The Educational Forum
ISSN: 0013-1725 (Print) 1938-8098 (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/utef20
A Framework for Graduated Teacher Autonomy:
Linking Teacher Proficiency With Autonomy
Ashley Grant, Tristan Hann, Rebecca Godwin, Daniel Shackelford & Tyler
Ames
To cite this article: Ashley Grant, Tristan Hann, Rebecca Godwin, Daniel Shackelford & Tyler
Ames (2020) A Framework for Graduated Teacher Autonomy: Linking Teacher Proficiency With
Autonomy, The Educational Forum, 84:2, 100-113, DOI: 10.1080/00131725.2020.1700324
To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/00131725.2020.1700324
Published online: 22 Jan 2020.
Submit your article to this journal
Article views: 596
View related articles
View Crossmark data
Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at
https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=utef20
The Educational Forum
2020, VOL. 84, NO. 2, 100–113
https://doi.org/10.1080/00131725.2020.1700324
A Framework for Graduated Teacher Autonomy: Linking
Teacher Proficiency With Autonomy
Ashley Granta
Tyler Amesa
, Tristan Hanna, Rebecca Godwina, Daniel Shackelfordb and
School of Education, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, Maryland, USA; bYale Law School, Yale University, New
Haven, Connecticut, USA
a
ABSTRACT
Teachers’ autonomy contributes to their development and retention decisions. While proficient teachers would benefit from more autonomy, developing teachers often require more structure and guidance. This article
reviews the literature surrounding autonomy and proposes an argument
for a Graduated Teacher Autonomy framework: a theoretical tool matching
teacher proficiency to autonomy. This dynamic framework has the potential to support the needs of all teachers and could improve teacher satisfaction, retention, development, and administrator–teacher relations.
KEYWORDS
Graduated autonomy;
teacher attrition; teacher
autonomy; teacher
evaluation; teacher
proficiency
Education policy makers describe teachers as the key for educational achievement and change
(Harris & Sass, 2011; OECD, 2005). Yet high rates of teacher turnover remain one of the most
pressing problems in education, both in the United States and abroad (Cooper & Alvarado,
2006; Ingersoll, 2002; Ronfeldt, Loeb, & Wyckoff, 2013). Research on teacher attrition shows
that teachers’ perceptions of their autonomy influence decisions about whether or not to stay
in the profession, but this relationship is not linear and seems to vary based on the individual
teacher’s amount of experience (Berry, Daughtrey, & Wieder, 2010; Ingersoll, Alsalam, Bobbitt,
& Quinn, 1997; Kelly, 2004; Pearson & Moomaw, 2005; Shen, 1997; Torres, 2014).
In this article, we seek to better understand this dynamic relationship between teacher
autonomy and turnover by incorporating alternative models of teacher development in relation
to their autonomy. Specifically, we apply psychological theories of development and gradual
release of responsibilities to the teaching profession. We construct a theoretical tool for connecting these seemingly unrelated constructs and work through a thought experiment on
what this tool might look like in practice, with real teachers in real schools. Based on Gwaltney’s
(2012) exhaustive review of theory on teacher autonomy, we define teacher autonomy as: a
teacher’s degree of freedom, independence, power, and discretion over curriculum, teaching,
and assessment (in their classroom) and school operations, organization, and staff development
(school-wide).
This article first reviews the relevant literature on the impact of teacher autonomy on teacher
attrition and how teacher autonomy is defined and used within education. Next, we explore
graduated models of autonomy from other fields that provide enhanced development. We
then propose the Graduated Teacher Autonomy (GTA) framework, describing its underlying
CONTACT Ashley Grant
Baltimore, MD 21218, USA.
© 2020 Kappa Delta Pi
Ashley.a.grant@jhu.edu
School of Education, Johns Hopkins University, 2800 N. Charles St.,
The Educational Forum
101
theoretical foundation, components, and application in a thought experiment discussing its
theoretical contributions. The article concludes with a discussion of potential applications
and benefits of incorporating the GTA framework, barriers to implementation, and recommendations for future development of this framework.
The authors of this article all come from teaching backgrounds in various districts across
the country and have firsthand experience with varying levels of autonomy and the impact of
those levels on their teaching performance and retention decisions. The idea for this article’s
investigation into teacher autonomy stems directly from these real-life experiences. We believe
that the idea of graduated autonomy for teachers can create a space for practical discussions
that can impact daily practice meaningful ways for teachers and for administrators.
Literature Review on Teachers and Autonomy
Teacher Autonomy and Turnover: Too Much or Too Little?
Teacher turnover remains one of the most pressing problems in education, both in the United
States and abroad (Cooper & Alvarado, 2006; Ingersoll, 2002; Ronfeldt et al., 2013). Teacher
autonomy—or the lack thereof—is a critical component motivating teachers to stay in or leave
the teaching profession (Kelly, 2004). Teachers continually report that increased autonomy
leads to higher job satisfaction and less stress (Pearson & Moomaw, 2005) and that restrictions
on their autonomy lead teachers to leave their current school site for another that has more
flexibility (Berry et al., 2010; Torres, 2014). Analyzing the nationally representative survey of
U.S. teachers, the School and Staffing Survey (SASS), Ingersoll (2001), Ingersoll et al. (1997),
Shen (1997), and Weiss (1999) all found that increased teacher autonomy was linked to lower
attrition and higher morale among teachers. Similarly, Clotfelter, Ladd, Vigdor, and Diaz
(2004) found that more stringent accountability systems increased teacher attrition while
failing to improve teaching quality. These studies echo opinions that appear in the media of
teachers appealing for more autonomy, as exemplified in the op-ed, “Giving Teachers the
Freedom to Teach,” by Baltimore teacher Thomas Askey (2015).
Simultaneously, there is a contrasting demand for less autonomy from early career teachers.
Teachers new to the profession are most at risk for leaving the classroom (Ingersoll, 2001).
Less experienced teachers often feel isolated, left to flounder in a sea of unending autonomy,
longing for guidance and greater curriculum specification (Kauffman, Johnson, Kardos, Liu,
& Peske, 2002). Without this guidance, these teachers struggle day to day to prepare content
and materials, and are consequently prevented from developing a coherent plan to address
long-term objectives. New teachers provided with effective, sustained support and guidance
have lower attrition rates and increased effectiveness (Lambeth, 2012), and more structure
from administrators reduces first-year teachers’ likelihood of leaving their position (Rosenholtz,
1989; Smith, 2007).
Teacher Autonomy Conceptions and Teacher Development
In seeking to further understand the paradoxical relationship between teacher autonomy and
teacher turnover, a clear definition of autonomy for teachers is necessary. Among researchers
studying teacher autonomy, the definition of autonomy ranges from independence and freedom to power and influence (Kreis & Brockopp, 1986; Pitt, 2010). Autonomy specifications
102
A. GRANT ET AL.
sometimes refer to aspects of teachers’ work through a certain lens (e.g., the “decision-making”
lens used by Ingersoll, 1996). Alternatively, other definitions apply to specific contexts, such
as differentiating between classroom and school-wide autonomy (Kreis & Brockopp, 1986).
Gwaltney (2012) reviewed the many definitions of teacher autonomy and created a comprehensive definition of teacher autonomy as, “the degree to which teaching provides substantial freedom, independence, power, and discretion to participate in scheduling, selecting,
and executing administrative, instructional, and socialization and sorting activities both in
the classroom and in the school organization at large” (p. 21). Gwaltney (2012) created a
measurement operationalizing this definition into four main factors: classroom control over
student teaching and assessment, school-wide influence over organizational and staff development, classroom control over curriculum development, and school-wide influence over
school mode of operation.
While previous literature on teacher autonomy has recognized its complex, multifaceted
nature, autonomy is often discussed in a dichotomous fashion where teachers either have
autonomy or they do not. This partitioning perpetuates competition between two camps:
those who support complete teacher autonomy and those who prefer administrator, top-down,
‘teacher-proof ’ curriculum (Macdonald, 2003). Autonomy is treated as a school characteristic,
decided by an administrator for all teachers in a school similarly.
Measurement of teachers’ perceptions of autonomy, however, do not reflect this dichotomized definition. The frequently used Teacher Autonomy Scale (Pearson & Hall, 1993) asks
teachers to rate aspects of their autonomy on a 4-point Likert scale. Similarly, the SASS
“Decision-Making” section asks teachers to rate their “control” and “influence” on a 5-point
Likert scale (used in Gwaltney’s measure, 2012). Researchers analyzing these autonomy variables, however, often reach conclusions as to whether teachers have more autonomy or not,
leading to recommendations of more or less autonomy for teachers as an aggregate group
(Gwaltney, 2012; Torres, 2014).
A new perspective of teacher autonomy is needed that supports and recognizes the potentially differentiated autonomy needs among teachers. While struggling teachers may welcome
supportive structures that provide explicit guidance about what and how to teach, more proficient teachers may meet such direction with resistance and resentment (White, 1992).
Huberman (1989) documented a similar evolution of teachers’ attitudes toward curriculum
and decision making over the course of their career; what begins as a teacher’s struggle to
master the curriculum develops over time into a greater assertion of their professional
autonomy.
Although it is beyond the scope of this article to define what counts as a measure of proficiency or recommend specific evaluation practices, we use the term proficient in this article
in accordance with its general definition: “well advanced in an art, occupation, or branch of
knowledge” (proficient, n.d.). Rather than viewing proficiency as a dichotomous or limited
categorical state, we adopt the perspective of Liskin-Gasparro, Byrnes, and Kaplan (1987) in
emphasizing ranges rather than distinct categories, to better measure and reveal small but
meaningful differences in proficiency development. Many districts, schools, and even administrators vary in their consideration and evaluation of proficiency, and establishing a clear
definition of what that proficiency must look like in order to use this framework would only
limit the potential impact of this theoretical exercise. Consequently, the relationship posed
here between evaluation and autonomy is conceptual and fluid, and thus can be transferred
The Educational Forum
103
flexibly to a variety of evaluation systems. In this, the authors recognize and respect the role
of individual school leadership in determining a local definition of proficiency for teachers
(Reeves, 2007).
Teacher evaluation of proficiency and developmental opportunities should reflect the developmental progression of the occupation. Mismatched levels of autonomy can lead teachers to
believe that their professional growth, teaching practice, and ability to form connections with
students is being undermined (Crocco & Costigan, 2007). High-stakes testing has also led to
an increased de-professionalization of the teaching profession, undermining the respect for
teachers’ judgment (Olivant, 2015). Differentiated learning, used to enhance student outcomes
(Hall, 2002; Lawrence-Brown, 2004; Tomlinson, 2014), provides a fitting example for how to
help teachers develop and perform at their highest levels of proficiency possible by matching
their individual needs and stage of development.
Graduated Autonomy Models
Outside of education, multiple fields already acknowledge the need for a gradual release of
restrictions as decision-making abilities increase and have accordingly implemented graduated
autonomy systems. In medicine, surgical residencies consist of several stages—each stage
includes a clearly outlined role for the mentoring doctor and criteria that residents must meet
before advancing to the increased freedoms and independent decision-making opportunities
at the next stage in their residency (DaRosa et al., 2013). This “earned freedom” is imperative
to the competency development of the resident (Sachs & Pawlik, 2015); job or career training
in complex, human relations fields demands autonomy for transferring learned skills (Axtell,
Maitlis, & Yearta, 1997). Autonomy-supportive medical education also increases psychological
adjustment among medical students, promotes greater conceptual understanding, and develops
students to be more patient-centered in orientation to care (Williams & Deci, 1998).
Graduated autonomy is also a prominent concept in the field of Adolescent Psychology.
Adolescents require a gradual transition into adulthood; developing autonomy is one of the
most central objectives for this transition (Blos, 1979; Eccles et al., 1991; Steinberg, 2002;
Wray‐Lake, Crouter, & McHale, 2010). Rather than becoming an adult overnight at the age
of 18, adolescents develop and adjust better when adults slowly withdraw guidance while also
increasing the expectations of responsibility and extent of their autonomy (Lamborn,
Dornbusch, & Steinberg, 1996). For example, Fox (2012) defined the term “graduated autonomy” in relation to adolescent decision making regarding genetic testing; Fox explained how
the maintenance of optimal functioning demands autonomy that is granted in ways that are
incremental, proportional, elastic, and life stage–relevant. Additionally, social domain theory
recognizes that adolescents develop this autonomy at different rates across multiple domains
(e.g., personal and socioconventional) (Nucci, 2001).
This theory of development is applicable to teachers’ developmental needs as they grow
from students into practitioners. A graduated autonomy structure that provides clear levels
of structural guidance and changes in response to teachers’ dynamic needs (in various domains)
could better enable their growth and adjustment in the classroom setting. This article proposes
such a framework of gradual increases or decreases to autonomy that could allow for the
appropriate amount of autonomy required to maximize teacher effectiveness while fostering
the freedom, independence, and discretion teachers need to grow throughout their careers.
104
A. GRANT ET AL.
The Graduated Teacher Autonomy Framework
Table 1 displays the GTA framework: a theoretical tool that we describe in a thought experiment below. This framework matches levels of teacher proficiency to degrees of autonomy
across four domains of teaching. The relationship posed here between evaluation and autonomy is therefore conceptual but could be transferred flexibly to a variety of evaluation systems.
In order to provide a clear and exhaustive example of the GTA framework applied in action,
our examples center around one aspect of autonomy: Gwaltney’s (2012) construct: control
over the classroom and day-to-day operations.
The GTA framework is partially based on the Danielson Framework for Teacher Evaluation
(Danielson, 2007), which acknowledges that teachers demonstrate varying levels of proficiency
across four clearly defined domains of teaching: Planning and Preparation, Classroom
Environment, Instruction, and Professional Responsibilities. The Danielson framework is used
in more than 20 states, and for instance, is used in more than 60% of New Jersey school districts
(Mooney, 2013). The GTA framework also draws from teacher autonomy theory, which asserts
that autonomy can exist in multiple domains (Pearson & Hall, 1993), and Gwaltney’s (2012)
assertion that teachers require different levels of autonomy across their development.
There are several key differences between the Danielson framework in its entirety and its
use in the GTA framework. First, the Danielson framework identifies, describes, and
documents the multitude of complex responsibilities and proficiencies for teachers; the GTA
framework adopts the Danielson structure but focuses on explicitly tying proficiency to
Table 1. Anchors of the graduated teacher autonomy framework.
Example components (Danielson, 2007)
ŜŜ Knowledge of content and pedagogy
ŜŜ Setting instructional outcomes
ŜŜ Designing instruction and assessment
ŜŜ Establishing a culture of learning
ŜŜ Managing student behavior
ŜŜ Managing classroom procedures
ŜŜ Engaging students in learning
ŜŜ Using questioning and discussion
techniques
ŜŜ Participating in professional development
ŜŜ Participating in professional communities
ŜŜ Communicating with families and the
school community
Beginning proficiency ⇒ Less
autonomy
Planning and preparation
ŜŜ Lesson plan templates provided by
administration and/or specialists
ŜŜ Lesson plan submissions and weekly
planning sessions for feedback and
review with administrators and/or
specialists
Classroom environment
ŜŜ Prescribed behavior management
system (e.g., PBIS)
ŜŜ Mandated standard procedures and
norms
ŜŜ Blackboard configuration
Instruction
ŜŜ Prescribed scripted curriculum
ŜŜ Mandated professional development
ŜŜ Administrator walkthroughs and
feedback sessions
Professional responsibilities
ŜŜ Prescribed professional community
involvement (e.g., PLCs)
ŜŜ Prescribed professional development modules
ŜŜ Family communication logs, oversight by peer mentor
Mastered proficiency ⇒ More
autonomy
ŜŜ Choice of lesson plan template
ŜŜ No submission or meeting
requirements
ŜŜ Choice of behavior management
system
ŜŜ Choice of procedures and norms
ŜŜ Choice of blackboard configuration
ŜŜ Choice of methodology and
approach based on content
standards
ŜŜ Administrator walkthroughs
optional
ŜŜ Opportunity for leadership roles
within professional communities
(PLCs, grade-level chairs, school
and district committees, etc.)
ŜŜ Opportunity for peer mentoring
roles for other teachers
Note: PBIS = Positive Behavior Incentive System. PLC = professional learning committee or community. Scales are according to
each of the four domains of teaching: Planning and Preparation, Classroom Environment, Instruction, and Professional
Responsibilities (Danielson, 2014).
The Educational Forum
105
autonomy. Second, the Danielson framework details many components within each domain
in order to operationalize and clearly communicate each piece of the domain. In contrast, the
GTA framework provides only a few examples of these components to simply establish a shared
meaning of the domain. Specific components for evaluation of proficiency fall under the
responsibility of the school or administrator. Finally, the Danielson framework has a scale of
proficiency that ranges from unsatisfactory to distinguished. As previously noted, the GTA
framework views proficiency in a less categorical manner, relying alternately on a continuum
ranging from beginning proficiency to mastered proficiency. The anchor developing proficiency
is included to bring definition to the midrange of the continuum.
Each domain’s range of proficiency forms a separate continuum of developing autonomy
for teachers and thus indicates separately within each domain the amount of structure or
support a teacher should be given. Teachers who display only beginning proficiency in a
domain receive low levels of autonomy and high levels of structure. Teachers who demonstrate
developing proficiency in a domain are given medium or average autonomy and structure,
while teachers who display mastered proficiency in a domain receive high levels of autonomy
and low levels of structure. In this sense, graduated autonomy differentiates not only between
teachers but additionally within teachers.
An example from the domain of classroom environment exemplifies how the GTA framework could operate in implementation. A teacher who demonstrates only beginning proficiency in the domain of Classroom Environment, for example, could be provided additional
structure through a prescribed behavior management system or a set of standard procedures
and norms to implement in the classroom. In the middle of the range, a teacher with developing proficiency could be given some choice of behavior systems, procedures, and norms,
and could engage with coaches or administrators in reflecting on the effectiveness of their
choices. For a teacher who demonstrates a great deal of proficiency in the domain, absolute
free choice could be given for these systems and processes. These examples provide depictions
of low autonomy, mid-level autonomy, and high autonomy within the single domain of classroom environment, and can be used as anchors to define and conceptualize the possible range
of autonomy within this domain. Table 1 presents each domain in this way, defined through
these anchors of least to most autonomy.
Application of the GTA Framework: Hypothetical Teacher Thought Experiment
In application, these anchors do not perfectly describe the proficiency of actual teachers
because most teachers will fall somewhere between the two extremes. Consider the hypothetical teacher proficiency levels shown in Figure 1.
The hypothetical teacher in Figure 1 exemplifies how teachers could demonstrate differing
levels of proficiency across the four domains. First, the teacher demonstrates beginning proficiency in the Planning and Preparation domain; she struggles to create coherent goals for
students with assessments that align to learning objectives. This teacher could then be prescribed weekly planning sessions with administrators or specialists for feedback or be given
designated, detailed lesson plans, if necessary. These responses add structure and reduce
autonomy in response to her proficiency level, which is still developing. In contrast, this teacher
demonstrates mastered proficiency in the second domain: Classroom Environment. Her class
is always on task and respectful, and the teacher consequently does not need to be provided
106
A. GRANT ET AL.
Figure 1. Hypothetical teacher. Illustration of graduated proficiency and autonomy scales.
additional supporting structures. She could be granted full autonomy in the choice of behavior
management and procedures. Third, this teacher displays developing proficiency in the
Instruction domain insofar as she communicates clearly with her students but is unable to
apply flexible, appropriate questioning and discussion techniques. She could therefore be given
a guided curriculum that, while not scripted, provides structure and methodology for instruction. This guided curriculum could be supplemented with the opportunity to observe teachers
who are skilled in this area, with discussions on the ways in which conversations with students
were initiated and structured. Last, in the domain of Professional Responsibilities, this teacher
has demonstrated some developing proficiency through participation in professional development and professional learning communities. However, her communication with families
is often rushed and impulsive, leading to confusion and misunderstandings. This teacher
could consequently be asked to use family communication logs and discuss correspondence
with a peer mentor who offers advice or strategies for improvement.
Implementation
As demonstrated through this hypothetical teacher example, the GTA framework intends to
foster a meaningful evaluative process. The evaluation of proficiency within each domain of
teaching specifically determines autonomy and structure, addressing a teacher’s developmental
needs in a targeted, purposeful manner. In this way, the GTA framework could be integrated
into current evaluation practices. Evaluation systems that incorporate the GTA conceptual
framework could potentially increase their responsiveness to the unique, dynamic needs and
efforts of teachers.
It is important to note that any application of this framework must employ a degree of
flexibility. As the level of proficiency within a domain changes for an educator over time, the
degree of autonomy they receive should shift appropriately. For instance, as a teacher works
with a guided curriculum and participates in observations of skilled teachers, they may begin
to independently recognize the types of questioning and dialogue that most engage students.
The Educational Forum
107
As the teacher demonstrates this new knowledge in higher levels of instructional proficiency,
they should be granted correspondingly increased instructional autonomy.
The GTA framework also aims to account for teachers who may decline in certain domains
of proficiency, requiring increased structure and decreased autonomy. A teacher who previously demonstrated mastered proficiency in the domain of Classroom Environment, for
instance, may experience a new group of students with increased behavioral needs. Their
earlier, self-chosen classroom management approaches prove ineffective with this group of
students, but they do not adjust their approach. Because their proficiency in this domain is
not currently rated as strong, more feedback, guidance, opportunity for reflection, and support
(i.e., more structure or design assistance) may help them to work more effectively with this
new group of students. For more experienced teachers, in particular, it would be important
to respond to lower proficiency levels differently (and perhaps more sensitively) than with
newer teachers. While newer teachers may seek and benefit from more explicit structure as
they are still gaining knowledge, more experienced teachers may respond negatively to this
type of support. The framework addresses this downward movement on the continuum just
as flexibly as one in the upward direction.
Additionally, the timeline for progression along each continuum of graduated autonomy
should not be rigid. One teacher could quickly progress from beginning proficiency to mastered proficiency, from relying on lots of structure to functioning independently. This transition could happen within a few months or take several years—the graduated, fluid nature
of the framework recognizes teacher development as a process that occurs over an unspecified
amount of time. Sensitivity to changing proficiency levels is necessary and should dictate
flexibly adjusting autonomy and structure as needed throughout the school year.
Implications
At present, evaluative tools that connect autonomy with teacher proficiency are in short supply.
This article provided a theoretical foundation to develop one such tool, with the aim of helping
administrators provide appropriate levels of teacher autonomy in order to maximize teacher
effectiveness and reduce teacher attrition. While it is beyond the scope and intent of this article
to develop a formalized implementation plan of the GTA framework, we present potential
benefits and applications of this framework and a potential tool that could be created with
future research and development. The theorized benefits of the framework’s application to
practitioners, policy makers, and researchers alike warrant our subsequent call for the research
and development of a reliable tool.
First, administrators could use this framework to develop systematic, integrated evaluation
and professional development plans. The GTA framework would not require extensive changes
to existing systems; in fact, the framework could be seamlessly merged with evaluation and
professional development plans at any school. Within already established plans, the framework
could add a responsive element to the assessment of teachers’ current proficiencies.
Administrators could systematically facilitate the diagnosis of a teacher’s development with a
treatment of supports and autonomy they require, whether it be peer mentoring or flexible
groupings with similarly developing teachers. The gradation of skill along a continuum, in
contrast to a few discrete categories, may enable a more accurate diagnosis and fitting treatment. Additionally, this differentiated approach could allow administrators to better target
108
A. GRANT ET AL.
limited resources; this could help avoid the current waste inherent in the inefficient application
of the same resources for all teachers, regardless of their needs and abilities.
This holistic approach to evaluation and feedback could enable purposeful and productive
classroom observations and coaching by administrators. Formative assessment of teachers
could focus on determining teachers’ current level of proficiency in each domain in order to
ensure that teachers have the appropriate amount of structure and autonomy. Rather than the
current trend, where teacher improvement opportunities are often scheduled into extended
breaks or formal professional development opportunities that address the teaching staff as a
whole, administrators could use GTA’s responsive framework to help establish systems of
teacher self-assessment or peer collaboration (Danielson, 2001). Incorporating the developmental nature of the GTA framework, professional development should instead be situated
alongside teachers’ real work during the school year and on a recurring basis, in accordance
with ideas of continuous improvement (Bernhardt, 2013). Teachers, working with administrators, mentors, and colleagues, would create individualized goals, according to their domains
of more limited proficiency and focus their efforts and evaluations accordingly.
Second, implementation of the GTA framework creates the potential for a natural increase
in communication and quality of relationships between teachers and administrators. After
determining a teacher’s level of proficiency, an additional conversation must take place to
address the subsequent levels of autonomy and associated structures. This conversation, innately
individualized and requiring follow-up, provides an opportunity for relationship-building
between administrators (or evaluators) and teachers. Such conversations can be easily integrated
into existing systems of feedback and evaluation, such as walk-through follow-up meetings
that regularly occur in many schools on a weekly basis. The processes involved in the GTA
framework also encourage collaboration among teachers to help one another improve in their
proficiency. Improved collegiality and administrator relations lead to more positive working
conditions for teachers, which in turn enable them to perform better and provide more incentive
for them to stay and continue improving (Hallinger & Heck, 1996; Kardos & Johnson, 2007).
Third, the GTA framework could enable proficient teachers to create their own structures
for planning and preparation, instruction, classroom environment, and professional responsibilities that better meet the needs of their students. Researchers generally agree about the
benefits of differentiated learning for students (Hall, 2002; Lawrence-Brown, 2004; Tomlinson,
2014)—the differentiation inherent in the GTA framework could hold similar benefits for
teachers’ learning (as well as their students’ outcomes). Standardization of the teaching process,
sometimes described as “teacher-proofing teaching,” often results in impersonality that possibly eliminates the richness, cultural relevance, and passion teachers can bring to the classroom (Cochran-Smith & Lytle, 2009; Tobin & Dawson, 1992). Experienced, highly effective
teachers should be able to draw on their accrued knowledge and skills to make real-world
connections, and design enriching, engaging class projects that meet their learners’ unique
needs (Craft, 2005; Runco, 2003). This type of learning, relevant and unique, makes the classroom come alive and is what students best remember (Horng, Hong, ChanLin, Chang, & Chu,
2005; Runco, 2003; Williamson & Payton, 2009).
A final potential benefit is increased teacher retention. Accrued benefits discussed above
would all improve teachers’ perceived working conditions (e.g., improved leadership and
professional development), which have been shown to reduce their likelihood of leaving
(Ingersoll, 2001; Weiss, 1999). Additionally, when teachers receive the structure and autonomy
that reflects their proficiency level they find greater satisfaction in their position (Littrell,
The Educational Forum
109
Billingsley, & Cross, 1994). Providing less proficient teachers with more structured supports,
as wells as extending greater decision-making possibilities to teachers who have demonstrated
greater proficiency, could improve teachers’ satisfaction in their positions over longer periods
of time. Satisfied teachers are more likely to remain in their position and contribute in a positive way to their school (Pearson & Moomaw, 2005). Teachers who remain beyond the first
couple of years are shown to be more effective (Rivkin, Hanushek, & Kain, 2005), and the
GTA framework could encourage teachers to pursue longer careers involving continuous
development, perpetually expanding their effectiveness.
Barriers and Limitations
It is equally important, however, to consider the barriers to implementation of the framework
that may arise from the contested areas of teacher autonomy that already exist. Staunchly held
perspectives conflict about the higher effectiveness of prescribed or autonomous decision-making power of teachers. Both sides of this argument cite rationales and research that present
diametrically opposed views: views that conflict with the foundations of the GTA framework,
requiring a significant shift in mindset around autonomy in order to make its adoption possible. Administrator, teacher, and policy maker buy-in is vital to implementing the framework
in a productive and truly beneficially manner.
Another required mindset shift relates to the process of becoming a teacher, which has traditionally been viewed as a single event: the first day of school in the first year of teaching. Unlike
many other professions that incorporate a transition into the workplace that includes training and
a gradual release of responsibility, teachers are held entirely responsible and accountable from their
first day on the job. From this perspective, differentiated levels of autonomy and structure would
seem unfair or unnecessary. The issue of buy-in, among all stakeholders, regarding this developmental perspective of teachers could stand in the way of the communication needed for the GTA
framework; however, explicit sharing and discussion of the logic behind this rationale (as presented
in this article) could help convince stakeholders of the justification and benefits of the framework.
Where buy-in of these new perspectives is present, issues could still arise in implementation
of the GTA framework. Biased or poorly conducted evaluations and evaluative tools could
undermine the theory of the framework and create a misalignment between teachers’ actual
proficiency levels and the autonomy that a biased evaluation would assign to them. Careful
attention to the tools used when judging teacher proficiency is needed. The GTA framework
encourages these assessments to be continuum-based and frequently revisited. Additionally,
the current definition of “teacher of record,” as well as the accountability surrounding it,
potentially restrict the extra supports and guidance that can be given at the lowest developing
levels of the spectrum. Coteaching or internship-like models that provide a safer space for
errors and growth can be incongruent with this idea of holding one teacher accountable for
student learning. This perception of accountability within schools and teachers is also a potential barrier; teachers are defined by their ownership over their classroom space.
Future Research and Development
By theoretically providing such an innovative perspective on teacher autonomy, this article
aims to spark further discussion on the link between teachers’ autonomy and proficiency and
110
A. GRANT ET AL.
future research and changes in practice. We present a theoretical tool whose practical applications and potential benefits discussed above are contingent on: (a) the development of
tangible instruments and (b) quality research of their validity and effectiveness of such
instruments.
This article describes the GTA framework in a broad, theory-based fashion in order to
make it more easily adopted and adapted by school administrators or policy makers to a variety
of contexts and needs. The concept of Graduated Autonomy is still in its infancy, and specific
definitions, conceptualizations, and applications have yet to be constructed. There are many
questions that remain unanswered concerning how the framework would operate in real
schools in real time. Further development and specification of the framework (e.g., descriptions
of more benchmarks or reference points along the continuums, specific recommendations to
improve practice at various places on the continuum, a plan for implementation) are needed
to make it a valid and reliable tool.
Furthermore, teacher autonomy and teacher proficiency are both constructs that remain
hotly debated and difficult to define definitively and measure. Further research could clarify
the constructs and measurement of teacher autonomy and proficiency to better determine
which aspects of autonomy teachers seek and in what situations it would be most helpful to
their development. Inquiry into the gradual release of autonomy and its effects on teacher
performance, satisfaction, and retention would shed light on the differential outcomes of this
continuum-based framework more than the more discrete steps in teacher careers now
observed. Future qualitative work is needed to better understand teachers’ experiences and
meaning making around issues of autonomy. Future quantitative work, including latent class
analyses, could take a person-centered approach to examine how different types of teachers
respond to more or less autonomy. Additionally, an investigation into the secondary impacts
on student performance is essential, as that is the ultimate measure and goal of developing
and retaining proficient teachers.
Conclusion
Increased standardization of the teaching practice and diminished autonomy are driving teachers away from the profession (Clotfelter et al., 2004; Crocco & Costigan, 2007). Simultaneously,
undirected and isolated developing teachers leave the classroom in huge numbers, granted
too much autonomy before they have developed the proficiency to know what to do with it
(Kauffman et al., 2002; Torres, 2014). The GTA framework described above presents a partial,
conceptual solution to both of these problems in the form of an integrated system of autonomy
and structure for teachers that recognizes the dynamic process of teacher development occurring simultaneously in multiple domains.
The proposed GTA framework, with future development, implementation, and checks for
validity, could allow school administrators to efficiently target resources and efforts using data
from already established school-specific evaluation systems to address autonomy-related issues.
Specifically, the GTA framework could provide schools and administrators with a systematic
way of recognizing the range of teacher proficiency levels and appropriately granting levels of
autonomy to best support teachers. Through the adoption of a graduated teacher autonomy
model, teachers could receive the structure and autonomy that will encourage them to not only
stay in the classroom but also develop into their full potential to better serve their students.
The Educational Forum
111
ORCID
Ashley Grant
http://orcid.org/0000-0002-4647-723X
References
Askey, T. (2015, August 21). Giving teachers the freedom to teach. The Baltimore Sun. Retrieved from
https://www.baltimoresun.com/opinion/op-ed/bs-ed-teacher-shortage-20150825-story.html
Axtell, C. M., Maitlis, S., & Yearta, S. K. (1997). Predicting immediate and longer-term transfer of
training. Personnel Review, 26(3), 201–213. doi:10.1108/00483489710161413
Bernhardt, V. L. (2013). Data analysis for continuous school improvement. Philadelphia, PA: Routledge.
Berry, B., Daughtrey, A., & Wieder, A. (2010). Teacher leadership: Leading the way to effective teaching
and learning. Carrboro, NC: Center for Teaching Quality.
Blos, P. (1979). Adolescent passage. Madison, CT: International Universities Press.
Clotfelter, C. T., Ladd, H. F., Vigdor, J. L., & Diaz, R. A. (2004). Do school accountability systems make
it more difficult for low-performing schools to attract and retain high-quality teachers?Journal of
Policy Analysis and Management, 23(2), 251–271. doi:10.1002/pam.20003
Cochran-Smith, M., & Lytle, S. L. (2009). Inquiry as stance: Practitioner research for the next generation.
New York: Teachers College Press.
Cooper, J. M., & Alvarado, A. (2006). Preparation, recruitment, and retention of teachers. Paris, France:
International Institute for Educational Planning.
Craft, A. (2005). Creativity in schools: Tensions and dilemmas. London, England: Routledge.
Crocco, M. S., & Costigan, A. T. (2007). The narrowing of curriculum and pedagogy in the age of
accountability: Urban educators speak out. Urban Education, 42(6), 512–535. doi:10.1177/
0042085907304964
Danielson, C. (2001). New trends in teacher evaluation. Educational Leadership, 58(5), 12–15.
Danielson, C. (2007). Enhancing professional practice: A framework for teaching (2nd ed.). Alexandria,
VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
DaRosa, D. A., Zwischenberger, J. B., Meyerson, S. L., George, B. C., Teitelbaum, E. N., Soper, N. J., &
Fryer, J. P. (2013). A theory-based model for teaching and assessing residents in the operating room.
Journal of Surgical Education, 70(1), 24–30. doi:10.1016/j.jsurg.2012.07.00
Eccles, J. S., Buchanan, C. M., Flanagan, C., Fuligni, A., Midgley, C., & Yee, D. (1991). Control versus
autonomy during early adolescence. Journal of Social Issues, 47(4), 53–68. doi:10.1111/j.1540-4560.1991.
tb01834.x
Fox, S. (2012). Adolescents, graduated autonomy, and genetic testing. Genetics Research International,
2012, 1–6. doi:10.1155/2012/946032
Gwaltney, K. D. (2012). Teacher autonomy in the United States: Establishing a standard definition, validation of a nationally representative construct and an investigation of policy affected teacher groups
(Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of Missouri, Columbia, MO.
Hall, T. (2002). Differentiated instruction. Wakefield, MA: National Center on Accessing the General
Curriculum.
Hallinger, P., & Heck, R. H. (1996). Reassessing the principal’s role in school effectiveness: A review of
empirical research, 1980-1995. Educational Administration Quarterly, 32(1), 5–44. doi:10.1177/001
3161X96032001002
Harris, D. N., & Sass, T. R. (2011). Teacher training, teacher quality and student achievement. Journal
of Public Economics, 95(7-8), 798–812. doi:10.1016/j.jpubeco.2010.11.009
Horng, J. S., Hong, J. C., ChanLin, L. J., Chang, S. H., & Chu, H. C. (2005). Creative teachers and
creative teaching strategies. International Journal of Consumer Studies, 29(4), 352–358. doi:10.1111/
j.1470-6431.2005.00445.x
Huberman, M. (1989). The professional life cycle of teachers. Teachers College Record, 91(1),
31–57.
Ingersoll, R. (1996). Teachers’ decision-making power and school conflict. Sociology of Education,
69(2), 159–176. doi:10.2307/2112804
112
A. GRANT ET AL.
Ingersoll, R. M., Alsalam, N., Bobbitt, S., & Quinn, P. (1997). Teacher professionalization and teacher
commitment: A multilevel analysis. Washington, DC: AIR.
Ingersoll, R. M. (2001). Teacher turnover and teacher shortages: An organizational analysis. American
Educational Research Journal, 38(3), 499–534. doi:10.3102/00028312038003499
Ingersoll, R. M. (2002). The teacher shortage: A case of wrong diagnosis and wrong prescription.
NASSP Bulletin, 86(631), 16–31. doi:10.1177/019263650208663103
Kardos, S. M., & Johnson, S. M. (2007). On their own and presumed expert: New teachers’ experience
with their colleagues. Teachers College Record, 109(9), 2083–2106.
Kauffman, D., Johnson, S. M., Kardos, S. M., Liu, E., & Peske, H. G. (2002). Lost at sea”: New teachers’
experiences with curriculum and assessment. Teachers College Record, 104(2), 273–300.
doi:10.1111/1467-9620.00163
Kelly, S. (2004). An event history analysis of teacher attrition: Salary, teacher tracking, and socially
disadvantaged schools. The Journal of Experimental Education, 72(3), 195–220. doi:10.3200/
JEXE.72.3.195-220
Kreis, K., & Brockopp, D. Y. (1986). Autonomy: A component of teacher job satisfaction. Education,
107(1), 110–115.
Lambeth, D. (2012). Effective practices and resources for support of beginning teachers. Academic
Leadership, 10(1), 1–13.
Lamborn, S. D., Dornbusch, S. D., & Steinberg, L. (1996). Ethnicity and community context as moderators of the relations between family decision making adolescent adjustment. Child Development,
67(2), 283–301. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8624.1996.tb01734.x
Lawrence-Brown, D. (2004). Differentiated instruction: Inclusive strategies for standards-based learning that benefit the whole class. American Secondary Education, 32(3), 34–62.
Liskin-Gasparro, J. E., Byrnes, H., & Kaplan, I. (1987). Testing and teaching for oral proficiency. Boston,
MA: Heinle and Heinle.
Littrell, P. C., Billingsley, B. S., & Cross, L. H. (1994). The effects of principal support on special and
general educators’ stress, job satisfaction, school commitment, health, and intent to stay in teaching.
Remedial and Special Education, 15(5), 297–310. doi:10.1177/074193259401500505
Macdonald, D. (2003). Curriculum change and the post-modern world: Is the school curriculumreform movement an anachronism?. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 35(2), 139–149. doi:10.1080/
00220270210157605
Mooney, J. (2013, February 22). Majority of NJ schools opt for widely used teacher-evaluation method.
NJ Spotlight. Retrieved from https://www.njspotlight.com/2013/02/13-02-21-majority-of-njschools-opt-for-widely-used-teacher-evaluation-method/
Nucci, L. P. (2001). Education in the moral domain. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
OECD. (2005). Teachers matter: Attracting, developing and retaining effective teachers. Paris, France:
Author.
Olivant, K. F. (2015). “I am not a format”: Teachers’ experiences with fostering creativity in the era of
accountability. Journal of Research in Childhood Education, 29(1), 115–129. doi:10.1080/02568543.2
014.978920
Pearson, L. C., & Hall, B. W. (1993). Initial construct validation of the teaching autonomy scale. The
Journal of Educational Research, 86(3), 172–178. doi:10.1080/00220671.1993.9941155
Pearson, L. C., & Moomaw, W. (2005). The relationship between teacher autonomy and stress, work
satisfaction, empowerment, and professionalism. Educational Research Quarterly, 29(1), 38–53.
Pitt, A. (2010). On having one’s chance: Autonomy as education’s limit. Educational Theory, 60(1), 1–18.
doi:10.1111/j.1741-5446.2009.00342.x
Proficient [Def. 1]. (n.d.). In Merriam-Webster online. Retrieved from www.merriam-webster.com/
dictionary/proficient
Reeves, D. B. (2007). The principal and proficiency: The essential leadership role in improving student
achievement. Leadership Compass, 4(3), 1–3.
Rivkin, S. G., Hanushek, E. A., & Kain, J. F. (2005). Teachers, schools, and academic achievement.
Econometrica, 73(2), 417–458. doi:10.1111/j.1468-0262.2005.00584.x
Ronfeldt, M., Loeb, S., & Wyckoff, J. (2013). How teacher turnover harms student achievement.
American Educational Research Journal, 50(1), 4–36. doi:10.3102/0002831212463813
The Educational Forum
113
Rosenholtz, S. J. (1989). Teachers’ workplace: The social organization of schools. Boston, MA: AddisonWesley.
Runco, M. A. (2003). Education for creative potential. Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research,
47(3), 317–324. doi:10.1080/00313830308598
Sachs, T. E., & Pawlik, T. M. (2015). See one, do one, and teach none: Resident experience as a teaching
assistant. Journal of Surgical Research, 195(1), 44–51. doi:10.1016/j.jss.2014.08.001
Shen, J. (1997). Teacher retention and attrition in public schools: Evidence from SASS91. The Journal
of Educational Research, 91(2), 81–88. doi:10.1080/00220679709597525
Smith, T. M. (2007). How do state‐level induction and standards‐based reform policies affect induction
experiences and turnover among new teachers?American Journal of Education, 113(2), 273–309.
doi:10.1086/510168
Steinberg, L. (2002). Adolescence (6th ed.). Boston, MA: McGraw-Hill.
Tobin, K., & Dawson, G. (1992). Constraints to curriculum reform: Teachers and the myths of schooling. Educational Technology Research and Development, 40(1), 81–92. doi:10.1007/BF02296708
Tomlinson, C. A. (2014). Differentiated classroom: responding to the needs of all learners (2nd ed.).
Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
Torres, A. C. (2014). “Are we architects or construction workers?” Re-examining teacher autonomy
and turnover in charter schools. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 22(124), 1–23. doi:10.14507/
epaa.v22.1614
White, P. A. (1992). Teacher empowerment under “ideal” school-site autonomy. Educational Evaluation
and Policy Analysis, 14(1), 69–82. doi:10.2307/1164528
Weiss, E. M. (1999). Perceived workplace conditions and first-year teachers’ morale, career choice
commitment, and planned retention: A secondary analysis. Teaching and Teacher Education, 15(8),
861–879. doi:10.1016/S0742-051X(99)00040-2
Williams, G. C., & Deci, E. L. (1998). The importance of supporting autonomy in medical education.
Annals of Internal Medicine, 129(4), 303–308. doi:10.7326/0003-4819-129-4-199808150-00007
Williamson, B., & Payton, S. (2009). Curriculum and teaching innovation: Transforming classroom practice and personalisation. Slough, UK: National Foundation for Education Research.
Wray‐Lake, L., Crouter, A. C., & McHale, S. M. (2010). Developmental patterns in decision‐making
autonomy across middle childhood and adolescence: European American parents’ perspectives.
Child Development, 81(2), 636–651. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8624.2009.01420.x