsiveness, creativity, or effectiveness
of teachers.
While teacher autonomy is most frequently
discussed in terms of what teachers teach to
students and how they teach it, the issue may also
manifest in other ways. For example, some schools
are entirely led and managed by teachers—i.e., the
schools do not have formal administrators; teachers
assume administrative roles, usually on a revolving
basis. In addition, the composition and negotiation
of teacher contracts may also vary significantly from
place to place. For example, local teachers unions
will negotiate annual contracts with school districts
in some states, while most states have statewide
teacher contracts that are negotiated by state
teachers unions. Depending on its provisions,
teaching contracts can directly affect professional
autonomy, given that contracts may, for example,
determine the specific number of hours that
teachers can work each week or limit the roles that
teachers can play in a school or district.
For a related discussion, see autonomy.
Debate
While debates related to teacher autonomy vary
from place to place, the professionalism of teachers
is typically a central issue in the debates. Many
educators, and groups such as teachers unions or
membership-based professional organizations for
teachers, may argue that infringing on teacher
autonomy in the classroom undermines the
professional status and expertise of teachers. In
this view, attempts to micromanage teaching
strategies or teacher performance through more
prescriptive policies, greater administrative
oversight, or strict curriculum requirements will
undermine job satisfaction or the perception that
teachers are skilled professionals who have earned
a degree of public trust in their abilities.
Advocates of greater teacher autonomy may also
argue that because teachers are in the best position
to make informed decisions about a student’s
education, they should be given as much autonomy
as possible when it comes to choosing instructional
strategies, designing lessons, and providing
academic support. In this view, more stringent
regulations, tougher job requirements, greater
administrative oversight, or more burdensome
teacher-evaluation procedures, for example, will
inevitability stifle the instructional creativity and
responsiveness of teachers, which could produce a
variety of negative results, including lower student
performance or higher job dissatisfaction and
attrition rates among teachers. Given that no policy
that is applied to all teachers can take into account
the myriad abilities and needs of students, the
reasoning goes, important decisions about
educating students should be left to teachers.
Similarly, local school leaders and administrators
are better positioned to determine the performance
of teachers, rather than blanket policies that are
applied to all teachers in a district or state, such as
valued-added measures —i.e., formulas used to
estimate or quantify how much of a positive (or
negative) effect individual teachers have on student
learning during the course of a given school year.
Critics of teacher autonomy tend to cite evidence
that teaching quality is uneven, and that problems
such as achievement gaps or low graduation rates
indicate that measures need to be taken to improve
the effectiveness of teachers and public-school
instruction. While the proposed solutions to
ineffective teaching are numerous, proposals may
include greater administrative oversight, increased
educational and professional requirements for new
teachers, prepackaged or “scripted” curriculum
materials, more demanding evaluation systems for
job performance, or penalties for poor-performing
teachers, for example.
The following examples will help to illustrate a few
of the primary issues giving rise to debates about
teacher autonomy:
Testing policies: High-stakes tests—exams used to
make important decisions about schools, educators,
or students—are widely considered to cause a
phenomenon known as “teaching to the test”—i.e.,
educators focusing their instruction on the topics
that are most likely to be tested, or spending
classroom time prepping students for tests rather
than teaching them knowledge and skills that may
be more important. If penalties are imposed on
schools, educators, students, or teachers due to test
results, critics argue, teachers will inevitably have
less autonomy over the instructional process
because they will be forced to “teach to the test.”
As the use of standardized tests has grown in the
United States in recent decades, educators have
increasingly expressed concern about the
consequences of such policies, including the
consideration of student test scores in the job-
performance evaluations of teachers—a highly
controversial subject among educators and teachers
unions.
Standards policies: All fifty states in the United
States have developed and adopted learning
standards—concise, written descriptions of what
students are expected to know and be able to do at
a specific stage of their education—that establish
learning goals for students in kindergarten through
high school. Consequently, when schools “ align ”
their academic programs and curriculum with the
learning goals described in standards, some argue
that teachers will have less “autonomy” in
determining the knowledge, skills, and content they
teach to students. The extent to which learning
standards limit the autonomy of teachers remains a
subject of ongoing discussion and debate, but
many educators argue that standards do not impose
significant limitations on the professional autonomy
of teachers. For example, some argue that
standards only describe broad learning expectations,
and that they do not tell teachers how to teach or
even, to a great extent, what to teach. For example,
a standard that requires students to demonstrate
understanding how “checks and balances” and
“separation of powers” work in American
government does not require teachers to teach
those ideas in any specific way—they can use any
number of instructional approaches, learning
materials, or historical examples to teach students
the concepts described in the standards.
Curriculum policies: Some states, districts, and
schools have policies related to curriculum that may
affect teacher autonomy to a greater or lesser
extent. For example, some districts and schools
require teachers to use “scripted curriculum”—i.e., a
prescriptive, standardized, prepackaged form of
curriculum that may require teachers to follow a
particular sequence of prepackaged lessons and, in
some cases, read aloud from a teaching script in
class. Though the term is now considered
pejorative and rarely used, forms of scripted
curriculum were called “teacher-proof curriculum” in
past decades. Clearly, the professional autonomy of
individual teachers will be significantly limited when
such a curriculum system is mandated. In other
districts or schools, teachers may be required to
use certain texts or instructional approaches, or
follow “pacing guides” that outline a specific
sequence of lessons and content. For example,
teachers may be required to have students reading
a designated chapter in a particular textbook on a
certain day of the school year. Depending on the
level of prescription, and whether they are voluntary
guidelines or mandates, curriculum policies can
directly affect the instructional autonomy of
teachers.
Promotion policies: Some states, districts, and
schools have policies related to grade promotion or
graduation that may limit the ability of teachers to
play a role in the process of deciding how and
when students will be promoted. For example, a
district policy may require that students be
automatically held back if they fail a course, which
could, in some circumstances, supersede a
teacher’s recommendation that the student be
promoted due to certain extenuating factors. Some
states may also require students to pass a
standardized test before they are promoted to the
next grade level or eligible to receive a high school
diploma (for a related discussion, see high-stakes
test). Other policies may require a particular course
of corrective action when students fail a course,
which could also have implications for teacher
autonomy. For example, students who fail a course
may be required to complete a credit-recovery
program—such as an online course or summer-
school program—that may not mirror the content
taught in the course the student failed. In this case,
the teacher may not have a say in how their
students “recover” the credit they failed to earn in
the teacher’s class.
Evaluation policies: Discussions and debates about
“teacher evaluation” and “teacher accountability”
have grown more prominent—and contentious—in
recent years. Depending on the systems, methods,
and criteria used in the job-performance evaluations
of teachers, evaluation policies may affect teacher
autonomy. If evaluation processes, expectations,
and requirements are more stringent or
burdensome, it could influence the way that
teachers instruct students. For example, if
standardized test scores are used in the evaluation
process, and if compensation decisions (salaries,
bonuses, or “merit-based” pay) are connected to
test scores, teachers will be more likely to modify
how and what they teach to improve student test
results.
No comments:
Post a Comment