Leveraging the Relationship Between Teacher Instructional Autonomy and Teacher Professional Identity to Improve Teacher Job Satisfaction in High-Poverty Schools

Abstract

Teacher turnover remains a persistent issue. Effective teachers represent a critical factor in student success; however, high-poverty schools tend to experience more turnover than low-poverty schools. In this mixed-survey study, the researcher investigates how limited instructional autonomy in Title I-funded elementary schools may challenge teachers’ professional identities, leading to decreased job satisfaction. Bandura’s (1985) reciprocal determinism theory frames the complexity of teachers’ environments, a trilateral connection among working conditions, teachers’ beliefs, and associated responses. By addressing the relationship between teachers’ instructional autonomy and sense of professionalism, leaders can improve teachers’ job satisfaction and retention in high-poverty schools.

Keywords

leadership equity policy teaching career

Teachers’ preferences for supportive working environments where they believe they can make a difference in students’ lives and grow professionally predict their school employment choices and retention (Kraft & Papay, 2014; Simon & Johnson, 2015). Individuals enter the teaching profession to make a positive impact on students’ lives; therefore, teachers’ ability to make instructional decisions that meet students’ needs is a defining component of teacher identity (Strong & Yoshida, 2014). In today’s teaching culture, teachers have little autonomy to make instructional decisions due to stringent accountability practices at all levels of educational decision-making (Kraft & Lyon, 2024). These policies, which thwart teacher decision-making at the classroom level, are more prevalent at high-poverty, low-performing schools, where there is considerable pressure to increase test scores by using standardized, scripted curricula with little opportunity for teacher choice (Berry & Shields, 2017; de Saxe et al., 2020). The result is that teachers may transfer to higher-performing schools with less accountability and more flexibility—or leave the profession altogether (Berry & Shields, 2017).

This study of 30 elementary teachers in Title I-funded schools took place in a large public school district in North Carolina. Over 40 elementary schools in this district also receive federal Title-I funding due to high populations of students in these schools qualifying for free or reduced-price lunch status based on family income criteria. The current study was part of a larger study on teacher job satisfaction that investigated higher levels of teacher turnover in Title I-funded schools compared to non-Title I-funded schools. Per IRB-approved district human resource data, Title I-funded schools in this district during the school years 2017–2018, 2018–2019, and 2019–2020 had three times more elementary teachers participating in inter-district transfers from Title I teacher positions to non-Title I teacher positions.

This study describes the influence of teacher instructional autonomy (TIA) and teacher professional identity (TPI) on teacher job satisfaction in high-poverty, Title I-funded elementary schools. While the constructs of TIA, TPI, and teacher job satisfaction have been previously examined, considering these constructs as interrelated may represent a newer perspective. This work aims to inform school leaders of the TIA-TPI relationship to improve leadership practices that influence these constructs in Title I-funded schools. This work adds to previous research that demonstrates the significance of administrative support on teacher job satisfaction (Boyd et al., 2011; Ladd, 2011) but extends beyond general leadership practices. Instead, this work proposes that school leadership has a critical impact on the relationship between TIA and TPI—the core values that represent teachers’ job duties with students.

Teacher professional identity was included in this study to expand on previous research findings about teacher job satisfaction. Including a focus on TPI highlights the importance of TIA for teacher job satisfaction—TIA is meaningful for a teacher’s self-conception. Therefore, as described by the conceptual model in Figure 1, investigating both TPI and TIA provides school leaders with insight into factors that could be contributing to higher teacher turnover in Title I-funded schools compared to non-Title I-funded schools in the same district.

Figure 1.

Conceptual model of teacher professional identity and leadership influence on teacher instructional autonomy

To guide my exploration of TIA and TPI, I used the following research questions:

(1) How do Title I elementary teachers perceive their autonomy in making instructional decisions in their contexts?

(2) How do Title I elementary teachers perceive their professional identity in their context?

This study used mixed methods to examine how TIA and TPI relate to teacher job satisfaction in Title I schools. North Carolina administers a biennial survey that assesses teacher working conditions found to influence teacher job satisfaction in the state’s schools. I followed the state’s precedent for investigating working conditions. Based on the results from the 2020 and 2022 North Carolina Teacher Working Conditions Survey¹ (TWCS; Academic Development Institute, n.d.-a; n.d.-b), for the TIA working condition prompt, Item H, Title I-funded elementary schools in this district scored more than 10% lower on this item compared to non-Title I-funded schools, and both types of schools had 30%–40% unfavorable results on this item. Therefore, the following recommendations are made for school leaders to improve this critical area of teacher job satisfaction.

Literature Review

Teacher Instructional Autonomy

Teachers have many options in deciding where to teach. Therefore, to improve the educational outcomes for North Carolina’s students, one must consider how to improve the working conditions that influence teacher job satisfaction and retention, especially in high-poverty schools that experience more teacher turnover (Ladd, 2011; Simon & Johnson, 2015). According to previous studies on teacher working conditions and turnover, teachers’ autonomy granted by school leaders impacts teacher job satisfaction and, in many instances, influences teachers’ commitment to remain in their current teaching positions (Allensworth et al., 2009). Teacher autonomy can occur in different facets of a teacher’s work, such as student behavior procedures, school schedules, and teaching assignments (Pearson & Moomaw, 2006). This study focuses on TIA, or the level of input and influence on daily instructional practices teachers enact in their classrooms (Allensworth et al., 2009).

Since the early 2000s, federal accountability policies including No Child Left Behind Act of 2021 No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 (2002) and the Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA, 2015) have pressured school districts to produce high student achievement results on state standardized tests (Fitz & Nikolaidis, 2020; Kraft & Lyon, 2024). External forces of government, at all levels, exercise considerable influence on schools’ operations and challenge teachers’ role as professionals—as workers with specialized training and knowledge for organizational effectiveness (Kraft & Lyon, 2024; MacGillivray et al., 2004).

Teachers in high-poverty, Title I-funded schools are charged with improving students’ academic outcomes but often have less choice for instructional decision-making than teachers in more affluent school settings (Darling-Hammond, 2010; MacGillivray et al., 2004). As a result, teachers who work in high-poverty schools with poor student outcomes on standardized tests face less professional choice for instruction, with district-wide mandates for materials, pacing, instructional practices, and assessments (Wronowski & Urick, 2019). Overall, school districts’ decisions to improve student test scores by taking away teachers’ instructional autonomy undermines the essence of teaching—teachers making professional decisions that directly impact the education of students in their classrooms (Fitz & Nikolaidis, 2020; MacGillivray et al., 2004).

Mandated Curriculum and Instructional Practices

Notably, school districts must adhere to state policies and laws for curricula. For example, in 2024, policies that mandated the science of reading (SoR) in literacy instruction existed in over 40 states, with many states’ departments of instruction, including North Carolina, requiring that district-adopted curricula include SoR concepts (Excellent Public Schools Act, 2021). To adhere to these laws, schools often choose prescribed or scripted curricula (Eisenbach, 2012).

In a study on scripted literacy curriculum in one school district, teachers in one school shared that the scripted curriculum and pacing, taught as suggested by the curriculum’s guidelines, constrained their teaching practices; in another school, teachers were given autonomy by the school’s leadership to modify the curriculum as they felt appropriate for their students (Guyton, 2021). Guyton’s (2021) finding that literacy curriculum mandates varied across school settings, coupled with the understanding that daily instructional practices occur within a curriculum framework, provides evidence that TIA is possible even within mandated curricula if school leaders afford teachers the opportunity. In further support of this notion, Chapman et al. (2018) found that school leaders play a role in either requiring teachers to adopt scripted curriculum as-is or in providing support for teachers to adapt the scripted curriculum to better meet the needs of their students. Although schools must use required curricula, school leaders’ decisions regarding TIA impact how teachers view themselves as professionals and instructional leaders who directly contribute to decisions regarding students’ learning and educational outcomes (Eisenbach, 2012).

Teacher Professional Identity

For some teachers, their desire for TIA in the workplace may connect to their TPI, or reasons for choosing a teaching career (Castro et al., 2022). Generally, people choose teaching to serve their communities and positively impact children’s academic and human development (Jones & Kessler, 2020). When teachers enter the profession, they believe they can make a difference (Castro et al., 2022). Day et al. (2006) described teaching as a unique mix of personal and professional expectations that, for most teachers, leads to a lifelong commitment to the profession. As with any career, there are job expectations associated with teaching that include the opportunity to make instructional decisions as part of their work with students (Ingersoll & Perda, 2008).

Notably, a workplace identity can be viewed not only through one’s personal experiences but also professionally generalized through common traits that define a particular profession (Castro et al., 2022; Kelchtermans, 2009). This study considers the definition of TPI of Abu-Alruz and Khasawneh (2013), who described TPI as a set of “core values” and “distinctive characteristics” of a career that distinguish it from other careers (p. 431). Supporting this definition, Ingersoll and Perda (2008) described what constitutes a professional career by identifying distinctive characteristics (i.e., credentials, specialized knowledge, prestige, compensation, professional development, and level of authority) commonly found in all jobs considered at a professional level.

When teachers identify as professionals but do not feel like they are treated professionally in their work context, then an incongruence between teachers’ job expectations and their contextual reality can occur, possibly influencing teachers’ job satisfaction (see Figure 1). In considering the characteristic of level of authority, related to TIA, Ingersoll and Perda (2008) pointed out that workers considered on a professional level have authority through control over their job duties and the ability to make choices that impact their work and organizational outcomes. However, particularly in high-poverty, low-achieving school settings, the job of teaching may involve little control over instructional decisions, contributing to teachers leaving these schools for other teaching positions (Simon & Johnson, 2015).

Triadic Reciprocal Determinism

This study employs Bandura’s (1985) triadic reciprocal determinism as its theoretical framework to examine interrelated influences on TIA and TPI on job satisfaction in Title I-funded elementary schools. Triadic reciprocal determinism considers the interconnected, triadic interactions among the environment, behavior, and personal beliefs (Bandura, 1985). This framework is suited to understanding teacher experiences in Title I-funded schools because it recognizes that teachers’ professional identities (personal factor), their instructional decision-making (behavioral factor), and their school contexts (environmental factor) do not operate in isolation but continually influence one another.

In the application of this framework in this study, school leadership are positioned as a critical environmental influencer on the TIA-TPI relationship. Triadic reciprocal determinism suggests that changes in one factor may affect the other factors; for instance, when school leadership restricts instructional autonomy (environmental change), this may constrain teachers’ ability to enact their professional values (behavioral change), potentially leading to identity conflict or diminished professional self-concept (personal change), ultimately affecting job satisfaction.

In Title I school settings, where teachers may face unique contextual pressures and administrative constraints, understanding these reciprocal relationships becomes essential for identifying leverage points that school leaders can address to improve teacher job satisfaction and retention. Previous research has established that administrative support influences job satisfaction (Boyd et al., 2011; Ladd, 2011), but the triadic reciprocal determinism theory provides a way for understanding how this influence operates—specifically through the reciprocal dynamics between teachers’ autonomy and their ability to maintain coherence between their professional identity and their daily practice. By examining the interrelated constructs of TIA and TPI within the triadic reciprocal determinism framework, this study explored whether teachers’ personal demographics (such as teaching position, years of experience, and career changes) and teachers’ school environments created any variations in their TIA-TPI relationship. This approach offers school leaders crucial insights about specific teacher characteristics and school contexts that might influence teachers’ TIA-TPI relationships, potentially impacting their level of teacher job satisfaction in Title I-funded elementary schools.

Method

This research investigating TIA and TPI is part of a larger study I conducted as a school-based intervention to positively impact TIA and TPI in teachers’ school contexts. The data collection in this study represents the first TIA and TPI survey administrations with open-ended questions. The 30 teachers in this study were recruited and participated under IRB approval.

To consider my role as an action researcher, I reveal my positionality in this study and the influence of my intersectionality. I was a district-level coach at the time of this study, and as a member of the most commonly represented teacher groups (i.e., a white female), I also have my own TPI as a former elementary teacher, reading intervention teacher, and literacy coach in Title I-funded schools in this district and in another state. Therefore, I may view teachers’ data through a dominant group’s lens and consider teachers’ experiences more personally than other researchers unaffiliated with K–12 schools and without classroom teaching experience.

Participants

The Title I elementary teachers were recruited using a convenience sampling procedure that considered all teachers in the 41 Title I-school sample (Patton, 2007). All certified teachers in the district’s Title I-funded elementary schools, including specialists (e.g., art, PE, and music) and English as a second language (ESL) teachers, were eligible for volunteer participation in the intervention. Exactly 30 participants joined with no extra volunteers.

In total, 14 Title I-funded elementary schools were represented in the study—five year-round calendar schools and nine traditional calendar schools. The participants had varied experiences and backgrounds, providing several characteristics to consider in a thorough TIA and TPI investigation. Table 1 describes the teacher participants’ demographics.

Procedure and Study Design

I collected and analyzed quantitative and qualitative data simultaneously using a mixed-survey design, from August to December 2022. I administered two Likert scale surveys to all participants via Google Forms. All study procedures were approved by my university’s institutional review board.

The Pearson and Hall (1993) Teacher Autonomy Scale is a 20-item survey developed to measure K-12 teachers’ autonomy using two components: (a) general autonomy to make job decisions, such as planning time, making classroom schedules, addressing problems, use of classroom space, and using alternative teaching practices; and (b) curriculum autonomy representing teachers’ opportunities for decisions regarding teaching resources and instructional practices.

This study was part of a larger intervention examining teacher autonomy and professional identity that used the entire 20-item survey. Here, I focus specifically on instructional autonomy, analyzing only the 14 items from the Pearson and Hall (1993) survey that measured TIA (see Table 2). This subset excluded items related to general workplace autonomy (e.g., scheduling and classroom space) to focus on teachers’ core instructional decisions with students.

First, I excluded Item 19, “Standards for my classroom are set primarily by myself” because North Carolina requires the Standard Course of Study for teaching standards (North Carolina Department of Public Instruction, n.d.-b). I also excluded non-TIA items on the survey such as Item 8, “In my situation, I have only limited latitude in how major problems are solved,” and Item 9, “In my class, I have little control how classroom space is used,” because I felt that these items did not represent TIA in this study.

In the larger study, I posed two open-ended prompts at the end of the Pearson and Hall (1993) survey to gain more insight into teachers’ perspectives of TIA in their teaching contexts. For this study, I considered data only from the first prompt, “Describe opportunities to make instructional decisions in your classroom in your current role.”

The Abu-Alruz and Khasawneh (2013) Professional Identity Questionnaire, a 24-item Likert scale survey, was originally developed by the authors to measure TPI for faculty members at higher education institutions. I selected this survey because it assesses specific aspects of teacher professional identity (i.e., work, student, self, and skill-based) applicable across P–20 contexts, with items not exclusive to higher education faculty.

To validate the Abu-Alruz and Khasawneh’s (2013) instrument for Title I elementary teachers, I conducted cognitive interviews with two teachers not participating in the study (Desimone & Le Floch, 2004). I modified terminology (e.g., “faculty” to “teacher” and “university” to “district/school”) to ensure relevance for the K–5 context. Participants demonstrated clear understanding of all items.

I added three teacher demographic prompts to the beginning of the Abu-Alruz and Khasawneh (2013) Professional Identity Questionnaire. The demographic prompts solicited information on the participants’ years of experience, whether they attend a teacher preparation programs (TPP) in North Carolina, and if they changed careers to become teachers (see Table 1). I asked teachers when they consented if they were National Board-certified. I added an open-ended prompt, “In your current role, describe how you view yourself as a teacher,” to the end of the survey to gain a deeper understanding of participants’ TPI, or what it means to be a teacher to them, beyond their survey responses.

Trustworthiness

I attempted to mitigate bias that result from my school district insider knowledge while collecting and analyzing qualitative data. First, I engaged a small convenience sample of four participants in two of my assigned schools in member checking, wherein I shared teachers’ general thoughts, without names, regarding TIA and TPI to check for overall accuracy. Additionally, the triangulation of data among the surveys, open-ended responses, and the researcher’s journals created a thick description for analysis to help reduce bias.

A research colleague recommended that I engage in member checking to gather opinions on the data from additional stakeholders, enabling me to better account for any subjectivity. In a reflexive approach to member checking, the researcher acknowledges that meanings are socially constructed and various perspectives lead to different data interpretations (Cho & Trent, 2006). While the district leaders were not study participants, they directly impacted TIA and added insight to the data interpretation from a different point of view. Therefore, their reaction to the participants’ data will be described in the discussion section.

Data Collection and Analysis

The triadic reciprocal determinism framework guided study design and analysis. Using an iterative coding process, I read all responses twice to identify patterns before applying descriptive codes. This approach allowed me to identify instances of TIA and TPI independently while also recognizing their reciprocal influences and the role of environmental conditions in shaping these dynamics.

Research Question 1

To address Research Question 1, regarding teachers’ perceptions of instructional autonomy, I analyzed responses from all 30 participants on the 14 TIA items. Items were scored on Pearson and Hall’s (1993) four-point Likert scale, with 1 as highly disagree, 2 disagree, 3 agree, and 4 highly agree. I calculated the mean responses to the 14 TIA items, then examined differences based on teacher characteristics (i.e., years of experience, teaching assignment). On the 1–4 Likert scale, I considered scores as 2.5 or above as high TIA.

Lastly, to add a deeper understanding to the TIA survey findings, I considered the participants’ responses on the first open-ended prompt I added to the survey. A second prompt was part of the larger study and not used in this study. I coded open-ended responses using descriptive coding (Saldaña, 2021), focusing on teachers’ descriptions of administrators’ influence on their instructional decision-making. I developed two main codes: “ability to make instructional decisions” and “ability to make instructional decisions in response to students’ needs,” both reflecting school-based administrators’ support for TIA within district curriculum requirements.

Research Question 2

To consider teachers’ opinions of their professional identity in Research Question 2, I analyzed data from administration of the Abu-Alruz and Khasawneh (2013) survey, calculating the mean of the participants’ responses to each item. Twenty-nine of 30 participants completed all the questions on the survey. Each item used a five-point Likert scale, with 1 as highly disagree and 5 as highly agree. Based on the 1–5 Likert scale range on the TPI survey, I considered a score of 3.5 to be a high score when describing individual results.

Abu-Alruz and Khasawneh (2013) conceptualized TPI as consisting of four dimensions, measured with the following subscales: Work-Based, Student-Based, Self-Based, and Skill-Based. To thoroughly consider teacher participant characteristics related to the specific TPI dimensions, I used descriptive statistics to find the mean for each dimension and compared the scores for classroom teachers and non-classroom teachers.

Twenty-seven of 29 teacher participants responded to the open-ended prompt, “In your current role, describe how you view yourself as a teacher.” I analyzed responses using Abu-Alruz and Khasawneh’s (2013) definition of TPI (core teacher values and a commitment to the profession), specifically exploring patterns associated with teaching in Title I-funded elementary schools. Considering the teachers’ own words, I created the code “self-perception of identity as a teacher in a Title-I school” and made the theme of Professional Identity as an Elementary Teacher in a Title I School to capture insight into teacher participant experiences in Title I-funded schools. This coding process of capturing teachers’ exact words recognized the beliefs that teachers had about their jobs and considered any impact stakeholders, such as school leaders, had on teachers’ perceptions of professional identity in their school environments.

Results

The findings revealed a TIA-TPI relationship that could help school leaders improve teacher job satisfaction for some teachers in Title I-funded schools. The key takeaways were (a) TIA is context dependent, with some schools providing more opportunities for teachers than others; (b) TIA represents an integral part of a teacher’s professional identity; and (c) different teacher demographic groups vary in their TIA-TPI relationships.

Teacher Instructional Autonomy is Context Dependent

On the 14-item TIA survey results, all teacher participants demonstrated a neutral response (M = 2.38) toward their ability for instructional autonomy based on the four-point Likert scale (see Table 3). When comparing individuals’ overall responses, just over half of participants, 16 out of 30, indicated average TIA scores of 2.5 or above. To examine the TIA results thoroughly, I explored items scored highest and lowest by participants. Item 11, “I select the teacher methods and strategies I use with my students,” indicated the highest TIA score (M = 2.93, SD = 0.67). Item 14, “The content and skills taught in my class are those I select,” indicated the least TIA for participants (M = 1.80, SD = 0.76).

These data findings, somewhat contradictory to one another, could have been influenced by participants’ teaching assignments (classroom or non-classroom teacher) and specific school sites. Based on the prompt, “Describe opportunities to make instructional decisions in your classroom in your current role,” classroom teachers described differing opportunities for instructional autonomy. Despite teaching in the same district, some classroom teachers had considerable opportunities for TIA in their school contexts (e.g., “I think I am given freedom to implement the standards of learning in a variety of ways. The standards are like the skeleton of the lesson and I can play with the musculature.”) while other classroom teachers reported constrained decision-making (e.g., “The only thing I have control over is differentiation and social studies planning” and “The county creates all content and pacing for what is taught in the classroom”).

Because the district mandates curricula, including pacing guides, daily lessons, and assessment procedures, for teacher use in elementary classrooms, participants referred to both the school and district leaders’ impact on their limited curricular TIA (e.g., “I follow the district guidelines and sometimes I am told what I need to include in my lessons by administration,” “I follow grade level plans that are based on curricula that have been chosen at an administrative or district level. I can make minor adjustments, such as adding scaffolds and choosing cooperative strategies for my students,” and “Instructional decisions are made with directives and guidelines from the district as well as school admin. Conformity to norms is requested”). Still, some teachers shared how they are encouraged by their school-based leader to alter the district’s curricula to fit their students’ needs (e.g., “I am able to utilize provided curriculum and tweak it to fit the needs of my students. I can also change the way I teach a standard or skill depending on the needs of my students”).

Considering the varied TIA survey results (see Table 3), along with the teachers’ open-ended responses, some teachers have considerably more instructional autonomy than other teachers in the same district. These data reveal that some school-based administrators supported teachers’ adaptation of instruction to meet students’ needs while others did not, creating varied TIA opportunities across schools in the same district.

TIA Represents an Integral Part of a Teacher’s Professional Identity

First, the overall TPI mean for all participants (M = 4.36) on the 1–5 Likert scale scoring was high (see Table 1). However, unlike the varying TIA results, there were no participants with low TPI, or scores under 3.5. Therefore, regardless of their TIA opportunities in their schools, all participants demonstrated strong TPI.

Table 1.

Teacher Professional Identity (TPI) by Teacher Characteristics

Teacher group	M	SD
All teachers	4.36	.85
National board-certified teachers	4.43	.75
Non-national board-certified teachers	4.34	.90
Completed teacher preparation program (TPP) in NC	4.50	.75
Completed TPP outside of NC	4.20	.94
Changed careers to become a teacher	4.26	.87
Did not change careers	4.40	.84
0–3 years of teaching experience	4.24	.89
4–19 years of teaching experience	4.38	.89
20+ years of teaching experience	4.43	.76
Non-classroom teachers (n = 7)	4.10	.88
Classroom teachers (n = 23)	4.45	.82

Next, I considered the specific TPI dimensions—Work-Based, Student-Based, Self-Based, and Skill-Based (Abu-Alruz & Khasawneh, 2013)—to gain deeper insight into TPI and the relationship between TIA and TPI (see Table 4). The Work-Based dimension of TPI (Items 1–5 of the instrument), describing a teacher’s involvement in curriculum decisions, knowledge about policies, and commitment to the district’s mission and vision, indicated the lowest score for classroom and non-classroom teachers (M = 4.08 and M = 3.71, respectively). The lowest overall score on the entire TPI survey was Item 1 in the Work-Based subscale, “I am actively involved in the school’s curriculum decisions,” with an overall all participant mean of 2.90 and a standard deviation of 1.26, indicating some variation in scores from the mean. Even though active involvement in curriculum decisions, or having TIA, represents part of a teacher’s identity, many teachers in this district revealed low opportunities for decision-making that may challenge their TPI in their school contexts.

Comparatively, the highest overall score for all participants (M = 4.38) on the entire TPI survey was on Item eight in the Student-Based dimension, “I establish a trusting and caring relationship with my students,” with a tight standard deviation score of .38. Thus, the elementary teachers in this study find building positive relationships with students as one of the most integral parts of their profession.

Likewise, the open-ended responses (n = 27) on the TPI survey prompt “In your current role, describe how you view yourself as a teacher” provided additional examples of strong TPI and commitment to students, with comments such as “I am passionate about my job and eager to learn, acquire, and gain new knowledge that will make me a better teacher” and “In my current role as a teacher, I view myself as a crucial piece of the development of students.” One teacher described how they address their lack of TIA, saying, “The curriculum is mapped out in our district, so I have little to no autonomy as to what to teach, but I try to use my passion for students to help them be excited and hungry to learn” while other teachers emphasized how they identify as instructional experts and lifelong learners (e. g. “I view myself as an expert teacher leader. I also view myself as a lifelong teacher learner. I am also interested in learning new ideas to change my teaching styles, skills and to help my colleagues” and “I am a continual learner with varied interests to complement instruction”).

Different Demographic Groups Vary in Their TIA-TPI Relationships

Addressing teacher job dissatisfaction requires a deeper understanding of teachers’ characteristics, beyond the general category of teacher. In this study, by exploring the characteristics of the different teacher groups related to their TIA and TPI, I uncovered some groups had unbalanced TIA-TPI relationships. That knowledge can be leveraged by leaders to address TIA-TPI with specific teacher groups.

First, I considered demographic groups for a comparison of TIA and TPI. For TIA, I found the demographic groups with lower TIA scores than their peers were mid-career teachers with 4–19 years of experience (n = 13; M = 2.01), non-NBCT teachers (n = 19; M = 1.83) and classroom teachers (n = 22; M = 2.10), with standard deviation scores ranging from .86 to .92. These groups were also the largest participant groups in the study.

For TPI, I found the highest TPI scores for National Board certification status (M = 4.43), not changing careers to become a teacher (M = 4.40), completion of TPP in North Carolina (M = 4.50), 20+ years teaching experience (M = 4.43), and classroom teaching assignment (M = 4.45), with standard deviation scores ranging from .75 to .94.

The most prominent finding for teachers’ TIA-TPI relationships is found in Table 5. The results revealed that all classroom teachers, the largest group in the study (n = 22), have strong TPI, but 54% (n = 12) experience low TIA in their school settings. The teacher turnover rate is considerably higher in Title I-funded schools compared to non-Title I-funded schools in North Carolina (Bass, 2024), and teachers revealed TIA was an integral part of their teacher identity in this study; thus, the finding of a lack of TIA for many district classroom teachers in Title I-funded schools reveals TIA as a critical area to improve for teacher job satisfaction.

The TIA-TPI relationship data in Table 5 also reveals that only one of the non-classroom teachers perceived low TIA in their teaching setting. The reasons for the differences between the non-classroom teachers and classroom teachers survey data are described by ESL teachers’ and specialists’ freedom in choosing their daily materials. For example, one specialist teacher shared, “I teach K-5 physical education and I feel that I have ample opportunities to decide what instructional strategies/content fit my teaching study and equally important, my students learning style.” One teacher who taught 50% ESL and 50% intervention shared different TIA experiences, “I am 50% ESL, I have thematic units I can use which give me flexibility in the way core standards are taught. During my intervention 50%, I have to follow stricter guidelines.” Overall, non-classroom teachers revealed they had considerable opportunities for TIA.

In other demographic group considerations, teachers who did not complete their TPP in North Carolina (M = 2.20) and career-change teachers (M = 2.19) had lower TIA and lower TPI (M = 4.20, M = 4.26) compared to North Carolina-trained and first-career teachers. This could be a crucial group for leaders to closely monitor their TIA-TPI relationship, as alternative-licensed teachers, who may be represented in the career-change group, made up 50% of new teacher hires in North Carolina in the 2023–2024 school year. However, only 55% of those teachers went on to secure long-term teaching, or residency licenses (Bass, 2024; North Carolina Department of Public Instruction, 2024).

Lastly, in considering the TIA-TPI relationship, I analyzed individual survey items. The non-classroom teachers scored lowest on the Work-Based TPI dimension (M = 3.71), composed of Items 1–5 and focused on knowing and contributing to school polices. This difference is relevant to leaders because non-classroom teachers, or specialists, who sometimes serve as the only teachers in those roles in a school setting, may feel left out of decision-making and even disconnected from the school, something to monitor for non-classroom teachers’ teacher job satisfaction.

The second-lowest item result on the entire TPI survey was Item 16, “I can only see myself as a teacher working in a school setting” (M = 3.62), which showed some variation around the mean (SD = 1.40). This was a relevant finding considering teachers could be wavering in their TPI and possibly considering other educational settings or alternative careers.

Discussion

This study revealed that while all teacher participants demonstrated strong professional identity, nearly half (13 of 29) lacked adequate instructional autonomy. This misalignment between teachers’ professional self-concept and their actual opportunities for decision-making has important implications for teacher satisfaction and retention in Title I-funded school settings. Through the lens of triadic reciprocal determinism (Bandura, 1985), these findings demonstrate how environmental constraints (limited TIA) create tension with personal factors (strong TPI), potentially compromising teachers’ behavioral enactment of their professional values.

These findings suggest that the teacher turnover problem in Title I-funded schools may be less about teachers lacking professional commitment (evidenced by participants’ high TPI) and more about structural conditions that prevent committed teachers from exercising their professional expertise. The triadic reciprocal determinism framework helps reveal why this outcome matters: When teachers cannot align their behaviors (instructional choices) with their identity (seeing themselves as instructional experts who positively impact students’ lives), the resulting cognitive dissonance likely contributes to higher job dissatisfaction in Title I-funded school environments with more oversight for instructional practices than affluent, non-Title I schools with greater instructional freedom (Darling-Hammond, 2010; Simon & Johnson, 2015).

The following sections examine how school and district leaders shape the TIA-TPI dynamic, identify which teacher groups are most vulnerable for job dissatisfaction, and propose practical strategies for improvement.

School-Based Leaders as TIA-TPI Mediators

In this study, 45% of participants (13 of 29) demonstrated high TPI but low TIA, revealing committed professionals with limited opportunities for instructional decision-making. This imbalance suggests that school-based leaders may not trust teachers’ ability to make appropriate instructional choices.

When leaders remove instructional control from teachers, they challenge teachers’ professional standing, sending the message that teaching does not require specialized skills and knowledge. Therefore, when leaders withhold TIA, impacting teachers’ daily work with students, they should recognize TIA is not just about teachers having a choice. Teachers’ desire for TIA impacts their TPI: their dedication, passion, expertise, and the core reason they chose the career—to make a difference in students’ lives.

As previously described from Guyton’s (2021) study, opportunities exist for TIA within schools, even with strict district oversight. Chapman et al. (2018) suggested some school-based administrators may enforce the curriculum “as-is” while other leaders may be more open to soliciting teacher input and considering their professional knowledge as instructional experts. Thus, the differences in teachers’ TIA opportunities likely resulted from school-based administrators’ leadership styles, something that can be easily adjusted to improve teachers’ TIA-TPI relationship. Otherwise, tightly controlled schools, with less TIA, may experience more turnover as teachers with high TPI seek a better balance in their TIA-TPI relationship, and potentially teacher job satisfaction, by transferring to a more autonomous school setting.

District-Level Leaders’ Influence on TIA and TPI

The teachers’ responses to the open-ended survey prompts provided powerful examples of the district-level constraints on their TIA. As previously mentioned, state policies can impact a district’s abilities to grant teacher autonomy when such things as curriculum and assessment measures are mandated. However, district-wide work cultures of teacher mistrust for instructional expertise also undermine teachers’ strong TPI and their perceived impact on student success.

A potential barrier for teachers’ autonomy that matched their level of professionalism was revealed through the leadership member-checking exercise that was part of this study’s trustworthiness process. When I shared the TIA and TPI survey results and a sample of comments with two of the top-level district curriculum leaders, I was surprised that one of the leaders commented if the teachers do not like what they are being told to teach, they are welcome to find somewhere else to teach. This leader added that many teachers in this district need to be told what to teach because they lack skill for choosing appropriate instructional practices. The other district leader commented teachers have not been teaching the literacy curriculum with fidelity; therefore, they are not seeing the positive results. Notably, these district-level curriculum leaders were also former school principals.

If other leaders share these sentiments, a message of district-level mistrust in teachers’ ability to be effective instructors combined with teachers’ high professional identities could be a contributing factor to the higher rates of teacher job dissatisfaction and turnover in Title I-funded schools in this state. Consequently, all levels of leadership must consider their role as influencers on the congruence of teachers’ TIA and TPI.

Vulnerable Teacher Groups Requiring Targeted Support

All teacher groups had high TPI (M >3.5). However, experienced teachers, National Board-certified teachers, and teachers trained in North Carolina TPPs had higher TPI than teachers trained outside North Carolina or second-career teachers, who were potentially trained through alternative licensure methods.

As aforementioned, North Carolina’s alternative-licensed teachers experience high rates of turnover: Almost 50% fail to complete the training or leave the profession (Bass, 2024). Therefore, digging deeper into the outcomes from the Abu-Alruz and Khasawneh (2013) professional identity survey for specific teacher groups helps school leaders focus on types of teachers who may need more attention for individualized professional learning or other areas to feel confident in their teaching skills and build their professional identity. Likewise, the non-classroom teachers, who demonstrated lower TPI than classroom teachers, may not feel as part of the school community. Their unique roles may warrant more attention from school leadership to be included in decision-making and other areas of school culture to improve their sense of belonging.

The most salient finding for teacher retention related to the TIA-TPI relationship was the lowest scored item for all teachers on the TPI survey, involvement in school curricular decisions. As demonstrated throughout this study, TIA represents a significant part of a teacher’s identity. Thus, if leaders want to improve teacher job dissatisfaction and turnover in Title I-funded schools, the two constructs of TIA and TPI must be considered together to uncover how TIA opportunities represent teachers’ overarching professional goal of positively impacting students’ lives.

Limitations and Future Work

This study closely supported the findings of other research in similar school settings, but it was limited to one district and 14 elementary schools. As such, only one perspective of TIA and TPI was presented. The schools in this study were Title I-funded, with high percentages of students living in poverty. A future cross-context comparison could be made by interviewing teachers in non-Title I schools to find their perspectives regarding TIA and TPI. The insights that emerge from such a comparison could enable strategic improvement measures in Title I-funded schools. Another comparison could be made with charter schools, which are public schools yet have some autonomy due to allegiance to their written charters.

School leaders have considerable influence over teachers’ working environments; therefore, their perspectives should also be included in future data collection and analysis of Title I-funded schools working conditions. Data could be collected from school-based and district leaders regarding their perspective of teachers’ autonomy and professionalism in Title I-funded schools, adding more in-depth knowledge of their perceived influence on teacher job satisfaction. Understanding leaders’ beliefs about teacher expertise, their perceptions of external constraints, and their decision-making processes could reveal leverage points for systemic change.

Implications

In some contexts, teachers felt they lacked input in instructional decisions. However, teachers may be unaware of federal and state requirements districts must adhere to that may limit TIA. To bridge the gap between central office decision-making and classroom implementation, and to contribute to knowledge production among all parties, an alternative collaborative member-checking approach could be applied in future education research. The collaborative reflection approach (Urry et al., 2024) extends traditional member checking by engaging stakeholders in reflecting on finalized research findings and providing input on their interpretations and future research directions. The researcher then designs community-based studies that represent collaborative objectives developed using stakeholder input. This approach could bridge the gap between district decision makers and teachers, opening dialogue among stakeholders committed to serving students’ best interests.

An easy approach to target teacher turnover is to understand who is leaving Title I-funded elementary schools and why. Therefore, exit interviews should be administered to teachers who transfer, not only to those who resign. Currently, transferee numbers are collected without reasons for departure. Understanding specific characteristics of dissatisfied teachers would enable strategic retention efforts for Title I-funded elementary schools, rather than generalized approaches applied to all types of schools.

Lastly, an overarching theme shared by some teachers was a lack of input into decisions that impact their work and success with students. Teachers remain in a vulnerable state waiting for someone to grant them TIA. As a result, a critical ally for expanding teacher autonomy to better meet students’ needs might be found in teachers’ school communities, whose members personally know the students and want them to succeed.

Building on Yosso’s (2005) community cultural wealth (CCW) perspective and the more recent research of Howard et al. (2024) that applied the CCW framework to improve preservice teachers’ equity mindsets, teachers in this study could leverage their strong TPI for professional growth and student relationships by learning about student success directly from their schools’ communities. The CCW approach moves teachers beyond deficit thinking about students’ families and communities while building critical relationships with student-centered stakeholders (Howard et al., 2024; Yosso, 2005). As teachers develop a deeper understanding of their schools’ communities, they become more credible advocates for students—including for greater instructional autonomy that complements their students’ assets (Howard et al., 2024). With community stakeholders as allies, teachers gain powerful support for TIA in decision-making spaces, such as school board meetings and state-level policy discussions, shifting the narrative from “teachers want control” to “communities require responsive instruction for their children’s success.”

Conclusion

Previous research documented how limited workplace authority undermines teachers’ professional standing compared to similarly credentialed professions (Ingersoll & Perda, 2008). This study built on previous research to offer reasons for how teacher decision-making through opportunities for TIA represents teacher professionalism and identity and, as a result, influences teacher job satisfaction in their school settings. School leaders who limit TIA challenge teachers’ core beliefs about the profession. As a result, even teachers with high TPI may experience an incongruence between what they expect out of their profession and what actually occurs in their workplaces, potentially leading to lower teacher job satisfaction, particularly in higher-poverty Title I-funded schools with more instructional oversight. From this study’s findings, leaders might consider leveraging the relationship between teachers’ TIA and TPI by establishing school cultures that invite all teachers’ input in decision-making and curriculum choices that match teachers’ desires to make a difference in students’ lives, thus supporting alignment between why teachers chose the profession and their actual job duties.

Supplemental Material

Supplemental material - Leveraging the Relationship Between Teacher Instructional Autonomy and Teacher Professional Identity to Improve Teacher Job Satisfaction in High-Poverty Schools

Supplemental material for Leveraging the Relationship Between Teacher Instructional Autonomy and Teacher Professional Identity to Improve Teacher Job Satisfaction in High-Poverty Schools by Denise L. Zawada in Journal of Education

Footnotes

Author Note

Denise L. Zawada is an assistant professor in literacy education. Her research investigates implications of local, state, and federal policies on teacher literacy instructional practices in elementary schools. As a former teacher, she focuses her work on improving teacher job satisfaction in high-poverty elementary school settings.

Acknowledgment

Dr. Christine Eith, Ph.D., Dissertation Committee Chair, Associate Professor, School of Education, John Hopkins University, 2800 N. Charles St, Baltimore, MD 21218. Dr. LeAnn G. Putney, Ph.D., Professor Emerita, University of Nevada, Las Vegas, Educational Psychology & Higher Education Department.

ORCID iD

Denise L. Zawada

Ethical Considerations

Johns Hopkins University, 2800 N. Charles St., Baltimore, MD, 21218, Institutional Review Board Approval. Wake County Public School System, 5625 Dillard Dr., Raleigh, NC, 27518, Institutional Review Board Approval

Consent to Participate

Informed written consent was obtained for the 30 participants.

Funding

The authors received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The authors declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Data Availability Statement

The data in this manuscript is part of a larger dissertation data set submitted to Johns Hopkins University in conformity with the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Education. The dissertation, Examination of Poor Title I Working Conditions and the Students in Poverty Left Without a Consistent Teacher Workforce, is under embargo until 2026.*

Supplemental Material

Supplemental material is available online.

Note

References

Abu-Alruz

Khasawneh

(2013). Professional identity of faculty members at higher education institutions: A criterion for workplace success. Research in Post-Compulsory Education, 18(4), 431–442. https://doi.org/10.1080/13596748.2013.847235

Academic Development Institute . (n.d.-a). North Carolina teacher working condition survey: 2020 [database]. https://adincsurvey.azurewebsites.net/#/nctwcs/2020_NCTWCS

Academic Development Institute . (n.d.-b). North Carolina teacher working conditions survey: 2022 [database]. https://adincsurvey.azurewebsites.net/#/nctwcs/2022_NCTWCS

Allensworth

Ponisciak

Mazzeo

(2009). The schools teachers leave: Teacher mobility in Chicago public schools. Consortium on Chicago School Research.

Bandura

(1985). Model of causality in social learning theory. In Mahoney

M. J.

Freeman

(Eds.), Cognition and psychotherapy (pp. 81–99). Springer US. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4684-7562-3_3

Bass

D. N.

(2024). NC teacher turnover rate ticks down, but still exceeds historical averages. The Carolina Journal. https://www.carolinajournal.com/nc-teacher-turnover-rate-ticks-down-but-still-exceeds-historical-averages/

Berry

Shields

P. M.

(2017). Solving the teacher shortage: Revisiting the lessons we’ve learned. Phi Delta Kappan, 98(8), 8–18. https://doi.org/10.1177/0031721717708289

Boyd

Grossman

Ing

Lankford

Loeb

Wyckoff

(2011). The influence of school administrators on teacher retention decisions. American Educational Research Journal, 48(2), 303–333. https://doi.org/10.3102/0002831210380788

Castro

A. J.

Jabbar

Núñez Miranda

(2022). School choice, teachers’ work, and professional identity. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 30(104), 1–29. https://doi.org/10.14507/epaa.30.6122

10.

Chapman

Wright

Pascoe

(2018). Arts curriculum implementation: “Adopt and adapt” as policy translation. Arts Education Policy Review, 119(1), 12–24. https://doi.org/10.1080/10632913.2016.1201031

11.

Cho

Trent

(2006). Validity in qualitative research revisited. Qualitative Research, 6(3), 319–340. https://doi.org/10.1177/1468794106065006

12.

Darling-Hammond

(2010). America's commitment to equity will determine our future. Phi Delta Kappan, 91(4), 8–14. https://doi.org/10.1177/003172171009100403

13.

Day

Kington

Stobart

Sammons

(2006). The personal and professional selves of teachers: Stable and unstable identities. British Educational Research Journal, 32(4), 601–616. https://doi.org/10.1080/01411920600775316

14.

de Saxe

J. G.

Bucknovitz

Mahoney-Mosedale

(2020). The deprofessionalization of educators: An intersectional analysis of neoliberalism and education “reform.”. Education and Urban Society, 52(1), 51–69. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013124518786398

15.

Desimone

L. M.

Le Floch

K. C.

(2004). Are we asking the right questions? Using cognitive interviews to improve surveys in education research. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 26(1), 1–22. https://doi.org/10.3102/01623737026001001

16.

Eisenbach

B. B.

(2012). Teacher belief and practice in a scripted curriculum. The Clearing House: A Journal of Educational Strategies, Issues and Ideas, 85(4), 153–156. https://doi.org/10.1080/00098655.2012.663816

17.

Every Student Succeeds Act . (2015). 20 U.S.C. § 6301. https://www.congress.gov/114/plaws/publ95/PLAW-114publ95.pdf

18.

Excellent Public Schools Act of 2021 . (2021). NC Stat. § 115C-83. https://www.ncleg.gov/Sessions/2021/Bills/Senate/PDF/S387v4.pdf

19.

Fitz

J. A.

Nikolaidis

A. C.

(2020). A democratic critique of scripted curriculum. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 52(2), 195–213. https://doi.org/10.1080/00220272.2019.1661524

20.

Guyton

(2021). Correlation of teacher perceptions of the Expeditionary Learning and Eureka math curricula and student achievement [Doctoral dissertation, Union University] (Order No. 28649162). ProQuest Dissertations & Theses Global.

21.

Howard

A. K.

Bolyard

C. S.

Finley

S. L.

(2024). Deficit to asset thinking: An exploration of incorporating community cultural wealth on preservice teachers’ mindsets. Journal of Teaching and Learning, 18(2), 16–36. https://doi.org/10.22329/jtl.v18i2.8806

22.

Ingersoll

R. M.

Perda

(2008). The status of teaching as a profession. In Ballantine

Spade

Stuber

(Eds.), Schools and society: A sociological approach to education (pp. 199–213). Sage Publications.

23.

Jones

A. L.

Kessler

M. A.

(2020). Teachers’ emotion and identity work during a pandemic. Frontiers in Education, 5, Article 583775. https://doi.org/10.3389/feduc.2020.583775

24.

Kelchtermans

(2009). Who I am in how I teach is the message: Self‐understanding, vulnerability and reflection. Teachers and Teaching: Theory and Practice, 15(2), 257–272. https://doi.org/10.1080/13540600902875332

25.

Kraft

M. A.

Lyon

M. A.

(2024). The rise and fall of the teaching profession: Prestige, interest, preparation, and satisfaction over the last half century. American Educational Research Journal, 61(6), 1192–1236. https://doi.org/10.3102/0162373713519496

26.

Kraft

M. A.

Papay

(2014). Can professional environments in schools promote teacher development? Explaining heterogeneity in returns to teaching experience. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 36(4), 476–500. https://doi.org/10.3102/0162373713519496

27.

Ladd

H. F.

(2011). Teachers’ perceptions of their working conditions: How predictive of planned and actual teacher movement? Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 33(2), 235–261. https://doi.org/10.3102/0162373711398128

28.

MacGillivray

Lassiter Ardell

Sauceda Curwen

Palma

(2004). Colonized teachers: Examining the implementation of a scripted reading program. Teaching Education, 15(2), 131–144. https://doi.org/10.1080/1047621042000213575

29.

No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 . (2002). P.L. 107–110, 20 U.S.C. § 6319.

30.

North Carolina Department of Public Instruction . (2024). 2022–23 Teacher attrition data indicates need for more beginning teacher support. https://www.dpi.nc.gov/news/press-releases/2024/04/03/2022-23-teacher-attrition-data-indicates-need-more-beginning-teacher-support

31.

North Carolina Department of Public Instruction . (n.d.-b). Standard course of study. https://www.dpi.nc.gov/districts-schools/classroom-resources/office-teaching-and-learning/standard-course-study

32.

Patton

M. Q.

(2007). Sampling, qualitative (purposeful). In The Blackwell Encyclopedia of Sociology. Wiley.

33.

Pearson

L. C.

Hall

B. W.

(1993). Initial construct validation of the teaching autonomy scale. The Journal of Educational Research, 86(3), 172–178. https://doi.org/10.1080/00220671.1993.9941155

34.

Pearson

L. C.

Moomaw

(2006). Continuing validation of the teaching autonomy scale. The Journal of Educational Research, 100(1), 44–51. https://doi.org/10.3200/JOER.100.1.44-51

35.

Saldaña

(2021). The coding manual for qualitative researchers. Sage Publications.

36.

Simon

N. S.

Johnson

S. M.

(2015). Teacher turnover in high-poverty schools: What we know and can do. Teachers College Record, 117(3), 1–36. https://doi.org/10.1177/016146811511700305

37.

Strong

L. E. G.

Yoshida

R. K.

(2014). Teachers’ autonomy in today’s educational climate: Current perceptions from an acceptable instrument. Educational Studies, 50(2), 123–145. https://doi.org/10.1080/00131946.2014.880922

38.

Urry

Chur-Hansen

Scholz

(2024). From member checking to collaborative reflection: A novel way to use a familiar method for engaging participants in qualitative research. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 21(3), 357–374. https://doi.org/10.1080/14780887.2024.2355972

39.

Wronowski

M. L.

Urick

(2019). Examining the relationship of teacher perception of accountability and assessment policies on teacher turnover during NCLB. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 27(86), 1–34. https://doi.org/10.14507/epaa.27.3858

40.

Yosso

(2005). Whose culture has capital? A critical race theory discussion of community cultural wealth. Race and Ethnicity in Education, 8(1), 69–91. https://doi.org/10.1080/1361332052000341006

Supplementary Material

Please find the following supplemental material available below.

For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.

For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.

0.00 MB

0.16 MB