This chapter examines the autonomy and leadership opportunities experienced by teachers and how these resources relate to teachers’ professional outcomes, such as their fulfilment of lesson aims, well-being and job satisfaction. It explores the extent to which teachers are involved in school-level decision making, how much autonomy they report over their teaching practice, and whether they have opportunities to assume professional leadership roles. It also analyses how these dimensions relate to teachers' self-efficacy.
Results from TALIS 2024
The State of Teaching
Abstract
The involvement of teachers in school-level policy decisions affecting their practice is declining in many education systems. According to principals, between 2018 and 2024, teachers' involvement in setting student assessment policies declined by an average of 3 percentage points on average across OECD education systems. Longer-term trends from 2013 to 2024 show even sharper drops – over 20 percentage points in countries like Serbia and Singapore. Only in Shanghai (People’s Republic of China, hereafter “China”), is there an increase in teacher involvement between 2018 and 2024.
Opportunities for school-level agency are more common in rural and publicly managed schools. On average across OECD education systems, 78% of teachers report that their school provides opportunities to participate in decision making, but this is more common in rural than in urban schools (on average 8 percentage-point difference). Teachers in publicly managed schools also report greater opportunities for participation than those in privately managed schools (a 2 percentage-point average difference), with gaps reaching over 14 percentage points in countries such as Japan and Singapore.
Teachers with higher instructional autonomy are more likely to report higher adaptability in their instruction, greater job satisfaction and greater well-being. On average across OECD education systems, teachers with higher autonomy over instructional decisions – such as designing lessons, selecting teaching methods, and implementing the curriculum with flexibility – are more likely to report being able to tailor instruction to students’ needs, in most cases by a large margin. They also report higher job satisfaction and lower stress. These relationships are consistent across most education systems, even after accounting for teacher and school characteristics.
The autonomy that teachers have is not necessarily dependent on their experience. Across education systems, novice and experienced teachers often report similar levels of autonomy in instructional decisions. However, more experienced teachers (those with over ten years of experience) report greater autonomy in areas like selecting teaching methods, on average across OECD education systems. Korea and Costa Rica show a reverse pattern: novice teachers (those with under five years of experience) report higher autonomy than their experienced peers, by at least 8 percentage points across all areas in Korea, and by over 14 percentage points in selecting learning objectives and implementing the curriculum flexibly in Costa Rica.
Autonomy relates positively to teacher confidence, but education systems need to consider how, when and to whom it is granted. TALIS data show that teachers who report higher levels of autonomy are also more likely to feel confident in their classroom management and teaching. This positive relationship between autonomy and self-efficacy is stronger and more consistent among experienced teachers. This suggests that systems might consider teachers’ needs and profiles when determining how much autonomy they should have.
Empowering teachers as leaders – within schools and beyond – increases job satisfaction. Teachers who are actively involved in school decisions, encouraged to lead initiatives, or believe they can influence education policy report higher levels of job satisfaction. This pattern holds across nearly all education systems, suggesting that autonomy and professional agency can contribute to teachers' sense of professional purpose and engagement.
One of the most important policies an education system can make is to determine how much decision-making authority to give to teachers. On one hand, education systems want to ensure that high-quality education is delivered consistently. On the other hand, teachers know their students and are best positioned to adapt instruction to their diverse needs. This includes setting teaching goals, choosing pedagogical methods and navigating wider institutional expectations (Biesta, Priestley and Robinson, 2015[1]). When allocated strategically, teacher authority in decision making can be a powerful resource in improving the school environment and student learning.
Decision making in education systems is often structured through decision transfers, that is, the delegation of authority from central bodies to schools and, within schools, to teachers. While school-level decision making has long been a focus in education governance, there is increasing recognition that teacher-level autonomy, particularly in pedagogical and classroom decisions, is equally essential to effective school functioning and professional satisfaction (OECD, 2018[2]).
Teachers’ day-to-day discretion includes selecting teaching materials, setting learning objectives, choosing assessment strategies and adapting pedagogy. These forms of instructional autonomy are not evenly distributed. In some education systems, more discretion is given to experienced teachers, while novice teachers operate within narrower, more prescriptive frameworks. Having autonomy influences not only how teachers work, but also how they perceive themselves as professionals (Hargreaves and Fullan, 2012[3]).
This chapter draws on data from the 2024 cycle of the Teaching and Learning International Survey (TALIS) to examine the decisions teachers make in different education systems. Specifically, it explores whether teachers have the opportunity to participate in decision making at the school level (school governance), whether they believe they can contribute to school leadership, and the extent of discretion they have over their classroom practice (instructional autonomy). This chapter also analyses whether these perceptions vary according to teacher characteristics (e.g. teachers’ gender, age and teaching experience [hereafter “teacher characteristics”]) or school characteristics (e.g. school location, school governance type, school intake of students from socio-economically disadvantaged homes, school intake of students who have difficulties understanding the language(s) of instruction, and school intake of students with special education needs [hereafter “school characteristics”]), and whether these beliefs have changed since previous TALIS cycles. Finally, this chapter examines how these factors relate to teachers’ professional outcomes, including teacher well-being, job satisfaction, and the fulfilment of their lesson aims, as well as the extent to which their autonomy is oriented through formal appraisal.
A key dimension of teacher decision making is the extent to which teachers are involved in making decisions that affect the functioning of their schools (Hargreaves and Fullan, 2012[3]). In education research, distributed leadership is understood as a model in which leadership roles and responsibilities are shared among multiple actors within a school, including teachers (Muijs and Harris, 2006[4]). This is a form of agency – the capacity of individuals to act with purpose and influence (Biesta, Priestley and Robinson, 2015[1]) – that recognises the professional expertise of teachers and encourages their involvement in shaping classroom practice and school culture (OECD, 2018[2]).
Statutory rules and the way in which decision making is distributed in schools can play an important role in determining teachers’ leadership responsibilities. Previous TALIS reports have shown that school leaders often share responsibility with teachers for key areas of school policy, particularly curriculum and instruction (OECD, 2020[5]). Shared decision-making arrangements are horizontal transfers of responsibility from the school leadership to the professional teaching staff (see Box 5.1). As will be discussed in this chapter, teachers who are actively involved in such leadership roles often report higher levels of job satisfaction and professional well-being (Tables 5.62 and 5.61).
Participation in school governance
TALIS 2024 asks school principals whether teachers have “significant responsibility” in a number of areas at the school level: curriculum and instruction, setting school policies, and budget and staffing. Such involvement not only reflects the formal delegation of authority from school leadership but also signals a broader culture of professional trust and collaborative governance.
Curriculum and instruction
At the school level, teachers are more involved in areas and tasks more closely related to instruction, according to principal reports,1 and as addressed in previous TALIS reports (OECD, 2020[5]). Three out of four teachers (77%) work in schools where they have significant responsibility in choosing learning materials, on average across OECD countries and territories with available data (hereafter, “on average”) (Figure 5.1). At least five out of ten teachers work in such schools in 41 out of 54 education systems participating in TALIS with available data (hereafter, “education systems”). Over nine out of ten teachers in Austria, Denmark, Estonia, Iceland, Italy, the Netherlands*, Poland and Slovenia have such responsibility, while fewer than two out of ten teachers in Uzbekistan do (Table 5.1).
Teachers also play an important role in making decisions about the use of digital resources for instruction. In 40 of 54 education systems, at least one in two teachers has significant responsibility in this area. In contrast, fewer teachers are involved in determining course content. On average, some 47% of teachers work in schools where they have significant responsibility in this area (Table 5.1).
Moreover, teachers are more involved in decisions around course content in privately managed schools than in publicly managed schools in 13 education systems, with an average difference of 11 percentage points. While there are no differences by school type in most education systems, among those that do report differences, only Singapore shows more teachers in publicly managed schools reporting involvement in decisions around course content (Table 5.4).
When it comes to deciding which courses are offered, on average, only 33% of teachers work in schools where they have significant responsibility. In most education systems, this responsibility lies primarily with school leadership. However, in Czechia, Estonia, Finland, Iceland, Italy, the Netherlands*, and Serbia, at least one out of two teachers participates in such decisions. This sort of responsibility is virtually non-existent in Saudi Arabia (Table 5.1).
While differences across schools are not the norm, in seven education systems, more teachers working in privately managed schools are involved in determining which courses are offered compared to those working in publicly managed schools, according to principals, with an average difference of 5 percentage points. Singapore is the only education system where more teachers working in publicly managed schools decide on which courses are offered (Table 5.5).
* For countries highlighted with an asterisk (*), estimates should be interpreted with caution due to higher risk of non-response bias. See the Reader's Guide and Annex A for more detail.
Percentage of lower secondary teachers working in schools where they have a significant responsibility for the following areas
Note: *Estimates should be interpreted with caution due to higher risk of non-response bias.
Results based on responses of principals.
Source: OECD, TALIS 2024 Database, Table 5.1.
School policies
Teachers’ influence on school policies is more limited. On average, fewer than one out of two teachers are reported to work in schools where they have significant responsibility for the school policies measured, including those related to school improvement, student assessment, discipline and diversity. However, as shown by the dispersion of results across education systems in Figure 5.2, the role of teachers in determining school policies varies considerably.
Fewer than four out of ten teachers, on average, work in schools where they are involved in defining school improvement priorities. There is some variation, however, depending on the education system. For example, at least five out of ten teachers in Estonia, Korea, the Netherlands* and Slovenia are involved in defining school improvement priorities, while fewer than one in ten teachers in Saudi Arabia and Viet Nam are involved (Table 5.2).
Similarly, four out of ten teachers work in schools where they are involved in setting student assessment policies (including national and regional assessments) on average. While there is great variation across education systems, teachers appear to be becoming less involved in setting student assessment policies at the school level. On average, there is a decrease of 3 percentage points between 2018 and 2024. Additionally, changes in long-term trends are numerous and can be substantial. In 15 education systems, the decline between 2013 and 2024 ranges from 8 percentage points in Spain to more than 20 percentage points in Serbia and Singapore. Only in Shanghai (China) is there an increase in teacher participation in this form of school-level decision making between 2018 and 2024 (Table 5.6).
Percentage of lower secondary teachers working in schools where they have a significant responsibility for the following areas
Note: *Estimates should be interpreted with caution due to higher risk of non-response bias.
Results based on responses of principals.
Source: OECD, TALIS 2024 Database, Table 5.2.
While differences by school type are not the norm, when they do occur, it is mostly teachers in privately managed schools who are reported to be involved in establishing assessment policies (nine education systems), with an average difference of 10 percentage points. Only in Singapore do more teachers in publicly managed schools report involvement in this area, according to school principals (Table 5.8).
Almost four out of ten teachers work in schools where they are involved in setting student disciplinary policies and procedures (39% on average). This involvement is particularly high in Czechia, Iceland and Slovenia, where more than 67% of teachers are involved, but it is less prevalent in Saudi Arabia, Sweden and Uzbekistan, where it is less than 5% (5.2). However, trends suggest that teacher involvement in this practice is also decreasing. There is an average decline of 3 percentage points between 2018 and 2024 across OECD education systems, and longer trends (2013 to 2024) show a decline in 13 education systems. Only in Japan and Shanghai (China) are there positive increases between 2018 and 2024 (around 11 percentage points) and in Korea for the longer trends (around 18 percentage points) (Table 5.6).
In ten education systems, teachers working in privately managed schools are reported to have more involvement in decision making about disciplinary policies and practices than teachers in publicly managed schools, with an average difference of 8 percentage points. However, in Costa Rica, the opposite is true, with a gap of over 26 percentage points (Table 5.9).
When it comes to policies on student diversity, teacher involvement concerns about 38% of teachers on average. The figure exceeds 67% in Estonia, Finland, Latvia, and Slovenia but is below 10% in Morocco, Saudi Arabia, Singapore and Uzbekistan. In contrast, policies on teacher diversity remain largely outside the purview of teachers. Only 20% of teachers are significantly involved, and in most systems, the figure is considerably lower. Estonia and Finland are notable exceptions, at just over 50% (Table 5.2).
Budget and staffing
Teachers across education systems have virtually no significant involvement in budget and staffing policies, such as dismissing or suspending teachers from employment, establishing teachers’ starting salaries and determining teachers’ salary increases. In some contexts, a very small number of teachers may have responsibility for appointing or hiring teachers (only in Denmark and the Netherlands* do slightly more than one in two teachers have this responsibility). Teachers rarely have significant responsibility for decisions on budget allocation within a school (6% on average). The only exceptions are Korea and Latvia, where 25% and 21% of teachers, respectively, work in schools where they have this responsibility, based on principals’ reports (Table 5.3).
Slovenia
As part of the reform of its gimnazija (general upper secondary), Slovenia created school development teams, drawing on the concepts of distributed leadership, learning communities, and teachers as change agents.
With the support of school leaders, these teams promoted, steered and co-ordinated development processes in schools, through activities such as needs analysis and structured dialogue. School development teams also had support from the National Education Institute.
The reform aimed to:
encourage individual teachers and interdisciplinary teams to adopt innovative teaching practices that promote higher-order thinking and key competences
embed and sustain these changes at the school level through strategic planning, co-ordination, and whole-school implementation.
Initially, the primary focus was on the first of these aims, but it has since shifted to the second. The reform aimed to foster educational innovation by building professional capacity at the school level. To support this, it has expanded professional development and research networks, strengthened leadership, and invested in teaching and learning infrastructure.
The whole reform lasted around ten years. Ten schools participated in the initial pilot phase, which lasted three years. The reform was then rolled out to all gimnazija (more than 70 schools). Evidence shows that the key driver of change was the teachers, who took the lead in shaping reforms using nationally provided materials and support.
Colombia
The General Education Law (Ley General de Educación), enacted in 1994, established the framework for school governance in Colombia. Specifically, it outlined the roles and responsibilities of the School Governing Board and the Academic Council (Consejo Directivo and Consejo Académico), ensuring that teachers, along with other stakeholders, have a voice in the administrative and academic affairs of schools. Through their participation in these boards, teachers are given a say in the organisation, pedagogical orientation, implementation and continuous improvement of the school curriculum and study plan.
In Colombia, the school calendar furthermore includes five weeks dedicated to institutional development, during which teachers work on the school’s educational project, its study plan, pedagogical developments, self-evaluation and partnerships with other institutions. Colombian teachers are also involved in the design and implementation of education policy more widely (see Box 5.4).
Source: Congreso de la República de Colombia (1994[6]), General Education Law (Law No. 115 of 1994), https://globalfoodlaws.georgetown.edu/documents/law-115-1994-general-education-law-colombia/; OECD (2016[7]), Education Policy Outlook: Slovenia, https://www.oecd.org/content/dam/oecd/en/about/projects/edu/education-policy-outlook/398027-Education-Policy-Outlook-Country-Profile-Slovenia.pdf; OECD (2019[8]), Working and Learning Together: Rethinking Human Resource Policies for Schools, https://doi.org/10.1787/b7aaf050-en.
Teachers’ opportunities for leadership
Distributed leadership and teacher leadership are closely related, yet conceptually distinct. Distributed leadership, as addressed above, involves the delegation of authority, though the school principal may still retain final decision-making control (Harris, 2004[9]). In contrast, actual teacher leadership is the formal or informal recognition of teachers as leaders among their peers and school staff (Wenner and Campbell, 2016[10]). There has been much debate in the literature on how best to develop teacher leadership, how to encourage meaningful teacher participation in school decision making and how to ensure that such involvement improves teaching practices (Al-Yaseen and Al-Musaileem, 2013[11]; Yismaw and Bekalu, 2016[12]; Wenner and Campbell, 2016[10]). Yet, a consistent finding is that actual teacher leadership thrives in environments where leadership is genuinely shared – where decision making is distributed in name and supported by structures that enable teachers to shape school life (Oppi, Eisenschmidt and Jõgi, 2022[13]; Wenner and Campbell, 2016[10]; Gülmez, 2022[14])
This form of actual leadership can be grasped in how teachers perceive their opportunities to influence school decisions and take on leadership roles. In fact, much of teachers' agency can take place while they are engaged in other activities that overlap in time with their more structured duties. The question, then, is whether teachers believe that their schools provide sufficient opportunities for them to do so. TALIS 2024 offers valuable insights into teachers' perceptions of these opportunities in a number of areas.
TALIS shows differences between principals' and teachers' reports on leadership opportunities (OECD, 2020[5]). This misalignment may be partially explained by differences in perspective and the way the survey items are framed. For example, principals may provide a broader, more institutional perspective when describing the allocation of leadership responsibilities, potentially informed by formal policies, statutory definitions, or collective governance structures. In contrast, teachers may respond based on their direct, day-to-day experiences of agency and participation within their specific school context. Furthermore, differences in scope, reference point and framing may help to explain the apparent discrepancy. Specifically, principals are asked whether teachers actively participate in decision-making processes, whereas teachers are asked whether they perceive opportunities or are able to lead specific actions.
Making decisions about the school
TALIS 2024 asks teachers if their schools provide them with opportunities to actively participate in school decisions. Nearly eight out of ten teachers (78%) report that their school provides staff with opportunities to actively participate in school decisions, on average. This figure rises to more than nine out of ten teachers in Albania, Bulgaria, Uzbekistan and Viet Nam, but drops to below seven out of ten in Australia, the French Community of Belgium, Chile, Costa Rica and Israel (Table 5.10). Teachers in rural schools report these opportunities more often than those in urban schools, by an average of 8 percentage points, and up to 20 percentage points in South Africa (Figure 5.3).
Teachers in publicly managed schools report greater opportunities for participation in school decisions than those in privately managed schools (on average, 2 percentage points higher), with gaps reaching over 14 percentage points in countries such as Japan and Singapore. At the same time, in a number of education systems (5 out of 54), teachers in privately managed schools report the most such opportunities, with the differences between the two ranging from around 6 percentage points in Czechia to almost 15 percentage points in the United States (Table 5.12).
Disaggregating by years of experience reveals no consistent pattern for opportunities to participate in leadership. In 6 education systems, more experienced teachers report greater opportunities to participate, while in 11 education systems, novice teachers report more opportunities (Table 5.13). Gender differences are rare, but where they occur, male teachers are more likely to report opportunities to participate in school decisions, except in Uzbekistan, where the opposite is true (Table 5.10).
Percentage of lower secondary teachers who “agree” or “strongly agree” that their school provides staff with opportunities to actively participate in school decisions
Note: *Estimates should be interpreted with caution due to higher risk of non-response bias.
Rural schools refer to those located in rural areas or villages (up to 3 000 people). Urban schools refer to those located in a community with a population of over 100 000 people.
Source: OECD, TALIS 2024 Database, Table 5.12.
Contributing to school management
Schools can support shared leadership through formal mechanisms such as school management teams, which are bodies responsible for instructional planning, resource allocation, curriculum co‑ordination, and school-level decision making. These teams can offer structured avenues for teacher leadership and help embed teachers into a school’s decision-making culture (Hallinger and Murphy, 2013[15]).
While the TALIS definition of school management teams is broad, it provides an idea of the extent to which teachers are represented in such decision making by proxy. According to TALIS 2024, about one out of two teachers (on average) are represented in school management teams, based on principals' reports (Figure 5.4). In education systems such as Austria, Colombia, Costa Rica, Kosovo, Morocco and North Macedonia, representation is widespread (over 90%). In contrast, in Denmark, the Netherlands* and Viet Nam, fewer than 10% of teachers work in schools where they are represented on these teams.2
Percentage of lower secondary teachers working in schools where teachers are currently represented on the school management team
Note: *Estimates should be interpreted with caution due to higher risk of non-response bias.
Results based on responses of principals.
Source: OECD, TALIS 2024 Database, Table 5.14.
In terms of change over time, the share of teachers represented in school management teams has shifted in only ten education systems. In eight of them, the representation of teachers has decreased compared to 2018 (Table 5.15). Only teachers in Australia and France report increased representation, by over 10 percentage points. In parallel, teachers self-report slightly more time devoted to school management in 2024, on average, suggesting some shift toward more formal participation (Table 5.16).
Experience and gender also play a role. In 24 education systems, experienced teachers report spending more time on school management than novice teachers. While gender differences are not widespread, when they do appear (in 12 education systems), they consistently favour male teachers, reinforcing that leadership roles may remain unequally distributed by gender in some contexts (Table 5.17).
Establishing the school climate
Teachers can help establish a school climate that is creative, collaborative and conducive to learning. TALIS also asks teachers whether their schools encourage them to initiate new ideas, whether they lead initiatives with other peers, and help shape school culture.
Leading new initiatives: On average, 82% of teachers report that their school encourages staff to lead new initiatives. This sentiment is shared by a large majority of teachers in a number of education systems (at least 80% in 43 education systems). In Albania and Viet Nam, over 97% of teachers report this (Table 5.10).
Promoting professional learning communities: On average, 79% of teachers report that teachers take leadership roles in this area, ranging from over 95% in Albania and Uzbekistan to 59% in Japan. This is also one of the most experience-sensitive indicators. In 18 education systems, novice teachers report greater leadership roles, reaching over 10 percentage points above their more experienced colleagues in Austria and Costa Rica. In contrast, in Albania, Azerbaijan and Kazakhstan, experienced teachers report these roles more often (Table 5.13).
Leading collaborative activities: On average, 84% of teachers report initiating and leading collaboration with colleagues, with no education system having fewer than 72% of its teachers doing so. This suggests that collaborative professionalism is well embedded across most education systems (Table 5.10).
In most education systems, leadership opportunities are not necessarily related to teacher characteristics such as gender or experience. In Costa Rica, however, novice teachers report more of these opportunities than their experienced counterparts across all these dimensions, by margins of more than 11 percentage points. In Bahrain, the opposite is true, with experienced teachers reporting greater access to leadership opportunities (Table 5.13).
Other factors, including confidence, appear to play a more relevant role. Teachers with higher levels of instructional self-efficacy3 (those in the top quartile of the self-efficacy index) report more leadership opportunities across all areas than their peers with low self-efficacy (in the bottom quartile) (Table 5.18). Teachers taking a leadership role in promoting a professional learning community are most strongly associated with higher self-efficacy (Figure 5.5). In all education systems, teachers with higher self-efficacy report leadership opportunities to a greater extent than their colleagues with lower self-efficacy (Tables 5.18 and 5.25).
These patterns may reflect two plausible mechanisms. First, teachers with high self-efficacy may be more inclined to take on leadership roles because they recognise the value of collaborative learning and are more confident in their ability to contribute effectively. This aligns with research indicating that teachers with high self-efficacy are more proactive, innovative and motivated to engage in collective professional activities (Tschannen-Moran, Hoy and Hoy, 1998[16]; Tschannen-Moran and Hoy, 2007[17]). Second, school leaders may deliberately assign leadership functions, such as guiding professional learning communities, to more experienced or confident teachers, perceiving them as better able to influence their peers and foster collaboration (York-Barr and Duke, 2004[18]).
Finally, school characteristics appear to play a limited role in shaping teacher leadership opportunities. In most education systems, there are no consistent patterns based on school location, school governance type or school intake of students from socio-economically disadvantaged homes. Where differences do exist, rural schools grant more opportunities to teachers, particularly in terms of taking a leadership role in promoting a professional learning community and encouraging staff to lead new initiatives (12 and 10 education systems, respectively) (Tables 5.20 and 5.19).
Percentage of lower secondary teachers who “agree” or “strongly agree” that their school provides staff with opportunities to take leadership roles in promoting professional learning communities
Note: *Estimates should be interpreted with caution due to higher risk of non-response bias.
Teachers with low self-efficacy refer to those in the bottom quartile. Teachers with high self-efficacy refer to those in the top quartile of the scale of teacher self‐efficacy (T4SELF). Quartiles are calculated within each country/territory.
Source: OECD, TALIS 2024 Database, Table 5.18.
TALIS data show that, as education levels increase (i.e. from primary to upper secondary), fewer teachers feel encouraged to lead new initiatives. Additionally, a smaller proportion of teachers at higher education levels indicate that they have opportunities to initiate and lead collaborative activities. Different patterns also emerge when factors such as school location (rural or urban) and school type (privately or publicly managed) are considered.
A larger proportion of primary teachers report feeling encouraged to lead new initiatives in their schools compared to their lower secondary counterparts in 9 out of 15 education systems with available data for primary and lower secondary education (5.10). The largest gap is observed in the Netherlands* (11 percentage points). In Australia and the French Community of Belgium, fewer primary teachers working in urban schools report receiving such encouragement compared to those working in rural schools (by at least 9 percentage points) (Table 5.19). In Morocco, a higher proportion of primary teachers working in privately managed schools report such encouragement than those working in publicly managed primary schools, with a difference of almost 6 percentage points. However, the most pronounced gaps are found among teachers in schools with large concentrations of students who have difficulty understanding the language(s) of instruction. In four education systems, fewer primary teachers working in these schools report encouragement to lead new initiatives.
In contrast, fewer upper secondary teachers report being encouraged to lead new initiatives than their lower secondary peers in the Flemish Community of Belgium* (about 5 percentage points) and Slovenia (about 4 percentage points) (Table 5.19). In the United Arab Emirates, a higher proportion of teachers in rural and publicly managed upper secondary schools report this compared to their peers in urban or publicly managed schools (6 and 4 percentage points, respectively). Of the eight education systems with available data for upper secondary education, two show that less teachers working in schools where more than 10% of students have difficulty understanding the language(s) of instruction are encouraged to lead initiatives compared to those in schools with a smaller percentage of these students. The largest gap is seen in Türkiye (about 9 percentage points).
When looking at the role of teachers in initiating and leading collaborative activities in their schools, a higher proportion of primary teachers report engaging in these practices than lower secondary teachers in 8 out of 15 education systems (Table 5.21). The largest differences are found in Japan and the Netherlands* (about 10 percentage points). The French Community of Belgium is the only education system in which the opposite is true (4 percentage points). In Brazil and the French Community of Belgium, fewer teachers working in urban primary schools report initiating and leading collaborative activities compared to those in rural primary schools (11 and 9 percentage points, respectively). In Morocco, a higher proportion of primary teachers in privately managed schools engage in these practices than in publicly managed primary schools (about 8 percentage points).
At the upper secondary level, fewer teachers report initiating and leading collaborative activities in their schools, compared with lower secondary teachers in Denmark (6 percentage points) and the Flemish Community of Belgium* (4 percentage points) (Table 5.21). In the United Arab Emirates, fewer upper secondary teachers working in urban schools initiate and lead collaborative activities compared to those in rural schools, with a difference of almost 4 percentage points. Also in the United Arab Emirates, a greater proportion of upper secondary teachers in schools where over 30% of students come from socio-economically disadvantaged homes report engaging in these practices, with a difference of about 6 percentage points. In the Flemish Community of Belgium*, however, the opposite is true, with fewer teachers working in such schools reporting that they initiate and lead collaborative activities (about 7 percentage-point difference).
Influencing education policy
Teachers can exert influence at various levels, including school-level decisions and, sometimes, broader education policy (see Box 5.4). While teachers report playing an active role within schools, few feel they have influence beyond the school level. Only 24% of teachers “agree” or “strongly agree” that they can influence education policy in their country, on average (Table 5.28). This perception of limited influence is widespread. In 19 education systems, fewer than 20% of teachers feel that they can influence policy, with the figure falling below 10% in Austria, the French Community of Belgium, Croatia and Poland. At the other end of the scale, over 70% of teachers in Albania, Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, Uzbekistan and Viet Nam feel that they can influence education policy.
Teachers’ years of experience is a factor that can relate to the feeling of policy influence in a number of education systems. In 18 education systems, more novice teachers report the feeling of policy influence than their more experienced peers (6 percentage-point difference). Only in Albania and Uzbekistan do more experienced teachers report this (9 and 5 percentage points of difference, respectively) (Table 5.29).
Trends show a modest shift between 2018 and 2024, on average. The proportion of teachers who feel they can influence education policy has changed slightly (1 percentage point) (Figure 5.6). However, this masks large differences between education systems. In 10 out of 43 education systems, fewer teachers feel this kind of influence, with changes between 2018 and 2024 ranging from 4 percentage points in Italy to 27 in Alberta (Canada)*. However, in 18 out of 43 education systems, the opposite is true, with more teachers feeling they can influence education policy in 2024. These include Denmark, France and Japan, which are the three education systems with a positive change that had the lowest shares in 2018. At the other end of the scale, Saudi Arabia has the largest increase (18 percentage points), although more than half of its teachers already shared this view in the previous TALIS cycle.
Percentage of lower secondary teachers who “agree” or “strongly agree” that teachers can influence education policy in their country/region
Note: *Estimates should be interpreted with caution due to higher risk of non-response bias.
Source: OECD, TALIS 2018 and TALIS 2024 Databases, Table 5.30.
These contrasting patterns suggest that increases in perceived influence may have different meanings depending on the historical and institutional context. One plausible explanation lies in the decision-making structures of education systems. Unlike in many other professions, where practitioners play a central role in shaping the standards and processes of their work, teachers often work under the direction of policymakers, administrators and stakeholders who are not involved in day-to-day classroom activities (Hargreaves and Fullan, 2012[3]; Biesta, Priestley and Robinson, 2015[1]). This governance distance may explain why they perceive their influence over policy to be limited, particularly in education systems where policy formation is highly centralised.
However, the disruption caused by the coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic may have changed this traditional dynamic in some education systems. School closures and remote learning placed teachers in the public spotlight, making their work highly visible to the public. In many education systems, teachers' voices became more prominent in debates around school reopening, digital learning and student well-being (OECD, 2020[19]; Thorn and Vincent-Lancrin, 2021[20]). This increased visibility may have led to improved perceptions of teachers' influence, particularly in countries where they were involved in designing or implementing emergency education responses (see Box 5.3).
Compared to previous TALIS cycles, the perception among teachers in primary and upper secondary education that they have influence over policy has changed in a number of education systems. However, a larger proportion of them still believe they have policy influence compared to their lower secondary peers.
Fewer primary teachers report having influence over policy compared to 2018 in Korea (5 percentage points), Spain (5 percentage points) and Türkiye (11 percentage points) (Table 5.30). The reverse occurred in France and the United Arab Emirates, where a greater proportion of primary teachers report having policy influence (an increase of 10 and 12 percentage points, respectively). In 5 of the 15 education systems for which data are available for both primary and lower secondary education, more primary teachers consider that they can influence policy than their lower secondary counterparts. The largest difference is found in Brazil (9 percentage points more) (Table 5.28). Korea is the only education system in which fewer primary teachers report having this influence than their lower secondary peers, with a difference of 8 percentage points.
The perception among upper secondary teachers that they have influence over policy has increased between 2018 and 2024. The largest increase was observed in the United Arab Emirates, where a 13 percentage-point difference was noted (Table 5.30). The only exception to this trend is Türkiye, where there has been an 8 percentage-point drop since 2018.
Furthermore, in three out of the eight education systems for which data on both upper and lower secondary education is available, a higher proportion of upper secondary teachers report having influence over policy than their lower secondary counterparts. The largest difference is observed in Slovenia (6 percentage points) (Table 5.28).
Countries engage teachers in education policy making through a range of mechanisms that vary in structure and intensity. These approaches can be viewed along a continuum – from consultation, usually during early stages of reform, to collaboration in policy design and implementation, and finally to shared governance, where teachers or their representatives participate in formal decision-making processes (see Table 5.1).
Recent country examples illustrate this spectrum:
Within the framework of a 2023 teacher valorisation strategy, Colombia plans to organise a series of regional consultations to gather teacher perspectives on key issues such as initial teacher education and continuing professional development, with a specific focus on teachers in rural and remote areas.
In 2023, the Moroccan government and the teacher union reached an agreement whereby teachers would be automatically granted permanent status and rights similar to those of civil servants (regarding salary, family allowances, social security coverage and retirement benefits).
In the Netherlands, the “teacher-civil servants” policy allows teachers to contribute to education policy while continuing their classroom duties by taking on part-time roles within local governments or the national Ministry of Education. This strengthens the connection between policy and practice by incorporating teachers' first-hand experience into decisions on issues such as workload, curriculum and teacher retention at various levels of government.
Source: Ministry of National Education (Colombia) (2023[21]), Lineamientos de política para la dignificación de la profesión docente, https://www.mineducacion.gov.co; UNESCO (2024[22]), Global Education Monitoring Report: Leadership in Education, https://www.unesco.org/gem-report/en/publication/leadership-education?hub=343 .
Instructional autonomy refers to the latitude teachers have to define and adapt their teaching contents, strategies and methods. Teachers who have instructional autonomy can make nuanced, informed choices about instruction in ways that best help their students learn (Skaalvik and Skaalvik, 2014[23]). However, autonomy is not a one-size-fits-all solution. Research also suggests that autonomy should be context-sensitive and developmentally appropriate (OECD, 2019[24]; Ingersoll and Strong, 2011[25]). For expert teachers, not having enough autonomy can restrict innovation. For novice teachers, having too much can be overwhelming. Ultimately, the goal of autonomy is not for its own sake, but to support teaching and learning. Ensuring that instructional autonomy is well-timed, well-supported, and equitably distributed is therefore essential to successful education.
TALIS asks teachers how much autonomy they have across two broad types of professional decisions and five instructional domains4.
Structural instructional decisions
1. Implementing the curriculum with flexibility
2. Selecting learning objectives
3. Choosing assessment activities
Practical instructional decisions
4. Selecting teaching methods
5. Designing and preparing lessons
The flexibility and autonomy teachers have in implementing the curriculum and choosing their learning objectives can determine the extent to which other factors are aligned, such as deciding which methods and strategies to use in the classroom or which assessment activities are most appropriate. Such flexibility and autonomy can also give teachers more room for manoeuvre when the diversity of learning needs in the classroom is high. Most teachers across OECD education systems report a high degree of autonomy in these areas, but the degree of autonomy and the variation across education systems reveal important differences in how teaching autonomy is structured. For example, three out of four teachers report being able to implement the curriculum flexibly, on average (Figure 5.7). This is not the case in education systems such as those in Malta, Morocco, Portugal and the Slovak Republic, where less than 60% do so. In contrast, more than 85% of teachers in Alberta (Canada)*, Bulgaria, Colombia, Italy, Norway*, Sweden, the United States and Viet Nam report this level of autonomy (Table 5.31).
Percentage of lower secondary teachers having “substantial” or “full” autonomy over the following aspects of planning and teaching
Note: *Estimates should be interpreted with caution due to higher risk of non-response bias.
Results refer to tasks teachers perform for a class randomly selected from their current weekly timetable during the week preceding the survey.
Source: OECD, TALIS 2024 Database, Table 5.31.
A similar pattern holds for the selection of learning objectives: 71% of teachers report autonomy in this area, on average. Less than 50% of teachers in Malta, Morocco, and Slovenia report such autonomy. In contrast, education systems in Azerbaijan, Bulgaria, Colombia, Italy, Japan, Kosovo, Romania, and Viet Nam again stand out, with over 85% of teachers reporting autonomy in selecting learning objectives (Table 5.31).
Beyond these structural activities, autonomy is even more widespread when it comes to more practical, day-to-day pedagogical decisions. Designing and planning lessons, as well as selecting teaching methods, are areas where the large majority of teachers report having at least substantial (if not full) autonomy – both on average and across education systems – at 93% and 92%, respectively. Only a handful of education systems – Albania, Korea and Morocco – fall below 80% for these indicators. However, even in the education systems with the lowest proportions, more than 70% of teachers report some degree of autonomy.
Notably, only four education systems – Bulgaria, Colombia, Italy and Viet Nam – report that more than 85% of teachers have substantial or full autonomy across all five dimensions. This suggests that while most teachers report autonomy in at least some areas, very high levels of instructional autonomy across all five dimensions remain relatively rare.
Variation in instructional autonomy across schools
School characteristics and student population can play important roles in determining how much instructional autonomy is given to teachers. Teaching in a publicly managed school relates negatively to instructional autonomy in 15 education systems, after controlling for teacher characteristics (Table 5.39). Publicly managed schools in certain contexts may operate within specific, more prescriptive policy environments or employ different management practices.
Understanding how instructional autonomy is distributed in schools with diverse student populations can shed light on how teaching conditions are adapted to meet different learning needs. While no consistent international patterns emerge from the TALIS 2024 data, it does reveal meaningful country-specific differences that illustrate how autonomy is shaped in relation to classroom diversity.
Examining schools where over 10% of students have difficulty understanding the language of instruction reveals differences in the way structural instructional autonomy is granted to teachers in areas such as curriculum implementation, setting learning objectives, and choosing assessment activities. In Morocco, for instance, fewer teachers working in these linguistically diverse schools have autonomy in all three areas. A similar trend is observed in the United States, where fewer teachers in such schools report autonomy in selecting learning objectives and assessment activities (Tables 5.32, 5.34 and 5.35).
Conversely, in Türkiye, more teachers working in schools with students facing such difficulties report greater autonomy in implementing the curriculum flexibly and selecting assessment strategies. Teachers in Estonia and Hungary working in similar contexts also report greater autonomy in at least one of these structural domains. Setting aside structural areas, when it comes to practical instructional decisions, in Austria, Iceland and Latvia, fewer teachers in such challenging contexts report autonomy to select teaching methods and strategies and to design and prepare lessons (Tables 5.33 and 5.36).
A different picture emerges in schools with a high share of students with special education needs (30% or more). In these contexts, no education system shows that teachers have less structural autonomy. Conversely, in some education systems, teachers working in such schools report greater autonomy. For instance, in Spain, a higher proportion of teachers in these schools have flexibility in curriculum implementation and autonomy in assessment activities. Similarly, teachers in such schools in France have greater autonomy in implementing the curriculum flexibly and selecting learning objectives. In Kazakhstan, higher reported autonomy is observed among teachers in schools with large student populations who have special education needs, regarding both learning objectives and assessment activities (Tables 5.32, 5.34 and 5.35). The only differences in practical instructional decisions across schools can be seen in Brazil, where teachers working in schools with a high intake of students with special education needs have greater autonomy in designing and preparing lessons. In Estonia, teachers in such schools have more autonomy to select teaching methods (Tables 5.33 and 5.36).
Although no overarching pattern links student diversity to autonomy levels across countries, the data suggest that some education systems calibrate instructional autonomy based on the characteristics or needs of the school. These country-specific findings highlight the variety of policy choices regarding the granting of instructional autonomy in different educational settings (see Box 5.6).
TALIS data show no consistent trend in the amount of instructional autonomy reported by primary and upper secondary teachers. However, when differences do appear, it is often the more experienced teachers who report higher levels of autonomy than their novice counterparts.
Among primary teachers, some of the largest gaps are found in Japan (Table 5.37). In this education system, more experienced primary teachers report having substantial or full autonomy in all measured domains in TALIS 2024 compared to novice teachers: implementing the curriculum flexibly (22 percentage-point difference), selecting teaching methods and strategies (16 percentage-point difference), choosing assessment activities (17 percentage-point difference), selecting learning objectives (14 percentage points) and designing and preparing lessons (5 percentage-point difference). Korea shows an opposite trend, with fewer experienced teachers reporting this instructional autonomy across most domains.
No clear pattern emerges when comparing the autonomy reported by primary and lower secondary teachers, but notable differences exist (Table 5.31). A larger proportion of primary teachers report having more autonomy than their lower secondary peers when it comes to implementing the curriculum flexibly in six education systems, with the largest difference observed in Korea (14 percentage points). A similar pattern emerges for selecting learning objectives, with the largest difference found in the French Community of Belgium (15 percentage points). Conversely, fewer primary teachers report having autonomy to select teaching methods and strategies in five education systems, with the largest difference found in the Flemish Community of Belgium* (9 percentage points), and autonomy to design and prepare lessons in four education systems, with the largest difference found in Morocco (7 percentage points).
In some education systems, a higher proportion of experienced upper secondary teachers report having greater autonomy than their less experienced counterparts. In Denmark, for example, more experienced teachers report having the autonomy to implement the curriculum flexibly and to choose assessment activities (with differences of about 13 and 15 percentage points, respectively). In the United Arab Emirates, more experienced teachers report having autonomy to select teaching methods and strategies (6 percentage points) and assessment activities (12 percentage points) (Table 5.37). However, in Türkiye and Portugal, fewer experienced than novice upper secondary teachers report having autonomy to select assessment activities and learning objectives (over 8 percentage points in Türkiye, and between 6 and 16 percentage points in Portugal, respectively).
Compared with their lower secondary counterparts, fewer upper secondary teachers report having the autonomy to implement the curriculum flexibly and select learning objectives in three and two education systems, respectively (Table 5.31). The largest differences are found in Portugal and the United Arab Emirates (about 4 percentage points) and Denmark (19 percentage points) for each practice, respectively. In contrast, upper secondary teachers in Saudi Arabia report having more autonomy when it comes to selecting teaching methods, assessment activities, and designing and preparing lessons than their lower secondary peers (by 2 to 3 percentage points).
Variation in instructional autonomy across teachers
How much autonomy education systems give to teachers can depend on the teachers’ profile and teaching context. Research shows that novice teachers often benefit from more structured guidance as they are still developing the pedagogical knowledge and classroom management skills needed to make effective autonomous decisions (Ingersoll and Strong, 2011[25]; OECD, 2019[24]).
In addition to teacher characteristics, timing is an important consideration when education systems decide how much autonomy to give to teachers. When a new national curriculum is introduced or when teachers are working in unfamiliar pedagogical frameworks (e.g. technology-rich or inclusive classrooms), temporary limits on discretion – coupled with clear training and gradual responsibility – can help ensure successful implementation (Vähäsantanen, 2015[26]; Fullan, n.d.[27]). In these cases, instructional autonomy is not permanently reduced, but strategically calibrated to build capacity over time.
However, TALIS data show that in most countries, there are no actual differences between novice and more experienced teachers (Table 5.37). While more experienced teachers report greater autonomy in areas like selecting teaching methods, on average, in most education systems, there is no clear trend linking years of experience with greater autonomy. Only in ten education systems does autonomy relate positively with teachers’ years in the profession (Table 5.38), and Korea and Costa Rica have the only systems with a reverse pattern: novice teachers report higher autonomy than their experienced peers, by at least 8 percentage points across all areas in Korea, and by over 14 percentage points in selecting learning objectives and implementing the curriculum flexibly in Costa Rica (Table 5.37). These findings suggest that in a large number of education systems, instructional autonomy is likely embedded in teaching practice, rather than gradually granted according to teachers’ experience.
TALIS 2024 results indicate that the extent of teacher autonomy and agency varies considerably across education systems. Based on both teacher and principal reports, it is possible to create broad profiles of teacher decision-making authority. These illustrative profiles highlight different configurations of instructional autonomy and school leadership opportunities (Figure 5.8.
Teachers' instructional autonomy and their participation in school decision-making processes, based on responses of lower secondary principals and teachers
Source: OECD, TALIS 2024 Database, Tables 5.1, 5.2, 5.3 and 5.31.
Systems with high teacher decision-making authority: Teachers in Estonia and Italy report high levels of instructional autonomy in most measured areas, as well as strong involvement in school-level decision making (i.e. above the OECD average in at least two-thirds of the items covered by each area). In these education systems, both instructional autonomy and perceived agency appear to be well-aligned, and teachers consistently work in schools where they have the space to act professionally.
Systems with low teacher decision-making authority: At the other end of the spectrum, teachers in Costa Rica and Morocco report comparatively low autonomy in the classroom, and work in schools where they have limited influence over school decisions. These education systems show consistently lower values across both teacher-reported and principal-reported indicators, placing them well below the OECD average (i.e. below the OECD average in at least two-thirds of the items covered by each area).
Systems with moderate teacher decision-making authority: education systems like those in Lithuania and Serbia, fall closer to the OECD average (Tables 5.1, 5.2, 5.3 and 5.31). While levels of instructional autonomy in both countries are mostly in line with the OECD average, teachers’ school decision-making opportunities sometimes differ. In Lithuania, teachers are highly involved in decisions regarding learning materials and course content, whereas in Serbia, teachers report fewer opportunities in these areas. However, the opposite is true for decisions on which courses are offered and policies on student diversity.
These system profiles are not intended to be prescriptive or exhaustive. Factors such as workload, support structures and school culture also shape the conditions under which autonomy is exercised. Nevertheless, they provide a comparative lens through which to understand how teacher agency is structured and experienced across countries.
Accountability
A critical policy question for education systems is how to determine whether teachers are exercising their instructional autonomy productively and helping students learn. Education systems develop teacher appraisal systems to evaluate teachers and hold them accountable for their teaching (OECD, 2013[28]). Strong appraisal systems can legitimise and support instructional autonomy in the classroom. Misaligned ones, however, could constrain instructional autonomy and limit teacher effectiveness.
In this context, it is important to examine how instructional autonomy interacts with teacher appraisal. Across the five areas analysed here, even among teachers who report substantial or full autonomy, a sizeable share work in schools where formal appraisal is infrequent or absent. For example, among teachers in Italy and Norway* who report “substantial” or “full” autonomy, about one in four are never appraised. In Finland, the share exceeds one-third (Tables 5.40, 5.41, 5.42, 5.43 and 5.44).
Among teachers who report high levels of autonomy in curriculum implementation, more than half in the French Community of Belgium, Finland and France work in schools where they are appraised less than once per year, or not at all (Table 5.40). The same is true for teachers who report high levels of autonomy in assessment activities in these education systems (Table 5.42). Conversely, in Albania, Bahrain, Latvia, Shanghai (China), Singapore, the Slovak Republic and the United Arab Emirates, virtually all teachers with high instructional autonomy are formally appraised at least once a year.
These contrasts show large differences in the role of appraisal systems in supporting or overlooking teacher autonomy. In education systems where appraisal is infrequent, high instructional autonomy may be indicative of institutional trust, or alternatively, of limited oversight and support. In education systems with frequent appraisals, instructional autonomy may be subject to (and limited by) more deliberate monitoring as part of a comprehensive framework of professional development and accountability (see Chapter 3). Understanding this relationship could help to clarify the broader institutional context in which instructional autonomy is exercised, as it is not only a matter of teacher agency, but also of organisational design and policy coherence.
Chapter 2 of this report examined teachers’ professional outcomes. TALIS data show that both participation in school leadership and instructional autonomy are positively related to teachers’ professional outcomes. However, the strength and consistency of these relationships vary across education systems and according to teacher and school characteristics.
Change in the scale of lower secondary teachers’ job satisfaction1 associated with teachers reporting that they “agree” or “strongly agree” that their school provides staff with opportunities to actively participate in school decisions2,3
Note: *Estimates should be interpreted with caution due to higher risk of non-response bias.
Statistically significant coefficients are highlighted with filled circles (see Annex B). Filled circles above 0 indicate a positive association between teacher job satisfaction and participation in school decisions, while those below 0 reflect a negative relationship.
1. Standardised scale scores with a standard deviation of 2 and a mean of 10. For more information on the scales, see Annex B.
2. Binary variable: the reference category refers to “disagree” or “strongly disagree”.
3. Results based on linear regression analysis, showing the change in the outcome variable associated with a one-unit increase in the explanatory variable. Teacher characteristics include gender, age (standardised at the international level) and years of teaching experience (standardised at the international level). School characteristics include school location, school governance type, school intake of students from socio-economically disadvantaged homes, school intake of students who have difficulties understanding the language(s) of instruction, and school intake of students with special education needs.
Source: OECD, TALIS 2024 Database, Table 5.49.
Participation in school leadership
Not all participation in school leadership is equally related to job satisfaction. For example, simply spending more time on school management activities shows no consistent association with job satisfaction across education systems, either before or after controlling for teacher characteristics (Table 5.45). However, in Albania, Austria, Bahrain and Iceland, this relationship becomes positive after controlling for school characteristics. It is possible that in some contexts, participation in school management may reflect meaningful involvement in decision making, while in others it may be perceived more as an administrative burden.
More consistent positive relationships are observed in specific types of participation in school leadership, such as having opportunities to be actively involved in school decision making and being encouraged to lead new initiatives. These forms of participation in leadership are more strongly and consistently associated with job satisfaction, both before and after controlling for teacher and school characteristics (Figure 5.9 and Table 5.49). In contrast, leading one's own professional development shows weaker and less consistent associations with job satisfaction. Similar relationships exist between teacher well-being and these areas of participation in school leadership (Table 5.50).
Moreover, this pattern extends beyond the school level. Teachers who believe they can influence education policy in their country or region also report higher levels of job satisfaction. This pattern holds across nearly all education systems (Table 5.52). These findings are aligned with research that suggests that when teachers feel trusted and empowered to act – whether in their classrooms, their schools or the wider education system – they could likely be more professionally engaged and satisfied, not only as practitioners but also as contributors to their schools and education systems (Cann, Riedel-Prabhakar and Powell, 2020[29]; Dreer, 2022[30]).
Instructional autonomy
TALIS data show that instructional autonomy is positively related to teachers' sense of fulfilment of their lesson aims before and after controlling for teacher and school characteristics (Table 5.53). Teachers with greater autonomy (as measured by the TALIS scale of teachers' autonomy in planning and teaching) are also more likely to say that they take students' prior knowledge and needs into account when planning a lesson, change the way they explain things when students struggle, and adapt their teaching. This is the case on average and in most education systems, both before and after controlling for teacher and school characteristics (Figure 5.10). In other words, autonomy relates not only to professional satisfaction but also to adaptive teaching.
Further analyses show that teachers with high instructional autonomy (in the top quartile of the autonomy scale5) are more likely to report confidence in several key teaching areas. For example, these teachers report to a greater extent being able to vary instructional strategies in their classroom by over 10 percentage points with respect to their peers with lower instructional autonomy (in the bottom quarter). This pattern is consistent across education systems. Likewise, teachers with higher instructional autonomy report to a larger extent being able to get students to follow classroom rules (with a difference of 6 percentage points across OECD education systems) and being capable of reducing achievement gaps between students (nearly 9 percentage-point difference, on average) (Table 5.59).
Change in the likelihood of lower secondary teachers “frequently” or “always” using approaches to adapted learning1 associated with an increase in the scale of instructional autonomy2,3
Note: *Estimates should be interpreted with caution due to higher risk of non-response bias.
Statistically significant coefficients are highlighted with filled circles (see Annex B). Filled circles above 1 indicate a positive association between adapting teaching to students' needs and instructional autonomy, while those below 1 reflect a negative relationship.
1. Binary variable: the reference category refers to “never or almost never” and “occasionally”.
2. Standardised scale scores with a standard deviation of 2 and the value of 10 corresponding to the item mid-point value of the response scale. For more information on the scales, see Annex B.
3. Results based on five separate binary logistic regressions. An odds ratio indicates the degree to which an explanatory variable is associated with a categorical outcome variable. An odds ratio below one 1 denotes a negative association; an odds ratio above one 1 indicates a positive association; and an odds ratio of one 1 means that there is no association. After controlling for teacher (i.e. gender, age and years of teaching experience) and target class characteristics (i.e. class size (standardised at the international level), class intake of students who have difficulties understanding the language(s) of instruction, class intake of low achieving students, and class intake of students with special education needs).
Source: OECD, TALIS 2024 Database, Tables 5.54, 5.55, 5.56, 5.57 and 5.58.
Instructional autonomy is consistently positively associated with teachers’ job satisfaction, before and after controlling for teacher and school characteristics (Figure 5.11). However, this relationship is not observed in Norway* and the United States. Teachers’ well-being is also related to their level of instructional autonomy. In the majority of education systems, teachers who report greater instructional autonomy are also less likely to experience stress at work, feel that they do not have enough time for their personal lives, or report negative effects on their mental and even physical health (Table 5.62).
However, TALIS data suggest that teachers also need to feel confident in their ability to exercise instructional autonomy effectively. Across education systems, the strength of the relationship between autonomy and workplace well-being and stress decreases when self-efficacy is accounted for (Table 5.63).
Change in the scale of lower secondary teachers’ job satisfaction1 associated with an increase in the scale of instructional autonomy2,3
Note: *Estimates should be interpreted with caution due to higher risk of non-response bias.
Statistically significant coefficients are highlighted with filled circles (see Annex B). Filled circles above 0 indicate a positive association between teacher job satisfaction and instructional autonomy, while those below 0 reflect a negative relationship.
1. Standardised scale scores with a standard deviation of 2 and a mean of 10. For more information on the scales, see Annex B.
2. Standardised scale scores with a standard deviation of 2 and the value of 10 corresponding to the item mid-point value of the response scale.
3. Results based on linear regression analysis, showing the change in the outcome variable associated with a one-unit increase in the explanatory variable. Teacher characteristics include gender, age (standardised at the international level) and years of teaching experience (standardised at the international level). School characteristics include school location, school governance type, school intake of students from socio-economically disadvantaged homes, school intake of students who have difficulties understanding the language(s) of instruction, and school intake of students with special education needs.
Source: OECD, TALIS 2024 Database, Table 5.61.
While teachers’ self-efficacy, particularly their confidence in managing classrooms and delivering instruction, shows a consistent positive association with perceived autonomy (Tables 5.64, 5.65 and 5.67), the association between autonomy and self-efficacy is stronger and more consistently observed across a larger number of education systems for experienced teachers compared to novice teachers. This suggests that autonomy may become effective as teachers gain classroom experience and confidence in their professional judgement (Tables 5.68 and 5.69). These considerations highlight the importance of examining not only how much autonomy is granted, but also when, to whom, and under what institutional conditions.
For example, the observed relationships between self-efficacy and leadership opportunities highlight the need to consider self-selection mechanisms, whereby more confident teachers may be more inclined to take on leadership roles. Similarly, the relationship between instructional autonomy and self-efficacy emphasises the importance of supporting teachers with lower levels of professional confidence, particularly novices, since self-efficacy tends to develop with experience in the classroom.
Ultimately, the goal is not autonomy for its own sake, but autonomy that is purposeful, supported and connected to teaching and learning, aligned with the characteristics of each education system. By understanding the conditions under which teachers are best able to exercise professional judgement, education systems can move towards a vision of teacher autonomy in decision making that empowers individuals, strengthens schools and contributes to better outcomes for students and teachers alike.
References
[11] Al-Yaseen, W. and M. Al-Musaileem (2013), “Teacher empowerment as an important component of job satisfaction: a comparative study of teachers’ perspectives in Al-Farwaniya District, Kuwait”, Compare: A Journal of Comparative and International Education, Vol. 45/6, pp. 863-885, https://doi.org/10.1080/03057925.2013.855006.
[1] Biesta, G., M. Priestley and S. Robinson (2015), “The role of beliefs in teacher agency”, Teachers and Teaching, Vol. 21/6, pp. 624-640, https://doi.org/10.1080/13540602.2015.1044325.
[29] Cann, R., R. Riedel-Prabhakar and D. Powell (2020), “A model of positive school leadership to improve teacher wellbeing”, International Journal of Applied Positive Psychology, Vol. 6/2, pp. 195-218, https://doi.org/10.1007/s41042-020-00045-5.
[21] Colombia Ministry of Education (2023), Lineamientos de política para la dignificación de la profesión docente, https://www.mineducacion.gov.co.
[6] Congreso de la República de Colombia (1994), General Education Law (Law No. 115 of 1994), https://globalfoodlaws.georgetown.edu/documents/law-115-1994-general-education-law-colombia/.
[30] Dreer, B. (2022), “Teacher well-being: Investigating the contributions of school climate and job crafting”, Cogent Education, Vol. 9/1, https://doi.org/10.1080/2331186x.2022.2044583.
[27] Fullan, M. (n.d.), Advance Praise for The New Meaning of Educational Change, Fourth Edition!.
[14] Gülmez, D. (2022), “Teacher leadership and the Turkish context: The impact of the structural characteristics of the school and teacher leadership culture”, International Journal of Educational Management, Vol. 36/4, pp. 515-526, https://doi.org/10.1108/ijem-02-2022-0061.
[15] Hallinger, P. and J. Murphy (2013), “Running on empty? Finding the time and capacity to lead learning”, NASSP Bulletin, Vol. 97/1, pp. 5-21, https://doi.org/10.1177/0192636512469288.
[3] Hargreaves, A. and M. Fullan (2012), Professional Capital: Transforming Teaching in Every School, Teachers College Press, New York, NY.
[9] Harris, A. (2004), “Distributed leadership and school improvement”, Educational Management Administration and Leadership, Vol. 32/1, pp. 11-24, https://doi.org/10.1177/1741143204039297.
[25] Ingersoll, R. and M. Strong (2011), “The impact of induction and mentoring programs for beginning teachers”, Review of Educational Research, Vol. 81/2, pp. 201-233, https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654311403323.
[4] Muijs, D. and A. Harris (2006), “Teacher led school improvement: Teacher leadership in the UK”, Teaching and Teacher Education, Vol. 22/8, pp. 961-972, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2006.04.010.
[19] OECD (2020), “Schooling disrupted, schooling rethought: How the Covid-19 pandemic is changing education”, OECD Policy Responses to Coronavirus (COVID-19), OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/68b11faf-en.
[5] OECD (2020), TALIS 2018 Results (Volume II): Teachers and School Leaders as Valued Professionals, TALIS, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/19cf08df-en.
[24] OECD (2019), TALIS 2018 Results (Volume I): Teachers and School Leaders as Lifelong Learners, TALIS, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/1d0bc92a-en.
[8] OECD (2019), Working and Learning Together: Rethinking Human Resource Policies for Schools, OECD Reviews of School Resources,Working and Learning Together: Rethinking Human Resource Policies for Schools, OECD Reviews of School Resources, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/b7aaf050-en.
[2] OECD (2018), Effective Teacher Policies: Insights from PISA, PISA, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264301603-en.
[7] OECD (2016), Education Policy Outlook: Slovenia, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://www.oecd.org/content/dam/oecd/en/about/projects/edu/education-policy-outlook/398027-Education-Policy-Outlook-Country-Profile-Slovenia.pdf.
[28] OECD (2013), Synergies for Better Learning: An International Perspective on Evaluation and Assessment, OECD Reviews of Evaluation and Assessment in Education, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264190658-en.
[13] Oppi, P., E. Eisenschmidt and A. Jõgi (2022), “Teacher’s readiness for leadership – a strategy for school development”, School Leadership and Management, Vol. 42/1, pp. 79-103, https://doi.org/10.1080/13632434.2021.2016685.
[23] Skaalvik, E. and S. Skaalvik (2014), “Teacher self-efficacy and perceived autonomy: Relations with teacher engagement, job satisfaction, and emotional exhaustion”, Psychological Reports, Vol. 114/1, pp. 68-77, https://doi.org/10.2466/14.02.pr0.114k14w0.
[20] Thorn, W. and S. Vincent-Lancrin (2021), Schooling During a Pandemic: The Experience and Outcomes of Schoolchildren During the First Round of COVID-19 Lockdowns, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/1c78681e-en.
[17] Tschannen-Moran, M. and A. Hoy (2007), “The differential antecedents of self-efficacy beliefs of novice and experienced teachers”, Teaching and Teacher Education, Vol. 23/6, pp. 944-956, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2006.05.003.
[16] Tschannen-Moran, M., A. Hoy and W. Hoy (1998), “Teacher efficacy: Its meaning and measure”, Review of Educational Research, Vol. 68/2, pp. 202-248, https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543068002202.
[22] UNESCO (2024), Global Education Monitoring Report: Leadership in Education, UNESCO, Paris, https://www.unesco.org/gem-report/en/publication/leadership-education?hub=343.
[26] Vähäsantanen, K. (2015), “Professional agency in the stream of change: Understanding educational change and teachers’ professional identities”, Teaching and Teacher Education, Vol. 47, pp. 1-12, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2014.11.006.
[10] Wenner, J. and T. Campbell (2016), “The theoretical and empirical basis of teacher leadership”, Review of Educational Research, Vol. 87/1, pp. 134-171, https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654316653478.
[12] Yismaw, B. and F. Bekalu (2016), “Assessing the desired and actual levels of teachers participation in decision-making in secondary schools of Ethiopia”, Educational Research and Reviews, Vol. 11/13, pp. 1236-1242, https://doi.org/10.5897/err2015.2625.
[18] York-Barr, J. and K. Duke (2004), “What do we know about teacher leadership? Findings from two decades of scholarship”, Review of Educational Research, Vol. 74/3, pp. 255-316, https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543074003255.
← 1. All of the findings in this section are based on principals’ reports.
← 2. The proportion of teachers represented on school management teams is reported by school principals and may reflect the broad definition of the term in TALIS, which encompasses decision making in academic, administrative and clerical areas. In certain systems, the proportion of teachers on management teams can vary according to their orientation. Discrepancies between teachers' reports on their opportunities for decision making and the proportion of teachers represented on school management teams may be partly explained by this.
← 3. The scale of teacher self-efficacy (T4SELF) was constructed as an average of the three subscales: self‐efficacy in student engagement (T4SEENG); self‐efficacy in instruction (T4SEINS); and self‐efficacy in classroom management (T4SECLS). It has a standard deviation of 2.0, and the value of 10 corresponds to the midpoint of the scale.
← 4. All of the domains related to instructional autonomy are based on teachers’ reports of their practice in a target class.
← 5. The scale of autonomy of teaching (T4AUTCH) was constructed using teacher responses ("no autonomy", "limited autonomy", "substantial autonomy", "full autonomy") about how much autonomy they had over the following aspects (TT4G57): "Implementing the curriculum in a flexible way"; "Selecting teaching methods and strategies"; "Choosing assessment activities "; "Designing and preparing lessons". It has a standard deviation of 2.0, and the value of 10 corresponds to the midpoint of the scale.