Unintended Consequences of Teacher Autonomy and Principal Leadership: Evidence from Teacher–Parent Communication and Teacher Well-Being

Abstract

Motivated by recent tragedies highlighting teacher stress stemming from parental demands, this study examines the relationships among teacher–parent communication, teacher autonomy, principal leadership, and well-being in South Korea. Using data from the Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA 2022) with school fixed-effects models, we find that increased hours spent communicating with parents are negatively associated with multiple dimensions of teacher well-being. Furthermore, we uncover a critical autonomy paradox: Although perceived autonomy generally enhances well-being, high levels of autonomy significantly exacerbate the negative association between communication hours and well-being. We also reveal that strong principal instructional leadership fails to mitigate this paradox and may even intensify the perceived burden. These findings challenge the assumption that autonomy and leadership function as protective resources. Instead, within high-pressure contexts and bureaucratic systems, autonomy and leadership may operate as managerial devices and sources of personal liability, characterized by isolated responsibility rather than professional support.

Keywords

parents and families teacher research stress/coping organization theory/change educational policy leadership regression analyses survey research secondary data analysis parental involvement teacher professionalism well-being autonomy principal leadership paradox of autonomy

Introduction

Teacher well-being has emerged as a major global concern and a pressing issue in South Korea (hereafter Korea; Baker et al., 2021; Choi, 2024; King et al., 2023). National survey evidence points to a sharp decline in job satisfaction among Korean teachers: In 2024, only about one in five reported being satisfied with their job, and just 19.7% said that they would choose teaching again (Korean Federation of Teachers’ Associations, 2024). Media and administrative reports have likewise drawn heightened attention to teachers’ mental health and well-being, including reports of 168 teacher suicides between 2015 and August 2024 (Choi, 2024). This well-being crisis has profound implications not only for teachers’ professional and personal lives but also for the broader school community (Collie, 2023; Dreer, 2023; Harding et al., 2019). Although teacher well-being is shaped by multiple factors (Hascher & Waber, 2021), parental complaints and demands—often persistent, excessive, and emotionally charged—have been consistently reported as a growing source of strain in recent years, prompting renewed academic and public attention to how such communication shapes teachers’ work and well-being (Y. Park, 2024; Yang et al., 2025; Yeung et al., 2023).

These challenges must be understood within broader societal and cultural transformations. Historically, teacher–parent relations in Korea were grounded in strong professional authority and deference to teachers. As illustrated in the Tian dao of Zhuangzi (ca. 370–300 B.C.E.), students should not even step on the shadow of the teacher, and parents would keep a low profile in their presence—an image that underscores the profound reverence once characterizing teacher–student and teacher–parent relationships. However, extensive shifts in global education trends—including market-oriented reforms and intensified accountability—have challenged conventional professional boundaries (Hargreaves, 2000b). In Korea, these global shifts coupled with demographic shifts—including the rise of single-child households—have weakened the Confucian values that traditionally secured teacher authority in Korea, transforming parents into influential actors who increasingly engage in—and at times challenge—teachers’ professional decision making (Jang et al., 2023; Kwon & Kim, 2015; Shin, 2020). As a result, teacher–parent communication now frequently extends beyond routine updates to include instructional decisions, assessment practices, classroom management, and even after-hours interactions (Gong, 2023; Lee & Kim, 2017; Lee et al., 2023). While these challenges are deeply rooted in the changing Korean cultural landscape, they mirror a broader international trend in marketized education systems, where parental influence has expanded significantly (Addi-Raccah & Arviv-Elyashiv, 2008; Munthe & Westergård, 2023). This creates a central tension: While teachers are expected to build strong home–school relationships (Epstein, 2019; Y. Kim, 2022), they simultaneously face the challenge of maintaining professional distance and safeguarding boundaries for their own well-being.

Scholarship positions teacher autonomy as a cornerstone of professionalism that buffers external pressures and supports well-being (Hargreaves, 2000a; Ingersoll, 2006). Autonomy is theorized to protect professional boundaries from overbearing parental influence, fostering intrinsic motivation and well-being (Lasky, 2000; Ryan & Deci, 2000; Wermke & Höstfält, 2014). Empirical research corroborates this, linking greater autonomy to stronger professional identity and higher job satisfaction (Kim, 2024; Zhang et al., 2021). Policy and research in Korea likewise have emphasized autonomy as key professional capital for school improvement and teacher development, seeking to ensure that educators maintain a high level of discretion (Yang et al., 2016).

However, autonomy possesses an inherently dualistic nature—autos (“self-directed”) and nomos (“norm governed”)—that highlights the capacity to make independent decisions within bounded contexts and systems (Bertea, 2023; Nguyen & Walkinshaw, 2018). This dualism, often referred to as the autonomy paradox, indicates that the benefits of autonomy are highly contingent on the context in which it is enacted (Bertea, 2023; Wermke & Salokangas, 2021). Because teacher autonomy is fundamentally relational—negotiated through interactions within the school community—it can function as a double-edged sword for well-being when granted amid intense external pressure, professional isolation, or a culture that internalizes accountability (Chang, 2026). In such high-pressure contexts, autonomy may fail to shield teachers from parental demands; instead, expanded decision latitude can introduce greater complexity and risk. Autonomy is often deployed as a managerial device that is a “part of the repertoire of apparently liberatory techniques deployed in modern governance that have the effect of producing acquiescent teachers” (Lawson, 2004, p. 8), obscuring systemic weaknesses by shifting organizational burdens onto individual teachers. Rather than empowering educators, this form of autonomy can produce acquiescent teachers who perceive their discretion as a source of isolation and personal liability rather than a professional resource (Wermke & Salokangas, 2021).

This dynamic is particularly salient in Korea’s high-pressure bureaucratic school systems, where teachers granted substantial autonomy report feeling unprepared or reluctant to exercise discretion due to the risk of assuming full responsibility for consequences of their decisions (Gong, 2021; Hong & Youngs, 2016). This paradox is consistent with reports from Korean teachers, including our own experiences, which suggest that while autonomy may exist in policy, it rarely translates into the genuine authority or practical capacity required to safeguard teachers from parental overreach (Han, 2023), ultimately eroding their well-being.

This study seeks to bridge the gap between theory and practice by examining the relationship between teacher–parent communication, teacher autonomy, and teacher well-being in an integrated manner. Using large-scale teacher data from the Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA 2022) in Korea, we investigate how the time teachers spend communicating with parents relates to multiple dimensions of their well-being and whether this relationship is moderated by their perceived autonomy. This inquiry is guided by the following research questions:

Research Question 1: What is the relationship between the time spent on teacher–parent communication and teacher well-being?

Research Question 2: In what ways does teachers’ perceived autonomy moderate the relationship between teacher–parent communication time and teacher well-being?

Investigating perceived autonomy is crucial because its meaning and practical application are highly context dependent and relational (Chang, 2026; Wermke & Salokangas, 2021). This is especially true when teachers must navigate complex issues, such as interactions with parents, where their perceived level of autonomy may differ significantly. By integrating teacher–parent communication and autonomy within a single empirical framework, we move beyond the assumption that autonomy uniformly buffers external demands. Instead, we test whether, in the context of parent communication, autonomy can have unintended consequences for well-being. In doing so, we aim to provide insights relevant not only for Korea but also for other education systems where teachers face similar challenges in managing parental relationships and protecting their well-being.

Furthermore, identifying such a paradox raises a critical follow-up question: Can leadership support help teachers navigate these unintended consequences? On the one hand, effective principal leadership is theorized to provide the structural guidance and professional capital necessary for teachers to exercise autonomy effectively (Nguyen et al., 2026). On the other hand, reports from Korean educators often suggest a profound disconnect between this ideal and school-level reality (Rashid, 2023). This gap is frequently attributed to a pervasive culture of blame avoidance within a highly bureaucratic system (Kim, 2023). Rather than acting as a protective buffer at the forefront of teacher–parent conflicts, leadership is often perceived as passive, shifting the burden of parental complaints onto individual teachers, which may intensify the function of autonomy as a managerial device. This context underscores the necessity of investigating whether perceived leadership can effectively function as a mitigating resource. Thus, we conduct a supplementary analysis guided by the following question:

Supplementary Research Question: Does supportive principal leadership mitigate the autonomy paradox in teacher–parent communication?

Teacher–Parent Relationships and the Role of Autonomy in Korean Contexts

Teacher–parent relationships in Korea have undergone profound transformations in recent decades. Historically rooted in Confucian values, these relationships were characterized by deep respect for teachers, as reflected in the maxim that one should not even step on the shadow of the teacher (the Tian dao of Zhuangzi, ca. 370–300 B.C.E). Traditionally, parents assumed a largely supportive role, whereas teachers maintained professional authority, often through formal, one-way communication (Hargreaves, 2000b; Tu et al., 1992).

This traditional order has been reshaped by broad social and educational shifts (Choi, Lee, et al., 2023). Globally, neoliberal reforms and the marketization of education have reframed parents as active consumers rather than passive supporters, granting them greater influence over school practices (Addi-Raccah & Grinshtain, 2022; Hargreaves, 2000a; Meier & Lemmer, 2019). While foundational theories of this shift often stem from Western contexts, they are highly translatable to Korea, where similar market-oriented policies have restructured school–community relations (Kwon & Kim, 2015). Simultaneously, within the specific Korean landscape, declining trust in educators, heightened accountability, and intense academic competition—exacerbated by the rise of single-child households—have amplified parental expectations and demands (Jang et al., 2023; Shin, 2020). These converging global and local trends have significantly altered power dynamics, often positioning teachers in a vulnerable and reactive role (Cho, 2023; Lee et al., 2023).

Teacher–parent communication now frequently extends beyond formal boundaries, involving personalized after-hours exchanges about both routine and sensitive issues (Lee & Kim, 2017). Parents escalate complaints across a range of student issues, at times invoking legal frameworks such as the Child Welfare Act to advance their children’s interests while challenging teacher authority and autonomy, and even lodging formal complaints against teachers over minor classroom matters (Choi et al., 2023). These patterns have contributed to heightened stress and anxiety among teachers (Choi, Lee, et al., 2023; Lee et al., 2023), leading to severe consequences, including widely publicized cases of teacher suicides linked to parental harassment (Mackenzie, 2023; Yeung et al., 2023). Reports consistently indicate a lack of effective institutional safeguards, leaving teachers to manage these conflicts in professional isolation (Mackenzie, 2023).

Although Korean educational policy formally endorses teacher autonomy as a cornerstone of professionalism (Yang et al., 2016), this autonomy is often undermined in practice by authoritarian school leadership, systemic pressures from district-level institutions, and parental interference (Koh, 2019). A significant gap thus exists between top-down policy initiatives and teachers’ perceptions of their capacity to exercise discretion, particularly in the context of parent communication (Lim & Jung, 2019; Paradis et al., 2018). Teachers may hesitate to exercise autonomy, perceiving it not as empowerment but as an absence of institutional support or clear protocols for managing parental demands (Han, 2023; Hong & Youngs, 2016). In this context, autonomy can become a source of vulnerability rather than a protective resource, creating a paradox in which teachers are left isolated and solely responsible for their discretion (Vangrieken et al., 2017; Wermke & Salokangas, 2021).

Recent legislative reforms, including the “Four Laws on Teachers’ Rights,” were enacted to reinforce professional boundaries and protect teachers from excessive parental demands (J. Park, 2024; Seo, 2024). However, reports of continued parental overreach persist. For instance, teachers report severe stress from parents misusing the Child Welfare Act to levy accusations of child abuse over routine disciplinary actions, such as addressing student smoking (Hyeon, 2025). Moreover, additional teacher suicides linked to parental harassment have been reported even after the passage of these laws (Hong, 2025; S. Kim, 2025). These realities suggest that without clear guidance from empirical evidence, future legislative acts and initiatives promoting teacher autonomy may fail to safeguard teachers from demanding parents and the resulting extreme levels of stress.

Conceptual Framework

We employ the paradox of autonomy as the guiding conceptual framework to critically examine the complex role of teacher autonomy in shaping the relationship between teacher–parent partnerships and teacher well-being. Theoretically, this paradox is rooted in the dual nature of autonomy: the capacity for self-governance (autos) and the necessity to adhere to normative rules (nomos) (Bertea, 2023). While teachers exercise autonomy based on their professional capacity (Paradis et al., 2018; Prichard & Moore, 2016), they also must act within established institutional structures and relationships (Benson, 2010; Littlewood, 1999). In practice, teachers have autonomy in instructional decisions, curriculum implementation, classroom management, and student discipline (Strong & Yoshida, 2014), yet they must comply with district-mandated curricula and policies that hold them accountable for their professional practice (Hong & Youngs, 2016). This duality reveals the central paradox of teacher autonomy: It can serve as both an empowering force and a potential source of stress and isolation.

Teachers in Korea perceive themselves as independent professionals, but their capacity for self-governance is fundamentally constrained by rigid institutional expectations and escalating external pressures (Kim & So, 2014; Koh, 2019; H. Kim, 2025). Within this tension, autonomy can devolve into mere arbitrariness when based solely on individual will or, conversely, into heteronomy when excessively restricted by external and institutional demands (Bertea, 2023). When professional judgment is not reconciled with formal authority or when it conflicts with external pressures, autonomy becomes a double-edged sword (Wermke & Salokangas, 2021). Rather than empowering educators, such unbuffered autonomy often leads to uncertainty and a heavy burden of responsibility, ultimately surfacing as a source of anxiety and dissatisfaction. Teachers recognize that although autonomy exists in principle, they rarely exercise it fully because of the inherent conflict between autos and nomos and the overwhelming personal accountability these conflicts entail (Bertea, 2023). Teachers whose autonomy is disconnected from the relational realities of their practice are unlikely to make genuinely autonomous decisions regardless of the range of choices technically available to them (Chang, 2026). This paradox leaves teachers increasingly vulnerable and isolated, especially when managing the interaction between internal capacity and the external conditions that constrain their work, such as parent engagement (Wermke & Salokangas, 2021).

High-pressure environments, such as teacher–parent communication in Korea, exemplify this paradox. Teachers are expected to exercise independent judgment while simultaneously fulfilling institutional expectations under the scrutiny of parents as critical stakeholders. In contexts where parents are empowered as influential agents, increased teacher autonomy can inadvertently invite greater parental intervention. Parents may perceive teachers’ autonomy as an opportunity to negotiate or challenge professional decisions, intensifying both demands and stress. This dynamic transforms the teacher’s professional domain into a site of negotiation and conflict, weakening their ability to exercise effective autonomy (Hargreaves, 2000a). Paradoxically, high autonomy requires teachers to manage complex and emotionally charged interactions with parents independently, placing the full weight of responsibility and uncertainty directly on the individual. This can lead to anxiety and self-blame when conflicts arise, ultimately undermining teacher well-being. A nuanced understanding of this paradox is essential to explain why simply granting more autonomy may not resolve—and may even exacerbate—the threats to teacher well-being associated with parental pressure.

Literature Review

This literature review examines two key domains of teacher professionalism—teacher–parent communication and teacher autonomy—with a particular focus on their dynamic interplay. It then explores the literature on the multiple dimensions of teacher well-being and its associated factors. Drawing on this foundation, the review culminates in the hypotheses that guide this study, which seeks to empirically test the complex relationships among teacher–parent partnerships, teacher autonomy, and teacher well-being.

Teacher–Parent Partnership and Communication

The teacher–parent partnership is a critical component of the mesosystem that connects home and school, playing a vital role in fostering student development and academic success (Bronfenbrenner, 1979; Epstein et al., 2002). Teachers are professionally responsible for building supportive relationships with parents, bridging the gap between these two core environments (Epstein, 2018). Research has consistently demonstrated that constructive teacher–parent partnerships are positively associated with a range of student outcomes, including higher academic achievement (S. Kim, 2022), fewer behavioral problems (Zulauf & Zinsser, 2019), and lower levels of learning-related anxiety (Li et al., 2019). These positive relationships also benefit educators by helping teachers feel valued and supported within the school community (Alonzo et al., 2025) and contributing to enhanced job satisfaction (Garbacz et al., 2015; Li & Hung, 2012; Li et al., 2019).

Building strong teacher–parent partnerships is often facilitated by several key factors, including parents’ respect for teachers as professionals (Santiago et al., 2016) and a foundation of shared understanding and mutual trust (Garbacz et al., 2015; Minke et al., 2014; Zulauf & Zinsser, 2019). However, these elements are not static equations; rather, they are dynamically negotiated within specific cultural and institutional landscapes. For instance, while trust and respect for professional authority remain common goals, the ways in which they are established and maintained depend on the continuous, effective management of communication and the quality of interaction (Myende & Nhlumayo, 2022).

Communication is fundamental to the teacher–parent partnership, serving as the primary channel for exchanging opinions, ideas, and concerns about students’ educational progress. This interaction occurs through both formal and informal means, including parent–teacher conferences, class notes, scheduled and unscheduled meetings, and home visits (Tett, 2004). These interactive forms of communication foster parental involvement in decision making and ensure that teachers consider parents’ concerns in their instructional practices (Leenders et al., 2019). Technological developments have further diversified communication channels, introducing email, text messaging, and social media. For example, Thompson et al. (2015) found that parents prefer email and phone communication (such as text messages and calls) over face-to-face interactions when discussing grades, classroom behavior, and peer relationships, citing convenience and accessibility.

While communication can foster a constructive partnership, it also can be a significant source of tension and conflict (Yang et al., 2025); it facilitates the exchange of information about student needs while also conveying emotions and tensions arising from differing perspectives and power dynamics (Addi-Raccah & Grinshtain, 2022; Munthe & Westergård, 2023). When parents and teachers share similar views on student growth, communication fosters a constructive and mutually reinforcing partnership (Addi-Raccah & Grinshtain, 2022). Conversely, divergent perspectives or power imbalances can undermine this partnership and negatively affect teacher well-being (Cowen Forssell et al., 2026). Many teachers perceive parental involvement in professional responsibilities as intrusive and conflictual, especially within the context of neoliberal trends and the marketization of education (Addi-Raccah & Grinshtain, 2022; Haisraeli & Fogiel-Bijaoui, 2023; Hargreaves, 2000b). Teachers frequently express concerns and negative attitudes toward parents who excessively intervene in educational matters (Addi-Raccah & Ainhoren, 2009). Lasky (2000) found that communication with overinvolved parents is emotionally taxing for teachers, leading to feelings of demoralization and discouragement. Frequent communication with parents can impose psychological and physical stress on teachers, adversely affecting their well-being and increasing their vulnerability to having professional boundaries overstepped (Addi-Raccah & Grinshtain, 2022; Blasé, 1988; Conus & Fahrni, 2019; Dahl, 2017; Yang et al., 2025).

Autonomy as a Context-Dependent Construct

According to self-determination theory, autonomy is a fundamental psychological need essential for intrinsic motivation that enhances job satisfaction and well-being (Ryan & Deci, 2000). Granting teachers a higher degree of autonomy fosters their professionalism (Bakker et al., 2023; Lawson, 2004; Parker, 2015); buffers the negative influence of job demands, including pressure and workload (Bakker et al., 2014); and enhances job satisfaction (Demerouti et al., 2017; Parker, 2015; Skaalvik & Skaalvik, 2020; Wermke et al., 2019). Autonomy allows teachers to effectively manage their workload with reduced exhaustion, thereby increasing their job satisfaction and their intention to remain in the teaching profession (Sandmeier et al., 2022; Worth & Van den Brande, 2020).

This empowerment is particularly crucial when teachers navigate relationships with external stakeholders, including parents (Frostenson, 2015; Hargreaves, 2000a). Autonomy theoretically allows teachers to make independent, professional decisions regarding instruction and classroom management and to establish professional boundaries that protect their expertise (Ingersoll, 2006; Ryan & Deci, 2000). This includes making informed decisions about how to engage with parents—whether to accommodate requests, resist pressure, or negotiate boundaries, such as limiting after-hours communication or involving administrators in conflicts (Rains & Gann, 2024). In this sense, autonomy can function as a key professional resource, mitigating the stress and burnout that often arise from challenging parental communication (Parker, 2015; Wermke et al., 2019).

However, this protective function of autonomy is not guaranteed and can be highly context dependent, particularly when enacted under substantial external pressure. This shifting landscape aligns with what Noordegraaf (2020) described as the transition from protective professionalism to connective professionalism. Traditionally, professionals were shielded by jurisdictional boundaries and granted a closed form of autonomy to treat cases independently. Yet, in today’s marketized education systems, these protective shields are eroding, transforming into a connective link between teachers and diverse external stakeholders. Neoliberal reforms and the marketization of education increasingly position parents as active consumers (Hargreaves, 2000a; Meier & Lemmer, 2019). When parents perceive teachers as having significant autonomy, they may capitalize on it to advocate for their children’s interests, intensifying demands and stress (Labaree, 1997). This can turn the teacher’s professional domain into a site of constant negotiation and conflict rather than a protected buffer.

In this environment, the primary threat to autonomy arises less from a lack of choice than from persistent misalignments between professional demands and values. As Chang (2026) has argued, especially when teachers are afforded limited space to reflect on these contradictions, they face a heightened risk of demoralization and an inability to enact their commitments in the face of demanding parental interactions, ultimately resulting in diminished well-being and a compromised sense of professional identity. Consequently, autonomy intended to strengthen professionalism can instead exacerbate teacher struggles, because managing emotionally charged parent interactions requires high levels of professional competence and emotional regulation that unbuffered autonomy alone cannot provide (Lasky, 2000; Rains & Gann, 2024).

In today’s post-professionalism era, where parental involvement increasingly shapes teacher roles, excessive or unconstrained autonomy can become counterproductive. Without clear guidance or leadership support, autonomy can lead to isolation, uncertainty, and a heavy burden of responsibility. Studies have questioned whether more autonomy necessarily improves well-being in rapidly changing policy environments (Busse et al., 2016; Zhou, 2020). In this context, autonomy can manifest as a “too-much-of-a-good-thing” effect, leaving teachers isolated and uncertain about professional boundaries (Frase & Sorenson, 1992; Pitt, 2010). Such contexts may shift responsibility away from institutional support, forcing teachers to internalize accountability for conflicts with parents (Parker, 2015; Schwartz, 2015). Teachers may feel solely responsible for managing complex and emotionally demanding interactions with parents, leading to emotional strain, self-blame, and diminished well-being (Alonzo et al., 2025; Unruh, 2024). These contradictions underscore the need for structural boundaries and clear guidance to ensure that autonomy functions as a resource rather than a liability (Jerrim et al., 2023).

A key mechanism for enabling meaningful autonomy lies in the interplay between school leadership and policy frameworks. The way leaders, such as principals, cultivate school culture and establish supportive policies can either foster meaningful autonomy or restrict teachers’ capacity for independent decision making (Benson, 2010; Nguyen et al., 2026). Teachers report greater autonomy under distributed leadership (Lin, 2022) but feel constrained when administrative control is excessive or when leadership fails to help manage parental pressures (Ingersoll & Smith, 2004). Supportive leadership is crucial for teachers’ well-being, because the benefits of autonomy are maximized when accompanied by robust institutional frameworks (Choi & Bowers, 2026; Jerrim et al., 2023; Rains & Gann, 2024). Thus, while autonomy, in general, can enhance professionalism and well-being (Jerrim et al., 2023; Unruh, 2024; Zhang et al., 2021), its benefits are contingent on the presence of supportive leadership and policy structures (Marco et al., 2025; Nguyen et al., 2026; Yang et al., 2025).

In sum, teacher autonomy is not a static trait but a dynamic process negotiated among multiple actors—particularly parents—within institutional, cultural, and policy frameworks (Frostenson, 2015; Paradis et al., 2018; Worth & Van den Brande, 2020). Its meaning and enactment vary across contexts and stakeholders, making it essential to understand the role of perceived levels of autonomy within these constraints (Frostenson, 2015; Paradis et al., 2018; Worth & Van den Brande, 2020). Exploring this paradoxical role helps explain why autonomy cannot be treated as a universal remedy for professional challenges; rather, its effectiveness depends on the interplay of policy, leadership, and relational factors.

Domains of Teacher Well-Being and Associated Factors

Teacher well-being is increasingly recognized as critical not only for educators themselves but also for student success and the overall health of the educational system (Dreer, 2023; Harding et al., 2019). Conceptualized as a multidimensional construct, teacher well-being encompasses affective, emotional, and psychosomatic dimensions (Hascher & Waber, 2021) and is reflected in both positive indicators—such as job satisfaction and positive affect—and negative indicators, including stress, burnout, and psychosomatic symptoms.

It is often understood through the lens of the job demands–resources theory, which posits that well-being is shaped by the interplay between job demands (e.g., workload) that require effort and job resources (e.g., autonomy) that help individuals achieve goals and mitigate stress (Bakker et al., 2023; Demerouti et al., 2017; Zhou et al., 2024). Research has highlighted that work-related factors influence both physical aspects (e.g., ill-health) (Frenzel et al., 2016) and psychological aspects, such as job satisfaction (Collie et al., 2015; Zhou et al., 2024), affective experiences at work (Van Horn et al., 2004), and occupational stress and burnout (Aldrup et al., 2018; Pakarinen et al., 2010; Zhou et al., 2024). Beyond the workplace, teacher well-being also extends to life satisfaction, reflecting its broader impact on teachers’ personal lives (Duckworth et al., 2009; Hascher et al., 2021).

This study examines these five domains (i.e., job satisfaction, life satisfaction, affect, occupational stress, and psychosomatic symptoms) to provide a holistic understanding of teachers’ psychological and physical health. A comprehensive account of teacher well-being also must acknowledge other factors operating at both the individual and school levels (Mendoza et al., 2023; Sandilos et al., 2023). At the individual level, factors such as gender, years of teaching experience, employment status, educational attainment, workload, and salary have been linked to well-being, although findings are mixed (Hascher & Waber, 2021; Yang et al., 2025). At the school level, characteristics such as location, size, institutional type, and teachers’ perceptions of school leadership are also associated with well-being outcomes (Choi & Bowers, 2026; Hascher & Waber, 2021). The influence of these factors also has been confirmed in the Korean context, making them essential to control for in our analysis (Guk & Lee, 2022; Kim, 2024).

The Current Study

This study seeks to bridge the critical gap between the theoretical promise of teacher autonomy and principal leadership and the practical realities faced by educators. Using large-scale data from PISA 2022 in Korea, we examine how the time spent communicating with parents relates to multiple dimensions of teacher well-being and whether perceived teacher autonomy moderates these associations. Our inquiry is significant because it challenges the assumption that autonomy uniformly buffers external demands. Instead, we empirically test the autonomy paradox, examining whether, in the specific context of demanding parent communication, autonomy can have unintended negative consequences for well-being. Understanding teachers’ perceptions of autonomy is crucial because this construct is highly context dependent and relational.

Building on the theoretical framework and prior empirical evidence, we test three primary hypotheses:

Hypothesis 1: Given that increasing parental expectations and demands can overstep teachers’ professional boundaries and intensify their emotional load, we hypothesize that the hours teachers spend on teacher–parent communication will be negatively associated with their well-being.

Hypothesis 2: Consistent with the broad consensus in the literature that positions autonomy as a key professional resource, we hypothesize that teacher autonomy, as a main effect, will be positively associated with their well-being.

Hypothesis 3: Given the paradox of autonomy, we hypothesize that the negative association between communication hours and teacher well-being will be stronger for teachers with higher levels of autonomy than for those with lower levels.

Furthermore, we conduct a supplementary analysis to explore a potential mitigating factor. Because effective school leadership is theorized to provide the guidance and structural support necessary for teachers to exercise autonomy effectively, we also investigate a fourth hypothesis in the analysis:

Hypothesis 4: We hypothesize that supportive school leadership can mitigate the autonomy paradox. Specifically, the negative interaction effect specified in Hypothesis 3 will be weaker for teachers who perceive strong and supportive school leadership.

Methods

Data and Analytic Sample

This study used teacher-level data from the Korean sample of the Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA 2022), administered by the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD, 2024). PISA 2022 gathers information from 15-year-old students and their parents, teachers, and principals. In 2022, while 81 countries and economies participated in the main student assessment, only 18—including Korea—administered the optional teacher questionnaire, which provides the data used for this study. Given the shifts in teacher well-being and teacher–parent communication methods since the COVID-19 pandemic, the use of the latest PISA data provides timely empirical evidence for the current educational landscape.

In Korea, a total of 3,614 teachers from 185 schools participated in the survey, representing those at the grade level attended by most 15-year-old students (i.e., secondary schools). To ensure representativeness of the target population, we applied the final teacher sampling weight recommended in the PISA 2022 technical report. To mitigate the influence of extreme outliers, we excluded teachers reporting more than 10 hours of parent communication or over 80 total working hours per week, resulting in a 2.6% reduction in the sample. The final analytic sample consisted of 3,521 teachers across 185 schools. The proportion of missing data was less than 1% for all variables except for the hours of communication with parents (~11%), with complete cases comprising about 88% of the analytic sample. Following the guidelines from Graham et al. (2007), we generated 15 imputed datasets using multilevel multiple imputation with the Blimp software to account for the nested data structure during the imputation process (Enders et al., 2018). Parameter estimates were combined using Rubin’s (1987) rules.

Measurement

Using item response theory scaling, PISA 2022 constructed various indices of teacher well-being, including affect, occupational stress, and negative psychosomatic symptoms, as well as teacher autonomy. These indices were created after confirming that the internal reliability of the items met established psychometric standards (OECD, 2024). Detailed descriptions of all variables used in this analysis are presented in Table 1.

Table 1.

Description of the Variables.

Variable	Description
Dependent variables
Job satisfaction	Teachers’ ratings of their job satisfaction with their job. A visual analogue scale allows respondents to rate their satisfaction on a scale from 0 to 10 by moving a slider on the screen, with 0 indicating “Not at all satisfied” and 10 indicating “Completely satisfied.”
Life satisfaction	Teachers’ ratings of their satisfaction with their life. A visual analogue scale allows respondents to rate their satisfaction on a scale from 0 to 10 by moving a slider on the screen, with 0 indicating “Not at all satisfied” and 10 indicating “Completely satisfied.”
Affect	A latent variable indicating how often teachers felt various emotions during the school day. Five items were scaled into the index: “I felt cheerful and in good spirits,” “I felt calm and relaxed,” “I felt active and vigorous,” “I started the school day feeling fresh and rested,” and “I was interested and engaged in my daily activities.” A 4-point Likert scale allows respondents to rate their affect, indicating “Never,” “Seldom,” “Often,” or “Always.”
Occupational stress	A latent variable indicating their agreement with their stress at work. Four items were scaled into the index: “I experience stress in my work,” “My job leaves me time for my personal life,” “My job negatively impacts my mental health,” and “My job negatively impacts my physical health.” A 4-point Likert scale allows respondents to rate their occupational stress, indicating “Not at all,” “To some extent,” “Quite a bit,” or “A lot.”
Negative psychosomatic symptoms	A latent variable indicating how often teachers had various psychosomatic symptoms during the school day. Ten items were scaled into the index: “Headache,” “Stomach pain,” “Back pain,” “Feeling down,” “Irritability,” “Feeling nervous,” “Fatigue,” “Feeling dizzy,” “Feeling anxious,” and “Sleep deprivation.” A 5-point Likert scale allows respondents to rate their negative physical symptoms, indicating “Never or almost never,” “About once or twice a year,” “About once or twice a month,” “About once or twice a week,” or “Every day or almost every day.”
Main independent variables
Hours of communication with parents	Teachers’ reported hours spent communicating and cooperating with parents during the most recent complete calendar week, including total hours spent during class hours, weekends, and evenings.
Autonomy	A latent variable indicating levels of teacher autonomy over various decisions at their school. Six items rated on a 4-point Likert scale (ranging from “No control” to “Full control”) were used to construct this variable across the following aspects: determining course content, selecting teaching methods, assessing students’ learning, disciplining students, determining the amount of homework to assign, and choosing teaching materials such as textbooks.
Principal leadership	A latent variable indicating teacher-perceived principal leadership. Six items rated on a 4-point Likert scale (“Never or rarely” to “Very often) were used to construct this variable: My principal (a) collaborated with teachers to solve classroom discipline problems, (b) observed instruction in the classroom, (c) provided feedback to teachers based on their observations, (d) took actions to ensure that teachers take responsibility for improving their teaching skills, (e) took actions to ensure that teachers feel responsible for their students’ learning outcomes, or (f) organizes people and activities in a way that facilitates the teachers’ work.
Control variables
Part-time	A binary variable indicating the current employment status as a teacher at this school: 0 = permanent employment; 1 = contract employment.
Female	A binary variable: 0 = male; 1 = female.
Advanced degree	A binary variable indicating the higher-education level a teacher attained: 0 = bachelor’s degree or less; 1 = master’s or doctoral degree.
Teaching experience	Continuous variable indicating years working as a teacher in total.
Total working hours	Continuous variable indicating the total number of working hours per week.

Dependent Variables

Well-being is a multidimensional concept (Deci & Ryan, 2012; Hascher et al., 2021). Because the ramifications of communication with parents extend beyond the workplace, this study included various forms of well-being to provide a holistic understanding of their association with teacher–parent communication. We examined five dependent variables representing teacher well-being. The first and second dependent variables were teachers’ job satisfaction and life satisfaction. We used two continuous variables measured by a visual analogue scale (VAS). Teachers rated their satisfaction on a VAS ranging from 0 to 10 by moving a slider on the screen, where 0 indicated “Not at all satisfied” and 10 indicated “Completely satisfied.” The VAS, particularly when implemented digitally, offers high variability and reliability while remaining easy to understand and interpret (Sung & Wu, 2018). Although we used latent variables of teacher well-being for other dependent variables in the analysis, the VAS also allows for straightforward comparisons with other studies because this scale has been widely used in psychological, clinical, and medical research and practice (Weigl & Forstner, 2021).

The third dependent variable was affect. This latent construct represents the extent of teachers’ positive emotional experiences during the school day. Five items rated on a 4-point Likert scale were used to construct this index, such as “I felt calm and relaxed” and “I started the school day feeling fresh and rested.” The fourth dependent variable was occupational stress, a latent construct indicating the level of stress experienced at work. Four items rated on a 4-point Likert scale were used to construct this index. For instance, teachers responded to items such as “I experience stress in my work“ and “My job negatively impacts my mental health.” The fifth dependent variable was negative psychosomatic symptoms. This index indicates the frequency of various psychosomatic symptoms during the school day. Items included symptoms such as headaches, stomach pain, feeling down, irritability, and feeling nervous, with five response options ranging from “Never or almost never” to “Every day or almost every day.” These latent variables were standardized in the analyses to have a mean of 0 and a standard deviation of 1, enabling effect size comparisons.

Independent Variables

The primary independent variable was the number of hours spent communicating with parents. Teachers reported the total hours spent communicating and cooperating with parents during the most recent complete calendar week. This measure included all time spent on this activity, whether during class hours, weekends, or evenings.

The other key independent variable was teacher autonomy. This was a latent variable constructed to represent the extent of teachers’ perceived control over key decision-making areas within their school. It was derived from six items rated on a 4-point Likert scale assessing aspects such as “Determining course content” and “Disciplining students.” For the main analysis, this latent variable was treated as a continuous measure to provide a more direct and straightforward interpretation.

Control Variables

To address potential confounding variables identified in prior research, our models include several controls. We controlled for teacher-level characteristics plausibly related to both communication hours and well-being outcomes: part-time status, gender, educational degree, years of teaching experience, perceptions of principal leadership, and total working hours. Controlling for total working hours is particularly important because it allows us to isolate the association of communication time from that of the overall workload (Yang et al., 2025). While salary and grade level are also known correlates of well-being, they are effectively controlled for by the study’s design. The PISA 2022 sampling frame restricts the sample to teachers of 15-year-old students (limiting grade variation), and Korea’s centralized salary system primarily ties pay to teaching experience, which is already included in the model. Finally, because school-level characteristics (e.g., size and funding type) can influence outcomes, we include school fixed effects. This approach absorbs all stable unobserved heterogeneity across schools, yielding less biased estimates.

Analytic Approach

PISA 2022 exhibits a clustered structure in which teachers are nested within schools. We employed multilevel modeling combined with school fixed effects to account for the clustered data structure and control for unobserved school-level heterogeneity (Huang, 2016). The use of school fixed effects allows for the examination of within-group effects, leading to more robust estimates compared with controlling for only a subset of group-level variables. Consequently, our analysis relied exclusively on within-school variation, thereby enhancing accuracy and reducing potential bias from omitted school-level variables.

Model 1 included all predictors except for an interaction term between teacher–parent communication and teacher autonomy. Subsequently, model 2 introduced the interaction term between them while keeping all other specifications consistent with the previous model. The final model was expressed as

\begin{array}{l} Y_{i j} = β_{0} + β_{1} H o u r s_{i j} + β_{2} A u t o_{i j} + β_{3} (H o u r s_{i j} \times A u t o_{i j}) \\ + β_{4} T C_{i j} + π_{s} + ε_{i j} \end{array}

where $Y_{i j}$ is the outcome of teacher i in school j; $H o u r s_{i j}$ is hours spent communicating with parents per week; $A u t o_{i j}$ is a continuous variable of teacher autonomy; $H o u r s_{i j} \times A u t o_{i j}$ is an interaction term between hours spent in communicating with parents and the level of teacher autonomy; $T C_{i j}$ is a vector of teacher characteristics, such as gender and part-time status; $ε_{i j}$ is the residual error term; and $π_{s}$ is a school fixed effect.

Results

First, descriptive statistics of the variables used in this study are summarized in Table 2. The regression results without interaction terms are presented in Table 3. Unstandardized coefficients are reported for VAS outcomes and standardized coefficients are reported for latent variables. The findings indicate a consistent negative association between hours of communication and various dimensions of teacher well-being: job satisfaction ( $B$ = −0.065, p = .004), life satisfaction ( $B$ = −0.033, p = .161), and affect (SD = −0.035, p = .002). In contrast, hours of communication were positively associated with occupational stress (SD = 0.072, p < .001) and negative psychosomatic symptoms (SD = 0.039, p < .001). These results suggest that as teachers spend additional hours communicating with parents, levels of well-being across multiple dimensions are likely to decrease, whereas stress levels tend to increase, supporting Hypothesis 1. Notably, the negative association with job satisfaction was nearly twice as pronounced as that with life satisfaction, indicating that job-related well-being is particularly vulnerable to communication hours. Among the latent variables, the effect size for occupational stress was the largest, whereas those for affect and negative psychosomatic symptoms were similar in magnitude.

Table 2.

Descriptive Statistics of the Variables (Non-imputed Dataset).

Variable	Mean	SD	Min.	Max.
Hours of communication with parents	1.51	1.69	0	10
Job satisfaction	7.22	2.19	0	10
Life satisfaction	7.07	2.20	0	10
Affect ^a	−0.43	0.94	−3.14	1.74
Occupational stress ^a	0.23	0.70	−3.76	1.47
Negative psychosomatic symptoms ^a	0.16	0.93	−2.33	3.84
Autonomy ^a	−0.05	0.60	−2.25	0.72
Principal leadership ^a	0.00	0.55	−0.85	1.26
Part-time	21%	—	0	1
Female	56%	—	0	1
Advanced degree	40%	—	0	1
Teaching experience	16.00	10.10	0	46
Total working hours	37.59	17.16	0	80

These variables were standardized to have a mean of 0 and a standard deviation of 1 (1 SD) in the analysis to facilitate effect size comparisons across models.

Table 3.

Results of Regression Models.

Outcome	Job satisfaction (VAS)		Life satisfaction (VAS)		Affect		Occupational stress		Negative psychosomatic symptoms
Outcome	Coef.(SE)	p value	Coef.(SE)	p value	Coef.(SE)	p value	Coef.(SE)	p value	Coef.(SE)	p value
Hours of communication	−0.065 (0.023)	.004	−0.033(0.024)	.161	−0.035(0.011)	.002	0.072(0.012)	<.001	0.039 (0.011)	<.001
Autonomy	0.553 (0.039)	<.001	0.502(0.041)	<.001	0.162(0.018)	<.001	−0.124(0.018)	<.001	−0.169(0.018)	<.001
Part-time	0.439 (0.095)	<.001	−0.177(0.100)	.079	0.205(0.044)	<.001	−0.243(0.043)	<.001	−0.162(0.044)	<.001
Female	−0.492(0.078)	<.001	−0.318(0.082)	<.001	−0.141(0.036)	<.001	0.102(0.035)	.004	0.439 (0.036)	<.001
Advanced degree	−0.144(0.075)	.053	−0.084(0.079)	.288	0.000(0.035)	.999	0.064(0.034)	.059	0.112 (0.034)	.001
Years of experience	0.020(0.004)	<.001	0.013(0.004)	.005	0.011(0.002)	<.001	−0.003(0.002)	.146	−0.013(0.002)	<.001
Total working hours	0.001(0.002)	.613	0.001(0.002)	.702	0.001(0.001)	.454	0.003(0.001)	.003	0.005 (0.001)	<.001
Principal leadership	0.218(0.037)	<.001	0.164(0.040)	<.001	0.156(0.018)	<.001	−0.112(0.017)	<.001	−0.053(0.017)	.002
Intercept	7.338(1.928)	<.001	7.358(2.004)	<.001	−0.020(0.715)	.977	−0.334(0.626)	.594	−0.374(0.531)	.481
School fixed effect	X		X		X		X		X

Note. VAS = visual analogue scale; Coeff. = coefficient. Standard errors clustered at the school level are in parentheses.

Regarding the main effect of teacher autonomy on outcomes, we found a positive relationship between teacher autonomy and job satisfaction ( $B$ = 0.553, p < .001), life satisfaction ( $B$ = 0.502, p < .001), and affect (SD = 0.162, p < .001), whereas it was negatively associated with occupational stress (SD = −0.124, p < .001) and negative psychosomatic symptoms (SD = −0.169, p < .001). These findings suggest that as teachers’ perceived autonomy increases, their overall well-being improves and their stress-related symptoms decrease, supporting Hypothesis 2. When comparing the effect sizes, the positive association between autonomy and job satisfaction was slightly stronger than its association with life satisfaction, mirroring the pattern observed for hours of communication. However, in contrast to the results for communication hours, the association of autonomy with occupational stress was smaller in magnitude than those for positive affect and negative psychosomatic symptoms. Although the magnitudes vary, the results consistently demonstrate a positive association between teacher autonomy and well-being.

To address the core research question, we tested the two-way interactions between hours of communication and autonomy. As shown in panel A of Table 4, autonomy significantly moderated the relationship between hours of communication and multiple well-being dimensions. Specifically, higher levels of autonomy strengthened the negative association between hours of communication and well-being, supporting Hypothesis 3. With an increase in autonomy, the negative association between hours of communication and well-being became stronger for job satisfaction ( $B$ = −0.061, p = .005), life satisfaction ( $B$ = −0.068, p = .002), and affect (SD = −0.032, p = .001). Autonomy also moderated the association between hours of communication and negative psychosomatic symptoms (SD = 0.037, p < .001). However, the interaction term was not significant for occupational stress (SD = −0.002, p = .853).

Table 4.

Results of Regression Models with the Interaction Terms.

Outcome	Job satisfaction (VAS)		Life satisfaction (VAS)		Affect		Occupational stress		Negative psychosomatic symptoms
Outcome	Coef.(SE)	p value	Coef.(SE)	p value	Coef.(SE)	p value	Coef.(SE)	p value	Coef.(SE)	p value
A. Continuous autonomy
Hours of communication	−0.069(0.023)	.003	−0.037(0.024)	.120	−0.037(0.011)	.001	0.072(0.012)	<.001	0.042(0.011)	<.001
Autonomy	0.660(0.054)	<.001	0.623(0.056)	<.001	0.218(0.024)	<.001	−0.120(0.027)	<.001	−0.234(0.024)	<.001
Interaction terms
Hours × Autonomy	−0.061(0.022)	.005	−0.068(0.022)	.002	−0.032(0.010)	.001	−0.002(0.010)	.853	0.037(0.010)	<.001
B. Categorical autonomy (low is the reference group)
Hours of communication	0.083(0.037)	.026	0.046(0.039)	.240	−0.016(0.019)	.416	0.096(0.018)	<.001	−0.013(0.019)	.488
Autonomy (medium)	1.148(0.138)	<.001	0.437(0.145)	.003	0.073(0.064)	.250	−0.095(0.066)	.154	−0.303(0.062)	<.001
Autonomy (high)	1.371(0.136)	<.001	1.090(0.144)	<.001	0.403(0.062)	<.001	−0.235(0.068)	.001	−0.427(0.063)	<.001
Interaction terms
Hours ×Autonomy (medium)	−0.368(0.056)	<.001	−0.150(0.060)	.013	−0.032(0.027)	.231	−0.043(0.028)	.127	0.092(0.026)	<.001
Hours × Autonomy (high)	−0.102(0.057)	.074	−0.113(0.060)	.062	−0.031(0.027)	.247	−0.032(0.028)	.262	0.081(0.027)	.003
School fixed effect	X		X		X		X		X
Controls	X		X		X		X		X

Note. VAS = visual analogue scale; Coeff. = coefficient. School-level clustered standard errors are in parentheses.

Figure 1 illustrates these moderating effects. Across all outcomes, autonomy itself was positively associated with well-being. However, autonomy was not sufficient to buffer the negative effects of communication—and, in most cases, it exacerbated them, except for occupational stress. For job satisfaction (panel a), all slopes were negative, but the slope for high autonomy (+1 SD; blue dotted line) was significantly steeper than for low autonomy (−1 SD; red dashed line). For life satisfaction, affect, and psychosomatic symptoms, strong crossover interactions were evident. Specifically, under high autonomy, slopes became substantially steeper, whereas under low autonomy, the slopes remained flat for affect (panel c) and negative psychosomatic symptoms (panel e), and they even turned positive for life satisfaction (panel b). By contrast, the slopes were largely parallel for occupational stress (panel d), indicating no significant interaction. Taken together, these results suggest that greater autonomy intensifies the negative association of greater teacher–parent communication hours with well-being, rendering it more harmful for teachers with higher autonomy than for those with lower autonomy.

Figure 1.

Two-way interaction plots between hours of communication with parents and teacher autonomy on teacher well-being.

Supplementary Analysis

Our main findings present a critical paradox: While teacher autonomy, on its own, is positively associated with well-being, it does not appear to safeguard teachers from the challenges inherent in teacher–parent communication. This raises a follow-up question: Does principal leadership help teachers navigate the paradox of autonomy in the context of teacher–parent communication? The literature suggests that effective leadership is crucial for the successful enactment of teacher autonomy, creating a synergistic effect between the two (Nguyen et al., 2026). Although the measures in our dataset focus more on principal instructional support rather than leadership specifically related to teacher–parent relationships, this supplementary analysis explores whether principals help teachers leverage their autonomy more effectively in managing teacher–parent communication, ultimately supporting their well-being.

The supplementary analysis, which incorporates three-way interactions, revealed that the moderating role of autonomy varied depending on teachers’ perceptions of principal leadership, with mixed directions and magnitudes. As shown in Table 5, the three-way interaction was statistically significant for negative psychosomatic symptoms ( $S D$ = −0.023, p = .014) and approached statistical significance for job satisfaction ( $B$ = 0.033, p = .108) and life satisfaction ( $B$ = 0.037, p = .085), whereas it was not significant for affect and occupational stress. This indicates that under strong principal leadership, the negative moderating effect of autonomy on the relationship between communication and these well-being outcomes is slightly attenuated. However, this is a very small effect, especially when compared with the strong negative two-way interactions (i.e., between communication and leadership and between autonomy and leadership). Thus, although strong leadership provides a slight buffer, it is not sufficient to eliminate or reverse the negative moderating effect of autonomy. In fact, this buffering effect is largely overshadowed by the negative two-way interactions between communication and leadership ( $B$ = −0.063, p = .007 for job satisfaction; $B$ = −0.087, p < .001 for life satisfaction; and $S D$ = 0.018, p = .091 for negative symptoms) and between autonomy and leadership ( $B$ = −0.118, p = .012 for job satisfaction; $B$ = −0.146, p = .004 for life satisfaction; and SD = 0.073, p = .001 for negative symptoms).

Table 5.

Supplementary Analysis Including Three-Way Interaction Terms.

Outcome	Job satisfaction (VAS)		Life satisfaction (VAS)		Affect		Occupational stress		Negative psychosomatic symptoms
Outcome	Coef.(SE)	p value	Coef.(SE)	p value	Coef.(SE)	p value	Coef.(SE)	p value	Coef.(SE)	p value
Hours of communication	−0.072(0.023)	.002	−0.043(0.024)	.069	−0.038(0.011)	.001	0.072(0.012)	<.001	0.045(0.011)	<.001
Autonomy	0.648(0.054)	<.001	0.608(0.056)	<.001	0.217(0.024)	<.001	−0.119(0.027)	<.001	−0.228(0.024)	<.001
Principal leadership	0.335(0.054)	<.001	0.326(0.057)	<.001	0.163(0.025)	<.001	−0.109(0.026)	<.001	−0.091(0.025)	<.001
Hours × Autonomy	−0.054(0.021)	.013	−0.061(0.022)	.006	−0.031(0.010)	.001	−0.003(0.010)	.794	0.034(0.010)	.001
Hours × Principal leadership	−0.063(0.023)	.007	−0.087(0.024)	<.001	0.004(0.011)	.719	−0.001(0.011)	.895	0.018(0.010)	.091
Autonomy × Principal leadership	−0.118(0.047)	.012	−0.146(0.050)	.004	−0.062(0.022)	.004	0.013(0.022)	.539	0.073(0.022)	.001
Three-way	0.033(0.021)	.108	0.037(0.022)	.085	0.001(0.009)	.939	−0.013(0.010)	.199	−0.023(0.009)	.014
School fixed effect	X		X		X		X		X
Controls	X		X		X		X		X

Note. VAS = visual analogue scale; Coeff. = coefficient. Standard errors clustered at the school level are in parentheses.

Figure 2 further illustrates these patterns. Under conditions of low principal leadership (−1 SD), teachers with high autonomy showed declines in job satisfaction (panel a) and life satisfaction (panel b) and increases in negative symptoms (panel e) as communication hours rose. In contrast, teachers with low autonomy under low leadership exhibited a counterintuitive trend: an increase in job and life satisfaction and a decrease in symptoms. In high leadership contexts (+1 SD), however, all slopes turned negative for job and life satisfaction, including those for low-autonomy teachers, indicating that the positive pattern observed under low leadership disappeared due to the negative two-way interactions related to leadership. For high-autonomy teachers, the negative slopes were marginally steeper under conditions of high leadership than low leadership. In addition, psychosomatic symptoms exhibited positive slopes under conditions of high leadership, suggesting a pattern analogous to that observed for job and life satisfaction. Taken together, the supplementary analysis suggests that while the three-way interaction per se slightly reduces the negative moderating effect of autonomy on the relationship between communication with parents and well-being, it is insufficient to mitigate or eliminate the paradox of autonomy, thus failing to support Hypothesis 4.

Figure 2.

Supplementary analysis: three-way interaction plots.

Sensitivity Checks

To assess the robustness of our findings, we conducted two additional sets of sensitivity checks by applying alternative specifications for autonomy and communication. First, we treated teacher autonomy as a categorical variable, dividing it into terciles (low, medium, and high), and reran our main models with the corresponding interaction terms. This approach allowed us to compare differences across distinct groups rather than assuming a uniform linear pattern. Overall, the results corroborated the main findings while offering more nuanced insights (see panel B of Table 4). The main effects of autonomy remained statistically significant, although the medium-autonomy group did not show significant differences in affect or stress compared with the low-autonomy group. The interaction terms—with the exception of affect—remained statistically significant and followed the same direction as those in the main models. Notably, while the paradox of autonomy was evident at both medium and high levels, it was most pronounced for the medium-autonomy group with respect to job satisfaction (interaction plots are presented in Supplementary Appendix Figure S1 in the online version of the journal).

Second, we included quadratic terms for both autonomy and communication hours in the models to test for potential curvilinear relationships, such as diminishing returns or threshold effects. Model comparisons were conducted using χ² difference tests and the Akaike information criterion. The quadratic models did not show an improved fit relative to the baseline linear models, and most quadratic terms were not statistically significant (see Supplementary Appendix Table S1 in the online version of the journal). The few exceptions—specifically, communication hours predicting life satisfaction and autonomy predicting affect and stress—were consistent with the categorical autonomy estimates. Given these results, and to preserve parsimony and interpretability, we did not extend the quadratic specifications to include interaction terms.

Discussion and Implications

First, the findings indicate that increased time devoted to teacher–parent communication is negatively associated with multiple dimensions of teacher well-being (Hypothesis 1). This result corroborates prior research (Yang et al., 2025) and extends it by demonstrating that the adverse effects are not confined to job-specific outcomes such as job satisfaction and occupational stress. Rather, the strain of this communication also correlates with diminished personal well-being, including lower life satisfaction and positive affect, and an increase in negative psychosomatic symptoms. This finding is particularly concerning given the recent well-being crisis and tragic teacher deaths in Korea, underscoring that stressors arising from communication with parents compromise both professional and personal health. These results have significant implications for the entire school community because teacher well-being is a critical determinant of student well-being and overall school climate (Collie, 2023; Dreer, 2023; Harding et al., 2019). It is unlikely that schools can cultivate positive learning environments when teachers themselves are struggling. While heightened accountability has intensified the demand for strong teacher–parent relationships, our findings suggest that this emphasis may inadvertently impose a level of stress that jeopardizes the foundational health of the school community.

Second, our results reveal a critical paradox of autonomy (Bertea, 2023; Wermke & Salokangas, 2021). Consistent with our framework (Hypothesis 2), we found that autonomy, as a main effect, is positively associated with all dimensions of teacher well-being, supporting foundational theories of teacher professionalism and self-determination (e.g., Hargreaves, 2000a; Ryan & Deci, 2000). However, it fails to serve as a protective buffer against the stress of parent communication. In support of Hypothesis 3, our findings show that for most outcomes, higher levels of autonomy exacerbate the negative relationship between communication hours and well-being. This finding challenges the common assumption that autonomy is a universally beneficial resource against external pressures and suggests that its function is highly context dependent.

Although the underlying mechanisms cannot be conclusively established in this quantitative study, our findings suggest that autonomy may function differently across levels of perceived control. For teachers with low autonomy, their limited discretion may function as an inadvertent protective buffer. They may have greater latitude to defer decisions or redirect parental concerns to administrators or colleagues, thereby reducing direct confrontation and mitigating personal stress. Such deferral mechanisms are often employed as coping strategies in high-pressure bureaucratic environments such as those prevalent in Korea (Gong, 2021).

In contrast, high autonomy can become a source of vulnerability and professional isolation. These teachers may find themselves solely responsible for managing demanding parental interactions, often in the absence of clear protocols or institutional support (Boote, 2006; Pitt, 2010). This dynamic aligns with critiques suggesting that autonomy, rather than being purely empowering, may operate as a managerial device (Lawson, 2004). Rather than experiencing empowerment, teachers may perceive such discretion as isolating, accompanied by a heightened responsibility for outcomes beyond their control—a reality particularly salient in Korea’s high-pressure bureaucratic school systems (Gong, 2021; Hong & Youngs, 2016). Additionally, in the Korean context, where parents hold high expectations and may leverage policies and systems to advance their interests, autonomy functions as a double-edged sword: It confers the freedom to act while simultaneously placing the full weight of responsibility for navigating conflicts and ramifications—including legal actions—on the individual teacher (Bertea, 2023). This paradoxically intensifies the stress and uncertainty inherent in parent communication, transforming a supposed professional resource into a personal liability (Wermke & Salokangas, 2021). The freedom to choose thus transforms into pressure to make the “right,” self-legislated decision, discouraging teachers from exercising their autonomy and leading to heightened stress, self-doubt, and self-blame (Schwartz, 2015). These findings highlight the need for robust legal and policy support, alongside clear communication protocols, to ensure that autonomy functions as a professional resource rather than an individual burden (Marco et al., 2025; Nguyen et al., 2026; Yang et al., 2025).

Third, this autonomy paradox prompted a supplementary analysis (Hypothesis 4) to determine whether principal leadership could mitigate its negative effects. The results indicate that principal leadership—measured here primarily as instructional leadership—does not fundamentally resolve the paradox. While the three-way interaction showed a minor buffering effect for some outcomes (i.e., job/life satisfaction and negative psychosomatic symptoms), it was largely overshadowed by strong negative two-way interaction effects. Specifically, we found that both the interaction between leadership and communication and the interaction between leadership and autonomy were adversely related to well-being.

This counterintuitive finding suggests that contrary to the theorized role of leadership as a supportive resource enabling teachers to effectively use their autonomy (Lin, 2022; Nguyen et al., 2026), strong principal leadership instead may intensify the burdens associated with parent communication in the Korean context. In centralized and high-stakes educational systems such as Korea’s, instructional leadership often reflects a top-down, compliance-driven approach centered on standardized outcomes and administrative accountability (Choi et al., 2025; Gümüş et al., 2021; Hallinger et al., 2025). Strong leadership therefore may translate into heightened monitoring and performance surveillance, requiring teachers to align closely with external expectations and benchmarks, potentially rendering their granted autonomy ineffective. Rather than feeling protected, teachers may find themselves caught between strict institutional demands imposed by leadership and escalating parental pressures for individualized attention. Furthermore, within bureaucratic systems characterized by a pervasive culture of blame avoidance, principal leadership may prioritize institutional stability and risk management over teacher protection, effectively shifting the burden of managing parental conflict onto individual teachers. Together these dynamics suggest that leadership, rather than buffering the autonomy paradox, may reinforce it by amplifying accountability pressures without providing corresponding structural and emotional support. At the same time, we acknowledge that alternative forms or practices of leadership may better support teachers in navigating this paradox. Future research therefore should examine alternative leadership approaches—such as distributed or community leadership—that may more effectively help teachers manage teacher–parent interactions and enact autonomy as a shared professional resource (Choi, 2023; Khalifa, 2012).

Limitations and Future Studies

Despite this study’s contributions, several limitations warrant consideration and call for future research. First, the reliance on cross-sectional data precludes the establishment of causal relationships. While we employed rigorous analytic methods, causal inferences cannot be drawn. It remains possible, for example, that teachers’ baseline well-being influences their perceptions of autonomy and their interactions with parents rather than the reverse. Future research should employ longitudinal or experimental designs to better establish these causal pathways and generate more robust policy recommendations.

Second, this study relies on self-reported data, which may be subject to inherent social desirability bias. Teachers experiencing negative emotional states might overstate their job-related burdens or underreport their sense of autonomy, potentially biasing the estimates. Furthermore, the PISA 2022 indicators for autonomy primarily capture perceived freedom (e.g., over course content and discipline). This measure may not fully reflect a teacher’s actual capacity to exercise that freedom effectively within the contextual constraints of their professional practice, particularly when facing difficult parental demands (Nguyen & Walkinshaw, 2018). Future studies could incorporate alternative data sources—such as policy documents, teacher logs, or observational measures—to provide a more multidimensional assessment of autonomy.

Third, the study’s quantitative design, while effective for identifying broad patterns, limits our ability to explore the underlying mechanisms or capture the lived experiences of teachers behind the observed patterns. The proposed explanations for the autonomy paradox, as well as for the failure of strong principal leadership to mitigate it, remain inferential despite being grounded in the existing literature. To address this gap, future research should adopt qualitative or mixed-methods approaches. In-depth interviews or focus groups could provide richer insights into how teachers experience teacher–parent communication and perceive their autonomy within those interactions. Such approaches are particularly needed to illuminate why strong principal leadership failed to mitigate these challenges, offering a more nuanced and context-sensitive understanding of the dynamics at play.

Conclusion

Our study offers critical insights by demonstrating that teacher autonomy and principal leadership, commonly assumed to help teachers navigate the challenges of parent communication, may not function as intended. Instead, they may inadvertently place greater burdens on teachers in managing teacher–parent interactions. These insights have important implications not only for Korea but also for global education systems confronting similar tensions between teacher well-being, professionalism, and parental expectations. The findings underscore an urgent need for policymakers and school leaders to move beyond the simplistic granting of autonomy. Instead, they must develop robust support structures that transform autonomy and leadership from potential burdens into genuine professional resources, enabling teachers to navigate teacher–parent communication with confidence and resilience.

Finally, we extend our sincere condolences to the teachers who have lost their lives, their families, and the entire education community affected by these tragedies. It is our hope that this research contributes to a deeper understanding of these challenges, helping to build a foundation in which teachers can approach their emotionally demanding work with safety, dignity, and renewed well-being.

Supplemental Material

sj-docx-1-ero-10.1177_23328584261458830 – Supplemental material for Unintended Consequences of Teacher Autonomy and Principal Leadership: Evidence from Teacher–Parent Communication and Teacher Well-Being

Supplemental material, sj-docx-1-ero-10.1177_23328584261458830 for Unintended Consequences of Teacher Autonomy and Principal Leadership: Evidence from Teacher–Parent Communication and Teacher Well-Being by Soobin Choi and Sangmin Park in AERA Open

Footnotes

ORCID iDs

Soobin Choi

Sangmin Park

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.

Open Practices

The data and analysis files for this article can be found at .

Supplemental Material

Supplemental material for this article is available online.

Author Biographies

Soobin Choi is an assistant professor in the Department of Education Policy and Leadership at the Education University of Hong Kong. His research examines educational leadership and school organization with a particular focus on equity, diversity, and inclusion, and advances the evaluation of leadership effectiveness by integrating multi-source perspectives, contributing to more inclusive and comprehensive frameworks for leadership assessment.

Sangmin Park is a PhD candidate in the Department of Educational Leadership and Policy Analysis at the University of Missouri, Columbia. He worked as a public elementary school teacher in South Korea. His research examines the educator labor market and educator quality, including special educators, to understand how school leaders and organizations shape inclusive and equitable schools.

References

Addi-Raccah

Ainhoren

(2009). School governance and teachers’ attitudes to parents’ involvement in schools. Teaching and Teacher Education, 25, 805–813. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2009.01.006

Addi-Raccah

Arviv-Elyashiv

(2008). Parent empowerment and teacher professionalism: Teachers’ perspective. Urban Education, 43(3), 394–415. https://doi.org/10.1177/0042085907305037

Addi-Raccah

Grinshtain

(2022). Teachers’ professionalism and relations with parents: Teachers’ and parents’ views. Research Papers in Education, 37(6), 1142–1164. https://doi.org/10.1080/02671522.2021.1931949

Aldrup

Klusmann

Lüdtke

Göllner

Trautwein

(2018). Student misbehavior and teacher well-being: Testing the mediating role of the teacher-student relationship. Learning and Instruction, 58, 126–136. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2018.05.006

Alonzo

Pelobillo

C. Z.

Lim

Asih

Ibale

R. M.

(2025). Teacher isolation: Investigations, conceptualisations and future directions. European Journal of Education, 60(1), e12844. https://doi.org/10.1111/ejed.12844

Baker

C. N.

Peele

Daniels

Saybe

Whalen

Overstreet

, & The New Orleans, T. I. S. L. C. (2021). The experience of COVID-19 and its impact on teachers’ mental health, coping, and teaching. School Psychology Review, 50(4), 491–504. https://doi.org/10.1080/2372966x.2020.1855473

Bakker

A. B.

Demerouti

Sanz-Vergel

A. I.

(2023). Job demands–resources theory: Ten years later. Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior, 10(1), 25–53. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-orgpsych-120920-053933

Bakker

A. B.

Demerouti

Sanz-Vergel

A. I.

(2014). Burnout and work engagement: The JD–R approach. Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior, 1(1), 389–411. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-orgpsych-031413-091235

Benson

(2010). Teacher education and teacher autonomy: Creating spaces for experimentation in secondary school English language teaching. Language Teaching Research, 14(3), 259–275. https://doi.org/10.1177/1362168810365236

10.

Bertea

(2023). Is the autonomy of the will a paradoxical idea? Synthese, 201(4), 133. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11229-023-04112-7

11.

Blasé

(1988). The politics of favoritism: A qualitative analysis of teachers’ perspective. Educational Administration Quarterly, 24(2), 152–177. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013161x88024002005

12.

Boote

D. N.

(2006). Teachers’ professional discretion and the curricula. Teachers and Teaching: Theory and Practice, 12(4), 461–478. https://doi.org/10.1080/13450600600644319

13.

Bronfenbrenner

(1979). The ecology of human development. Harvard University Press.

14.

Busse

Mahlendorf

M. D.

Bode

(2016). The ABC for studying the too-much-of-a-good-thing effect: A competitive mediation framework linking antecedents, benefits, and costs. Organizational Research Methods, 19(1), 131–153. https://doi.org/10.1177/1094428115579699

15.

Chang

A. K.

(2026). The value of relational teacher autonomy. Educational Theory, 76(2), 193–205. https://doi.org/10.1111/edth.70066

16.

Cho

(2023, September 8). Gyosadeul seolmunjosa, gajang manhi han mareun ‘sallyeojuseyo’ [Teacher survey: The most common word is “Please save me”]. OhmyNews. https://www.ohmynews.com/NWS_Web/View/at_pg.aspx?CNTN_CD=A0002959529

17.

Choi

(2024, October 14). Teacher suicides averaging 20 per year: Data. The Korea Herald. https://www.koreaherald.com/article/3493413

18.

Choi

(2023). Distributed leadership promotes teacher self-efficacy in multicultural classrooms through school capacity building: A multilevel SEM approach using US teaching and learning international survey. Educational Administration Quarterly, 59(4), 811–844. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013161x231189196

19.

Choi

Bowers

A. J.

(2026). Beyond single perspectives: Response surface analysis of distributed leadership congruence and teacher satisfaction. Leadership and Policy in Schools. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1080/15700763.2026.2619409

20.

Choi

Kim

(2023, September 4). South Korean teachers hold protest rally after colleague’s death. Reuters. https://www.reuters.com/world/asia-pacific/south-korean-teachers-rally-after-colleagues-death-2023-09-04/

21.

Choi

Lee

Kwon

Eom

(2023). Bulpyeonhan hakbumoneun eotteon gyosareul deo himdeulge halkka?. [Moderating effect of teacher efficacy on the relationship between uncomfortable parents and teacher job satisfaction] Korean Journal of Educational Administration, 41(3), 1–32. https://doi.org/10.22553/keas.2023.41.3.1

22.

Choi

Gümüş

Campbell

C. S. M.

(2025). Principal–teacher perceptual (in)congruence in instructional leadership, teacher collaboration, and organisational trust in Hong Kong schools. Educational Management Administration & Leadership. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1177/17411432251389093

23.

Collie

R. J.

(2023). Job demands and resources, teachers’ subjective vitality, and turnover intentions: An examination during COVID-19. Educational Psychology, 43(5), 452–471. https://doi.org/10.1080/01443410.2022.2036323

24.

Collie

R. J.

Shapka

J. D.

Perry

N. E.

Martin

A. J.

(2015). Teacher well-being: Exploring its components and a practice-oriented scale. Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, 33(8), 744–756. https://doi.org/10.1177/0734282915587990

25.

Conus

Fahrni

(2019). Routine communication between teachers and parents from minority groups: An endless misunderstanding? Educational Review, 71(2), 234–256. https://doi.org/10.1080/00131911.2017.1387098

26.

Cowen Forssell

Berthelsen

Jönsson

. (2026). Negotiating for influence and resources: A study of Swedish teachers’ and principals’ experiences of aggressive emails from parents. Educational Management Administration & Leadership, 54(1), 257–278. https://doi.org/10.1177/17411432241242263

27.

Dahl

(2017). Too much parental cooperation? Parent–teacher cooperation and how it influences professional responsibility among Danish schoolteachers. Power and Education, 9(3), 177–191. https://doi.org/10.1177/1757743817737562

28.

Deci

E. L.

Ryan

R. M.

(2012). Self-determination theory. In Van Lange

P. A. M.

Kruglanski

A. W.

Higgins

E. T.

(Eds.), Handbook of theories of social psychology (pp. 416–436). Sage.

29.

Demerouti

Van den Heuvel

Xanthopoulou

Dubbelt

Gordon

H. J.

(2017). Job resources as contributors to wellbeing. In Cooper

C. L.

Leiter

M. P.

(Eds.), The Routledge companion to wellbeing at work (pp. 269–283). Routledge.

30.

Dreer

(2023). On the outcomes of teacher wellbeing: A systematic review of research. Frontiers in Psychology, 14, 1205179. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2023.1205179

31.

Duckworth

A. L.

Quinn

P. D.

Seligman

M. E. P.

(2009). Positive predictors of teacher effectiveness. Journal of Positive Psychology, 4, 540–547. https://doi.org/10.1080/17439760903157232

32.

Enders

C. K.

Keller

B. T.

Levy

(2018). A fully conditional specification approach to multilevel imputation of categorical and continuous variables. Psychological Methods, 23(2), 298. https://doi.org/10.1037/met0000148

33.

Epstein

J. L.

(2019). Theory to practice: School and family partnerships lead to school improvement and student success. In Werber

Fagnano

(Eds.), School, family, and community interaction (pp. 39–52). Routledge.

34.

Epstein

J. L.

(2018). School, family, and community partnerships, student economy edition: Preparing educators and improving schools. Routledge.

35.

Epstein

J. L.

Sanders

M. G.

Simon

B. S.

Salinas

K. C.

Jansorn

N. R.

Van Vorhis

F. L.

(2002). School, family, and community partnerships. Your handbook for action (2nd ed.). Corwin Press.

36.

Frase

L. E.

Sorenson

(1992). Teacher motivation and satisfaction: Impact on participatory management. NASSP Bulletin, 76(540), 37–43. https://doi.org/10.1177/019263659207654007

37.

Frenzel

A. C.

Pekrun

Goetz

Daniels

L. M.

Durksen

T. L.

Becker-Kurz

Klassen

R. M.

(2016). Measuring teachers’ enjoyment, anger, and anxiety: The Teacher Emotions Scales (TES). Contemporary Educational Psychology, 46, 148–163. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cedpsych.2016.05.003

38.

Frostenson

(2015). Three forms of professional autonomy: De-professionalisation of teachers in a new light. Nordic Journal of Studies in Educational Policy, 2015(2), 28464. https://doi.org/10.3402/nstep.v1.28464

39.

Garbacz

S. A.

Sheridan

S. M.

Koziol

N. A.

Kwon

Holmes

S. R.

(2015). Congruence in parent–teacher communication: Implications for the efficacy of CBC for students with behavioral concerns. School Psychology Review, 44(2), 150–168. https://doi.org/10.17105/spr-14-0035.1

40.

Gong

(2021). Gyoyukjachi damnoneseo sijangjuui·gwallyojuui bipangwa daean tamsaek [Criticism of marketism and bureaucracy in the discourse on education autonomy and seeking alternatives]. Education Review, 48, 165–203. https://doi.org/10.23119/er.2021.48.165

41.

Gong

S. E.

(2023, October 5). South Korea teachers seek protection from harassment by students’ parents. National Public Radio. https://www.npr.org/2023/10/05/1203824654/south-korea-teachers-seek-protection-from-harassment-by-students-parents

42.

Graham

J. W.

Olchowski

A. E.

Gilreath

T. D.

(2007). How many imputations are really needed? Some practical clarifications of multiple imputation theory. Prevention Science, 8, 206–213. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11121-007-0070-9

43.

Guk

Lee

(2022). Godeunghakgyo gyosa jikmumanjokdowa yecheukyoin tamsaek [Exploring high school teacher’s job satisfaction and predictors]. The Journal of Korean Teacher Education, 39(4), 315–341. https://doi.org/10.24211/tjkte.2022.39.4.315

44.

Gümüş

Hallinger

Cansoy

Bellibaş

M. Ş

. (2021). Instructional leadership in a centralized and competitive educational system: A qualitative meta-synthesis of research from Turkey. Journal of Educational Administration, 59(6), 702–720. https://doi.org/10.1108/jea-04-2021-0073

45.

Haisraeli

Fogiel-Bijaoui

(2023). Parental involvement in school pedagogy: A threat or a promise? Educational Review, 75(4), 597–616. https://doi.org/10.1080/00131911.2021.1935489

46.

Hallinger

Liu

Aung

P. N.

Yan

(2025). A systematic review of instructional leadership research conducted with the Principal Instructional Management Rating Scale (PIMRS), 1983–2024. Educational Management Administration & Leadership. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1177/17411432251358575

47.

Han

(2023, July 20). Seocho chodeunggyosa samang, yakjae gipieommu naemoneun ‘hakgyo’ jalmoseun eomna [The death of an elementary school teacher in Seocho: Is the “school” to blame for assigning undesirable tasks to those in vulnerable positions?]. Pressian. https://www.pressian.com/pages/articles/2023072018333227563

48.

Harding

Evans

Morris

Gunnell

Ford

Hollingworth

Tilling

Bell

Grey

Brockman

Campbell

Araya

Murphy

Kidger

(2019). Is teachers’ mental health and wellbeing associated with students’ mental health and wellbeing? Journal of Affective Disorders, 242, 180–187. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jad.2018.08.080

49.

Hargreaves

(2000a) Four ages of professionalism and professional learning. Teachers and Teaching, 6(2), 151–182. https://doi.org/10.1080/713698714

50.

Hargreaves

(2000b) Professional and parents: Personal adversaries or public allies? Prospects, 30, 201–213. https://doi.org/10.1007/bf02754066

51.

Hascher

Waber

(2021). Teacher well-being: A systematic review of the research literature from the year 2000–2019. Educational Research Review, 34, 100411. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev.2021.100411

52.

Hascher

Beltman

Mansfield

(2021). Teacher wellbeing and resilience: Towards an integrative model. Educational Research, 63(4), 416–439. https://doi.org/10.1080/00131881.2021.1980416

53.

Hong

(2025, May 8). Gyogwon chimhae jung jeolbaneun hakbumoga wonin…chimhae yuhyeongeun myeongye hweson·moyok deung gajang manha [Half of teacher rights violations are caused by parents… The most common types of violations are defamation and insults]. Kyung-In Broadcasting. https://news.ifm.kr/news/articleView.html?idxno=441905

54.

Hong

W. P.

Youngs

(2016). Why are teachers afraid of curricular autonomy? Contradictory effects of the new national curriculum in South Korea. Asia Pacific Journal of Education, 36(1), 20–33. https://doi.org/10.1080/02188791.2014.959471

55.

Huang

F. L.

(2016). Alternatives to multilevel modeling for the analysis of clustered data. The Journal of Experimental Education, 84(1), 175–196. https://doi.org/10.1080/00220973.2014.952397

56.

Hyeon

(2025, October 20). North Jeolla teachers’ unions accuse parent of harassment after student is reprimanded for smoking. Korea JoongAng Daily. https://koreajoongangdaily.joins.com/news/2025-10-20/national/socialAffairs/North-Jeolla-Teachers-unions-accuse-parent-of-harassment-after-student-is-reprimanded-for-smoking/2424330

57.

Ingersoll

R. M.

(2006). Who controls teachers’ work? Power and accountability in America’s schools. Harvard University Press.

58.

Ingersoll

R. M.

Smith

T. M.

(2004). Do teacher induction and mentoring matter? NASSP Bull, 88, 28–40. https://doi.org/10.1177/019263650408863803

59.

Jang

Lim

Lee

Kim

(2023). Hakbumoui janyeogyoyuk gidae gwallyeon yoin tamsaek: KELS 2005, 2013 kohoteu bigyoreul jungsimeuro [Exploring the factors relating to parents’ expectations for children’s education: Focusing on the KELS 2005, 2013 cohort comparison]. Asian Journal of Education, 24(2), 371–392. https://doi.org/10.15753/aje.2023.6.24.2.371

60.

Jerrim

Morgan

Sims

(2023). Teacher autonomy: Good for pupils? Good for teachers? British Educational Research Journal, 49(6), 1187–1209. https://doi.org/10.1002/berj.3892

61.

Khalifa

(2012). A re-new-ed paradigm in successful urban school leadership: Principal as community leader. Educational Administration Quarterly, 48(3), 424–467. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013161x11432922

62.

Kim

(2025). Gyosa jayulseongeun jikmumanjokdoreul nopineunga? - TALIS 2018 junghakgyo gyosa jaryo bunseok [Does teacher autonomy improve job satisfaction? An analysis of TALIS 2018 data from Korean lower secondary teachers]. Korean Journal of Teacher Education, 41(5), 69–99. https://doi.org/10.14333/kjte.2025.41.5.03

63.

Kim

(2024). Hakgyo gyumoe ttareun gyosa manjokdo yecheuk yoin tamsaek [An analysis of factors influencing teacher satisfaction by school size]. Korean Journal of Educational Administration, 42(5), 231–254. https://doi.org/10.22553/keas.2024.42.5.231

64.

Kim

(2022). Fifty years of parental involvement and achievement research: A second-order meta-analysis. Educational Research Review, 37, 100463. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev.2022.100463

65.

Kim

(2025, January 4). Gyowonjiwibeop gaejeongedo yeojeonhi bohobatji motaneun gyogwon [Teacher rights still unprotected despite the revision of the Teacher Status Act]. Education Media [Chang]. https://www.educhang.co.kr/news/articleView.html?idxno=5439

66.

Kim

(2014). Gyosadeuri gidaehaneun ‘gyoyukgwajeong jayulgwon’ tamsaek [An inquiry on teachers’ expectation of ‘curriculum autonomy’]. Asian Journal of Education, 15(4), 55–79. https://doi.org/10.15753/aje.2014.15.4.003

67.

Kim

(2023). Hakgyopongnyeok chukso·eunpye yangsange daehan jiljeok sarye bunseok [Qualitative case analysis on the aspect of schools’ concealment of school violence]. The Journal of Politics of Education, 30(1), 155–187. https://doi.org/10.52183/kspe.2023.30.1.155

68.

Kim

(2022). Hyeoksin chodeunghakgyo hakbumoga gyeongheomhan uisasotong teukseong yeongu [A study on communication characteristics experienced by parents in innovation elementary school]. Journal of Learner-Centered Curriculum and Instruction, 22(12), 711–735. https://doi.org/10.22251/jlcci.2022.22.12.711

69.

King

R. B.

Yin

Allen

K. A.

(2023). Re-imagining teaching, learning, and well-being amidst the COVID pandemic: Challenges, opportunities, and recommendations. Educational and Developmental Psychologist, 40(1), 1–4. https://doi.org/10.1080/20590776.2023.2148827

70.

Koh

(2019). Chodeunghakgyo gyosaga insikhan gyosuhwaldongui jayulseongeul jeyakhaneun yoine daehan gaenyeomdo yeongu [Factors inhibiting primary school teachers’ perceived autonomy of teaching activities]. Journal of Learner-Centered Curriculum and Instruction, 19(5), 263–286. https://doi.org/10.22251/jlcci.2019.19.5.263

71.

Korean Federation of Teachers’ Associations. (2024). Je-43-hoe seuseungui nal ginyeom gyowon insik seolmunjosa gyeolgwa [Results of the 43rd Teachers’ Day commemorative teacher perception survey]. https://www.kfta.or.kr/usr/wap/detail.do?app=16527&seq=240513000000

72.

Kwon

Kim

(2015). Gyosaui gwanjeomeseo bon hakbumoui sobija jugwonjeok taedowa geue ttareun gyosaui wichuk mit jeongcheseong byeonhwa [The parents’ attitude of consumer sovereignty and the subsequent teachers’ withdrawal with identity change as the point of view of teachers]. The Journal of Educational Research, 13(3), 83–109. https://www.dbpia.co.kr/journal/articleDetail?nodeId=NODE10875300

73.

Labaree

D. F.

(1997). Public goods, private goods: The American struggle over educational goals. American Educational Research Journal, 34(1), 39–81. https://doi.org/10.3102/00028312034001039

74.

Lasky

(2000). The cultural and emotional politics of teacher–parent interactions. Teaching and Teacher Education, 16(8), 843–860. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0742-051x(00)00030-5

75.

Lawson

(2004). Teacher autonomy: Power or control? Education 3-13, 32(3), 3–18. https://doi.org/10.1080/03004270485200261

76.

Lee

Seo

Choi

Lim

(2023). Chodeung gyosaga insikhaneun hakbumowaui uisasotong eoryeoumi gyojik manjokdoe michineun yeonghyang: Uisasotong neungnyeogui yeonghyangeul jungsimeuro [The effect of parent-teacher communication difficulties perceived by elementary school teachers on their job satisfaction: The effect of interpersonal communication competence]. The Journal of Korean Teacher Education, 40(2), 83–109. https://doi.org/10.24211/tjkte.2023.40.2.83

77.

Lee

Kim

(2017). Hakbumowaui hyudaejeonhwa uisasotongeuro inhan chodeunggyosa seuteureseue gwanhan sarye yeongu [A case study on elementary school teachers’ stress caused by mobile communication with parents]. The Journal of Korean Teacher Education, 34(1), 25–50. https://doi.org/10.24211/tjkte.2017.34.1.25

78.

Leenders

de Jong

Monfrance

Haelermans

(2019). Building strong parent–teacher relationships in primary education: The challenge of two-way communication. Cambridge Journal of Education, 49(4), 519–533. https://doi.org/10.1080/0305764x.2019.1566442

79.

Hung

(2012). The interactive effects of perceived parental involvement and personality on teacher satisfaction. Journal of Educational Administration, 50(4), 501–518. https://doi.org/10.1108/09578231211238611

80.

Lin

Liu

Johnson

Loyalka

(2019). The prevalence of parent-teacher interaction in developing countries and its effect on student outcomes. Teaching and Teacher Education, 86, 102878. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2019.102878

81.

Lim

S. A.

Jung

Y. H.

(2019). Chodeunggyosaga insikhaneun hakbumowaui uisasotong eoryeoumi gyojikmanjokdoe michineun yeonghyang: Uisasotongneungnyeokui yeonghyangeul jungsimeuro [Analysis on the perception of teacher autonomy of elementary school teachers: Using semantic network analysis method]. The Journal of Elementary Education, 32(2), 101–118. https://doi.org/10.29096/jee.32.2.05

82.

Lin

(2022). The relationship between distributed leadership and teacher innovativeness: Mediating roles of teacher autonomy and professional collaboration. Frontiers in Psychology, 13, 948152. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2022.948152

83.

Littlewood

(1999). Defining and developing autonomy in East Asian contexts. Applied Linguistics, 20(1), 71–94. https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/20.1.71

84.

Mackenzie

(2023, September 3). Teacher suicide exposes parent bullying in S Korea. BBC. https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-66655572

85.

Marco

Gilead

Ehrenfeld

Nurick

(2025). Teachers in provisional schools for displaced students: Navigating challenges, autonomy, and responses. Teaching and Teacher Education, 154, 104868. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2024.104868

86.

Meier

Lemmer

(2019). Parents as consumers: A case study of parent satisfaction with the quality of schooling. Educational Review, 71(5), 617–630. https://doi.org/10.1080/00131911.2018.1465395

87.

Mendoza

N. B.

King

R. B.

Haw

J. Y.

(2023). The mental health and well-being of students and teachers during the COVID-19 pandemic: Combining classical statistics and machine learning approaches. Educational Psychology, 43(5), 430–451. https://doi.org/10.1080/01443410.2023.2226846

88.

Minke

Sheridan

Kim

Ryoo

Koziol

(2014). Congruence in parent-teacher relationships: The role of shared perceptions. The Elementary School Journal, 114(4), 527–546. https://doi.org/10.1086/675637

89.

Munthe

Westergård

(2023). Parents’, teachers’, and students’ roles in parent-teacher conferences: A systematic review and meta-synthesis. Teaching and Teacher Education, 136, 104355. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2023.104355

90.

Myende

P. E.

Nhlumayo

B. S.

(2022). Enhancing parent–teacher collaboration in rural schools: Parents’ voices and implications for schools. International Journal of Leadership in Education, 25(3), 490–514. https://doi.org/10.1080/13603124.2020.1731764

91.

Nguyen

See

B. H.

Brown

Kokotsaki

(2026). Leadership for teacher retention: Exploring the evidence base on why and how to support teacher autonomy, development, and voice. Oxford Review of Education, 52(1), 96–116. https://doi.org/10.1080/03054985.2024.2432635

92.

Nguyen

X. N. C. M.

Walkinshaw

(2018). Autonomy in teaching practice: Insights from Vietnamese English language teachers trained in Inner-Circle countries. Teaching and Teacher Education, 69, 21–32. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2017.08.015

93.

Noordegraaf

(2020). Protective or connective professionalism? How connected professionals can (still) act as autonomous and authoritative experts. Journal of Professions and Organization, 7(2), 205–223. https://doi.org/10.1093/jpo/joaa011

94.

Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD). (2024). PISA 2022 [Technical report]. OECD Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1787/01820d6d-en.

95.

Pakarinen

Kiuru

Lerkkanen

Poikkeus

Siekkien

Nurmi

(2010). Classroom organization and teacher stress predict learning motivation in kindergarten children. European Journal of Psychology of Education, 25, 281–300. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10212-010-0025-6

96.

Paradis

Lutovac

Jokikokko

Kaasila

(2018). Canadian and Finnish upper-secondary school mathematics teachers’ perceptions of autonomy. Pedagogy, Culture & Society, 26(3), 381–396. https://doi.org/10.1080/14681366.2017.1407957

97.

Park

(2024, April 5). Gaejeong gyowonjiwibeop, eotteoke bakkwieosseulkka? [How has the Revised Teacher Status Act changed?]. Hanguk Gyoyuk News. https://www.hangyo.com/news/article.html?no=101301

98.

Park

(2024, October 23). Hakbumowa gyosa, sangchunghaneun siseon ditgo gyoyukgongdongchero naagal haebeobeun? [What is the solution for moving toward an educational community by overcoming the conflicting perspectives between parents and teachers?]. Kukminilbo. https://www.kmib.co.kr/article/view.asp?arcid=0020650404&code=61221111&cp=nv

99.

Parker

(2015). Teachers’ autonomy. Research in Education, 93(1), 19–33. https://doi.org/10.7227/RIE.0008

100.

Pitt

(2010). On having one’s chance: Autonomy as education’s limit. Educational Theory, 60(1), 1–18. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1741-5446.2009.00342.x

101.

Prichard

Moore

(2016). The balance of teacher autonomy and top-down coordination in ESOL programs. TESOL Quarterly, 50(1), 190–201. https://doi.org/10.1002/tesq.278

102.

Rains

C. L.

Gann

(2024). The influences of overparenting on teachers: Perspectives from middle and high school teachers in an independent school. School Community Journal, 34(1), 335–356. https://www.adi.org/journal/SS2024/Rains&Gann.pdf

103.

Rashid

(2023, September 8). Abused, traumatised and powerless: South Korea’s teachers on why they are protesting. The Guardian. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/sep/08/south-korea-teacher-protest-why-are-teachers-protesting

104.

Rubin

D. B.

(1987). Multiple imputation for nonresponse in surveys. Wiley.

105.

Ryan

R. M.

Deci

E. L.

(2000). Self-determination theory and the facilitation of intrinsic motivation, social development, and well-being. American Psychologist, 55(1), 68. https://doi.org/10.1037//0003-066x.55.1.68

106.

Sandilos

L. E.

Hindman

A. H.

Lathrop

(2023). Toward a coherent and comprehensive approach to teacher well-being: A synthesis of theory and review of intervention research. Review of Research in Education, 47(1), 274–310. https://doi.org/10.3102/0091732x231210246

107.

Sandmeier

Baeriswyl

Krause

Muehlhausen

(2022). Work until you drop: Effects of work overload, prolonging working hours, and autonomy need satisfaction on exhaustion in teachers. Teaching and Teacher Education, 118, 103843. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2022.103843

108.

Santiago

R. T.

Garbacz

S. A.

Beattie

Moore

C. L.

(2016). Parent–teacher relationships in elementary school: An examination of parent-teacher trust. Psychology in the Schools, 53(10), 1003–1017. https://doi.org/10.1002/pits.21971

109.

Schwartz

(2015). The paradox of choice. In Joseph

(Ed.), Positive psychology in practice: Promoting human flourishing in work, health, education, and everyday life (pp. 121–138). Wiley.

110.

Seo

J. H.

(2024, February 27). Gov’t recognizes late teacher’s suicide as death in line of duty. The Korea Times. https://www.koreatimes.co.kr/www/nation/2024/07/113_369617.html

111.

Shin

(2020). Gyoyukgongdongche gwanjeomeseo bon gyosa-hakbumo gan hyeomnyeok gwaje: Hakbumoui gyoyukgwanyeoreul jungsimeuro [Educational community-based teacher–parent collaboration: Focused on parent involvement]. Korean Journal of Parents and Guardians, 7(3), 1–18. https://doi.org/10.56034/kjpg.2020.7.3.1

112.

Skaalvik

E. M.

Skaalvik

(2020). Teacher burnout: Relations between dimensions of burnout, perceived school context, job satisfaction and motivation for teaching. A longitudinal study. Teachers and Teaching, 26(7–8), 602–616. https://doi.org/10.1080/13540602.2021.1913404

113.

Strong

L. E.

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

114.

Sung

Y. T.

J. S.

(2018). The visual analogue scale for rating, ranking and paired-comparison (VAS-RRP): A new technique for psychological measurement. Behavior Research Methods, 50, 1694–1715. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13428-018-1041-8

115.

Tett

(2004). Parents and school communities in Japan and Scotland: Contrasts in policy and practice in primary schools. International Journal of Lifelong Education, 23(3), 259–273. https://doi.org/10.1080/0260/37042000229228

116.

Thompson

B. C.

Mazer

J. P.

Flood Grady

(2015). The changing nature of parent–teacher communication: Mode selection in the smartphone era. Communication Education, 64(2), 187–207. https://doi.org/10.1080/03634523.2015.1014382

117.

Hejtmanek

Wachman

(Eds.). (1992). The Confucian world observed: A contemporary discussion of Confucian humanism in East Asia. University of Hawaii Press.

118.

Unruh

(2024). Too much of a good thing? Teacher performance during the COVID-19 pandemic and the ambiguous role of high teacher autonomy. International Journal of Educational Research Open, 7, 100353. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijedro.2024.100353

119.

Van Horn

J. E.

Taris

T. W.

Schaufeli

W. B.

Schreurs

P. J. G

. (2004). The structure of occupational well-being: A study among Dutch teachers. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 77, 365–375. https://doi.org/10.1348/0963179041752718

120.

Vangrieken

Grosemans

Dochy

Kyndt

(2017). Teacher autonomy and collaboration: A paradox? Conceptualising and measuring teachers’ autonomy and collaborative attitude. Teaching and Teacher Education, 67, 302–315. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2017.06.021

121.

Weigl

Forstner

(2021). Design of paper-based visual analogue scale items. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 81(3), 595–611. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013164420952118

122.

Wermke

Höstfält

(2014). Contextualizing teacher autonomy in time and space: A model for comparing various forms of governing the teaching profession. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 46(1), 58–80. https://doi.org/10.1080/00220272.2013.812681

123.

Wermke

Salokangas

(2021). The autonomy paradox: Teachers’ perceptions of self-governance across Europe (Vol. 4). Springer.

124.

Wermke

Olason Rick

Salokangas

(2019). Decision-making and control: Perceived autonomy of teachers in Germany and Sweden. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 51(3), 306–325. https://doi.org/10.1080/00220272.2018.1482960

125.

Worth

Van den Brande

(2020). Teacher autonomy: How does it relate to job satisfaction and retention? National Foundation for Educational Research.

126.

Yang

Jeon

Choi

(2025). Associations between time spent communicating with parents, teacher self-efficacy, and stress: The role of professional development. International Journal of Educational Research Open, 9, 100500. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijedro.2025.100500

127.

Yang

M. S.

Kim

J. H.

Lee

H. K.

(2016). Jeonmunjeok jabonui gwanjeomeseo bon hyeonjikgyowongyoyugui gaenyeomgwa wolli [The concept and the principles of in-service teacher education in the perspective of professional capital]. The Journal of Korean Teacher Education, 33(1), 51–71. https://doi.org/10.24211/tjkte.2016.33.1.51

128.

Yeung

Seo

Bae

(2023, September 5). South Korean teachers hold mass protests after suicide highlights pressures from parents. CNN. https://www.cnn.com/2023/09/05/asia/south-korea-teachers-protest-suicide-intl-hnk/index.html

129.

Zhang

(2021). How can we improve teacher’s work engagement? Based on Chinese experiences. Frontiers in Psychology, 12, 1–12. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2021.721450

130.

Zhou

(2020). The “too-much-of-a-good-thing” effect of job autonomy and its explanation mechanism. Psychology, 11(2), 299–313. https://doi.org/10.4236/psych.2020.112019

131.

Zhou

Slemp

G. R.

Vella-Brodrick

D. A.

(2024). Factors associated with teacher wellbeing: A meta-analysis. Educational Psychology Review, 36(2), 63. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-024-09941-7

132.

Zulauf

Zinsser

(2019). Forestalling preschool expulsion: A mixed-method exploration of the potential protective role of teachers’ perceptions of parents. American Educational Research Journal, 56(6), 2189–2220. https://doi.org/10.3102/0002831219838236

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.

0.19 MB

0.00 MB