University of Groningen Turning the kaleidoscope Oosterhoff, Maria

Turning the kaleidoscope

Oosterhoff, Maria

DOI:

10.33612/diss.160821650

IMPORTANT NOTE: You are advised to consult the publisher's version (publisher's PDF) if you wish to cite from

it. Please check the document version below.

Document Version

Publisher's PDF, also known as Version of record

Publication date:

2021

Link to publication in University of Groningen/UMCG research database

Citation for published version (APA):

Oosterhoff, M. (2021). Turning the kaleidoscope: multiple enactments of professional autonomy in early

childhood education. University of Groningen. https://doi.org/10.33612/diss.160821650

Copyright

Other than for strictly personal use, it is not permitted to download or to forward/distribute the text or part of it without the consent of the author(s) and/or copyright holder(s), unless the work is under an open content license (like Creative Commons).

Take-down policy

If you believe that this document breaches copyright please contact us providing details, and we will remove access to the work immediately and investigate your claim.

Downloaded from the University of Groningen/UMCG research database (Pure): http://www.rug.nl/research/portal. For technical reasons the number of authors shown on this cover page is limited to 10 maximum.

◊

Chapter V

Room for autonomy

The mediating role of autonomy

in the relationship between

management style and teachers’ job

perception

This Chapter is based on: Oosterhoff, A., Oenema-Mostert, I., & Minnaert, A. (2019). Ruimte voor autonomie. De mediërende rol van autonomie in de relatie tussen managementstijl en de werkbeleving van leerkrachten. [Room for autonomy. The mediating role of autonomy in the relationship between management style and teachers’ job perception]. Pedagogische Studiën, 96 (3), 171-189.

Abstract

Researchers worldwide are drawing attention to the societal pressure on education. Teachers’ professional autonomy seems constrained. The as-sociation between the degree of autonomy and job perception has been well established. Researchers have also shown the influence of school leadership on teachers’ perceived autonomy. However, little research spe-cifically concerns teachers working with young children. This study ex-amines the role of professional autonomy as mediating mechanism in the way in which head teachers influence the job perception of teachers in the first two grades of Dutch primary education. Professional autonomy is operationalized as both perceived task autonomy and the fulfilment of autonomy as a basic psychological need. Tests of the hypothetical model showed that professional autonomy mediates the link between manage-ment style and job perception of the teachers. Further, the relationship between management style and the fulfilment of the basic psychological need for autonomy is shown to be partially mediated by perceived task autonomy.

Room for autonomy

The mediating role of autonomy in the relationship between

management style and teachers’ job perception

Introduction

Education experts worldwide, including Dutch researchers (Goorhuis & Levering, 2006; Janssen-Vos, 2012), are calling attention to the effects of societal pressure on the teaching of young children (Bodrova, 2008; Gallant, 2009; Miller & Almon, 2009). Empirical stud-ies have revealed changes in recent decades with respect to educating young children: researchers report the use of a more teacher-centred pedagogy, an increase in test culture and a reduction in variety of pedagogical and educational content, at the expense of opportunities for play (e.g., Bassok et al. 2016; Miller & Almon, 2009). Young children have diminishing scope to develop at their own pace and in a relaxed way that takes into account the specific characteristics of their age group (Bodrova, 2008; Boland, 2015; Gallant, 2009; Goorhuis, 2012; Oenema-Mostert, 2012). These appearances are often attributed to the widely observed and growing pressure on teaching in response to edu-cational policy aimed at boosting eduedu-cational outcomes (Berg et al., 2012; Biesta, 2007; Imants et al., 2016; Jensen, 2014; Kelchtermans, 2012; Nussbaum, 2012; Osgood, 2006).

Under the Dutch Constitution, schools are free to shape their teaching in accordance with their own educational beliefs (Grondwet, 2008, Article 23.2). Goals for primary education have been broadly formulated by the government as attainment targets (Primary Edu-cation Act, 2017, Article 9), supplemented since 2010 with specific reference levels for the subjects of Dutch language and mathemat-ics (Wet referentieniveaus Nederlandse taal en rekenen, 2014). This means that, unlike many other countries, the Netherlands does not have government-prescribed curricula. Nevertheless, Dutch schools notice that the government exerts its influence on day-to-day teach-ing. This is shown, for example, in an exploratory report by the Onder-wijsraad [Education Council of the Netherlands] (2013), which is based on more than 140 interviews with teachers and three additional stud-ies by education experts. Teachers are experiencing a ‘restriction of the professional space and freedom they need to offer good quality education to their pupils in complex professional practice’ (Onderwijs-raad, 2013, p.10, translated). The Onderwijsraad senses that Dutch educational policy has too one-sided a focus on the accomplishment

and monitoring of frameworks that curtail the professional autonomy of teachers. This may cause teachers to start acting reactively as their role changes from education creators to instrumental performers of education, which comes at the expense of intrinsic motivation and the driving force behind personal professionalism (Kelchtermans, 2012).

This limitation of professional autonomy is experienced in the full breadth of basic education, whether special education, primary education, secondary education or secondary vocational education (Onderwijsraad, 2013). Figures from the Ministry of the Interior and Kingdom Relations (2016) reveal that, of all public service profes-sions, the regulatory burden is by far the greatest, and task autonomy by far the most limited, among Dutch primary teachers. There is scant research on the specific situation of teachers working with young chil-dren. Statistics on Dutch primary education do not usually single out the specific subpopulation of grade 1 and 2 teachers. However, this subpopulation differs from the rest of the primary education popula-tion, due to the typical developmental characteristics of pupils aged 4-7 years. The specific didactics used in these groups contrast more sharply with the policy trends in education outlined above (Bodrova, 2008; Boland, 2015; Gallant, 2009; Goorhuis, 2012) than is the case in the higher age groups of primary education.

Exploratory study

In an exploratory qualitative study, undertaken prior to the study that is presented in this chapter, the experiences of grade 1 and 2 teachers with regard to professional autonomy were investigated. The study was carried out with a small, deliberately varied, sample of eight experienced teachers, all of whom had taught grades 1 and 2 of pri-mary school for more than 12 years. The study found that the teachers felt under pressure when it came to their professional autonomy (see Chapter IV). The external environment of the school is placing growing demands on the teaching of these classes, demands that sometimes conflict with the professional beliefs of the teachers about what good education entails for young children. In addition to this, control is exerted to meet those demands. Two salient findings of the explora-tory study are tested by the present study among a larger population.

The first is that head teachers seem to play a key role in the degree to which teachers feel their autonomy threatened by perceived exter-nal influences. Head teachers can directly translate exterexter-nal demands into requirements concerning a teacher’s classroom practice. This is manifested in a restrictive work environment and vertical control on teaching practice – namely, the imposition of rules or procedures from above and greater control on conformation to these rules. However, head teachers can also facilitate these teachers to work together to

find appropriate answers for their own context, based on their own expertise. In such situations, respondents felt there was trust in, and recognition of, a teacher’s specific expertise.

A second finding of the exploratory study concerns the impact of (perceived) professional autonomy on teachers’ job perceptions. Res-pondents working in a restrictive environment reported a deteriora-tion in teaching quality: they cited problems aligning their teaching in a flexible way with the needs of the children and spending too much time on matters they did not regard as important. They also reported that the current pressure to improve learning outcomes can be detri-mental to the development of young children. As well as the impact on teaching quality, respondents referred to the implications for their own professional motivation and wellbeing in the workplace. Two of the eight respondents interviewed called in sick because they could no longer shape the education in their class in a way that they considered appropriate for this age group. One of them decided to leave the pro-fession in the course of the study, citing these problems as the reason.

Various researchers have demonstrated the influence of head teachers on perceived teacher autonomy (e.g., Fullan, 2007; Imants et al., 2016) and its impact on job perception (e.g., Ryan & Deci, 2000; Van den Broeck et al., 2008). Braaksma and Bakker (2016) emphasized the head teacher’s role in creating an optimum professional space in which high-quality teamwork and trust were cited as key conditions.

The study sample for the exploratory qualitative study in the Dutch context was small and thus hinders generalization of the find-ings. This chapter reports on a follow-up study with the aim to verify whether the professional autonomy of Dutch teachers in grades 1 and 2 of primary school mediates between the head teacher’s management style and teachers’ job perception. This study seeks to test the as-sumed conceptual model, as shown in Figure 5.1, for a representative sample of the entire population of teachers in grades 1 and 2 of Dutch primary school.

The theoretical underpinnings of this model are described in more detail in the next section.

Figure 5.1 Assumed conceptual model linking the relationship between the head teacher’s management style, the teacher’s professional autonomy and job perception.

Theoretical framework

Various theories support the theoretical model presented here and provide an incentive to develop it further. Central to the model is the mediating role of professional autonomy. The importance of pro-fessional autonomy for job perception will be discussed first, followed by the role of management. We will then look at the different ways in which autonomy is operationalized in the educational context. Finally, the implications for the present study will be explained.

Professional autonomy and the relationship to job perception

Using different perspectives, educational researchers have dem-onstrated the importance of professional autonomy for teaching quality. Although many different terms are used (such as autonomy, agency, personal professionalism, professional space, task autonomy) and their interpretation is far from clear-cut (Moomaw, 2005), a large body of research literature has established a link between teachers’ opportunities to give personal direction to their everyday work and the effectiveness of that work. Firstly, researchers have drawn atten-tion to the complex and fluid character of the educaatten-tional context. Teachers need room to decide what is pedagogically desirable in daily educational practice on the basis of their knowledge and experience (Biesta, 2011; Bleach, 2014; Kelchtermans, 2012). Other researchers have emphasized that top-down decisions aimed at improving edu-cation often lack the necessary support in day-to-day practice (e.g., Fullan, 2007; Wenger, 2010). They indicate that, in order for teachers to reject, accept or adopt a change in behaviour deemed desirable by their environment, they need to take time to arrive at a shared un-derstanding of the assumptions and values that underlie that change in a well-founded way. Furthermore, empirical research shows that work-related autonomy affects work satisfaction, motivation, stress levels and further professional development (e.g., Day & Gu, 2007; Kelchtermans, 2012; Ryan & Deci, 2000; Van den Broeck et al., 2008).

Ryan and Deci’s (2000) Self-determination Theory (SDT) highlights the importance of autonomy for motivation and engagement and, by extension, for effective functioning. SDT is applied to many domains, frequently to education as a learning environment (Stroet, Opdenak-ker, & Minnaert, 2013), and has also been applied successfully to em-pirical research within the workplace (Van den Broeck, Vansteenkiste, De Witte, Lens, & Andriessen, 2009). While most of the work-related studies in which SDT is applied have been conducted across a broad spectrum of professions, research that investigates the role of basic needs within the specific educational context is still scarce (Klaeijssen, Vermeulen & Martens, 2018; Rothmann & Fouché, 2018).

SDT distinguishes three innate basic needs that determine peo-ple’s motivation and wellbeing: competence (a feeling of being able to cope with a particular task), autonomy (a sense of having chosen the task oneself) and relatedness (a safe social environment). The three basic needs play a mutually dependent role. Numerous empirical stud-ies have shown that employees whose basic psychological needs are fulfilled are more satisfied with their work, are exhausted less often, devote more time to their work, are more prepared to change, and are less likely to resign (Van den Broeck et al., 2009). SDT is particularly interesting in the context of this study because it focuses attention on the importance of autonomy for the quality of motivation and engage-ment. Autonomous motivation is essential for optimizing develop-ment and performance: ‘motivation produces’ (Ryan & Deci, 2000, p. 69). Autonomous motivation indicates that the person has a feeling of ‘wanting to act themselves rather than be directed or compelled’ (Van den Broeck et al., 2009, p. 324). For imposed tasks, the perceived rel-evance is vital for quality of motivation (Assor et al., 2002). Ryan and Deci also identify forms of ‘controlled motivation’ (Ryan & Deci, 2000; Van den Broeck et al., 2009), whereby the behaviour is carried out in order to gain rewards or avoid penalties. Forms of controlled motiva-tion are correlated with feelings of pressure, obligamotiva-tion and control (Van den Broeck et al., 2009).

Teacher motivation largely arises from intrinsic motivation, the pleasure they experience in the everyday execution of their teaching role (Day & Gu, 2007). However, it is not to say that everything that teachers do springs directly from intrinsic motivation: teachers of-ten act within a framework of rules and norms that are imposed ex-ternally (Onderwijsraad, 2013). Together with reward systems, these externally imposed goals, evaluations and sanctions contribute to a feeling of ‘having to do it for others’. SDT emphasizes the importance in such instances of enabling a deep holistic process, in which rules and codes of conduct imposed by the environment are internalized by understanding them and aligning them with one’s own goals and values (self-determination) (Ryan & Deci, 2000).

Appleton, Christenson and Furlong (2008) explain the difference and the relationship between motivation and engagement. Motivation directs people’s energy (‘Why am I doing this?’) and the intensity and quality of that energy, while engagement refers to this energy in

ac-tion, someone’s direct involvement in a task or activity as a

conse-quence of motivation: ‘Engagement can be seen as an externalization of motivation’ (Stroet et al., 2013, p. 69). Engagement is often regarded as the opposite of ‘disaffection’ (alienation, distance) (Appleton et al., 2008). Both Kelchtermans (2012) and Day and Gu (2007) draw atten-tion to the importance of engagement, especially in the educaatten-tional

context, because of the fundamentally relational and moral character of the teaching profession: ‘commitment is not an option, since it is an essential condition for teacher effectiveness’ (Day & Gu, 2007, p. 428).

The influence of management style on perceived autonomy

The value of SDT for educational practice lies largely in its con-crete guidelines for aligning the learning and work environment with the three basic psychological needs (Appleton et al., 2008; Assor et al., 2002; Deci et al., 1994; Minnaert, 2005; Ryan & Deci, 2000; Van den Broeck et al., 2009). Without losing sight of the fact that motivation arises partly within individuals themselves, SDT has a major focus on the way in which context can affect people’s functioning by influencing the quality of motivation (Minnaert, 2005; Minnaert & Odenthal, 2018). Alignment with the need for autonomy plays a central role in this. Deci et al. (1994) identify three contextual factors that facilitate the internalization of externally imposed behaviour (self-determination): providing a rationale for the behaviour, acknowledging the perspec-tive of those from whom the behaviour is expected, and persuasive rather than coercive communication. While some contextual factors can promote the internalizing process, others can hamper this process (Assor et al., 2002).

There has been a great deal of educational research on how teach-er behaviour influences the autonomous motivation of pupils (Assor et al., 2002; Stroet et al., 2013). Researchers have identified different elements of autonomy-enhancing teacher behaviour, all of which have a counterpart in autonomy-suppressing behaviour. The last decades, SDT’s value for shaping the work context has also become increasingly apparent. Van den Broeck et al. (2009) refer to concrete ways in which school leadership can stimulate or block autonomous motivation. It can be encouraged, for example, by offering choices, explaining the reason for assigned tasks, aligning with the values of employees and showing confidence in their competences. If, on the other hand, em-ployees experience pressure, obligation and control, this comes at the expense of autonomous motivation.

Various other researchers confirm the head teacher’s influence on the perceived extent of autonomy in the teaching context (Fullan, 2007; Imants et al., 2016). The role of recognition and trust is regular-ly highlighted (Kelchtermans, 1994; Moomaw, 2005). The way in which the behaviour of the school leader affects the autonomous motivation of teachers, mediated by basic psychological needs, has rarely been scientifically investigated (Rothmann & Fouché, 2018).

Theoretical dimensions of professional autonomy

The concept of autonomy is operationalized in work-related stud-ies in different ways (Pearson & Moomaw, 2006; Van den Broeck et al., 2009). Most studies of teacher autonomy emphasize ‘task autono-my’, the extent to which the teacher can act independently and influ-ence their work environment, in terms of both carrying out their own tasks in the classroom and influencing school-wide decision-making (Moomaw, 2005). Ryan and Deci place more emphasis on the feeling of being able to function without pressure than on opportunities to actu-ally direct everything oneself (Van den Broeck et al., 2009).

‘This feeling of psychological freedom can arise if employees are given an opportunity to decide, or help decide, things themselves or if they are given options. But it can also arise if tasks are assigned in an empathetic way and with sufficient justification’ (Van den Broeck et al., 2009, p. 320).

A study by Van den Broeck et al. (2008) tested both meanings of autonomy – task autonomy and basic psychological need – in re-lationship to one another. This study took place in a wide range of professions, including education (13% of the research group). The study showed that the role of basic needs (competence, autonomy and relatedness) mediated the relationship between characteristics of the work environment and employee engagement. One of the characteris-tics of the work environment in the study of Van den Broeck et al. was task autonomy, operationalized as the degree to which teachers can influence how they carry out their day-to-day work. For the present study we found it useful to differentiate between the two concepts of autonomy and their interrelationships. Unlike the study by Van den Broeck et al. (2008), we do not regard task autonomy as an independ-ent context variable but as a mediating variable between managemindepend-ent style and the basic need for autonomy. On this basis, we expect to contribute to increasing the understanding of the way leadership can influence the fulfilment of the basic need for autonomy.

The current study is limited to one of the basic needs that are distinguished in SDT: the need for autonomy. This is based on the findings of Rothman and Fouché (2018), who tested the three basic needs as mediating variables between school leader behaviour and job engagement of teachers in South African secondary education. In this research, the fulfilment of the need for autonomy emerged as the most significant mediating variable by far.

The present study

The aim of the present study is to investigate the role of profes-sional autonomy as an underlying mechanism in the way in which head teachers exert influence on the job perception of teachers in the first two grades of primary education. Based on earlier qualitative re-search and the theoretical considerations outlined in this section, the central hypothesis of this study is formulated:

Professional autonomy mediates the link between management style and the job perception of Dutch teachers in grades 1 and 2 of primary school.

We anticipate a positive link (+) between recognition and trust on the part of the head teacher and the perception of professional autonomy on the part of teachers and a negative link (-) between a controlling management style and the perception of professional au-tonomy (see Figure 5.2). A controlling management style is manifested in a top-down management style and a high degree of vertical control by the head teacher. Furthermore, we anticipate a positive link (+) be-tween fulfilment of the need for autonomy and two aspects of job perception: perceived teaching quality and engagement. This engage-ment is expressed as the teacher’s degree of perceived vitality and job involvement.

Based on the outcomes of the study of Van den Broeck et al. (2008), we assume for the study population in the present study, and specifically for the basic need of autonomy, a second path from man-agement style via task autonomy to the basic need for autonomy (see Figure 5.2). Task autonomy is seen as a mediator between manage-ment style and fulfilmanage-ment of the basic psychological need for autono-my. This prompts a second research hypotheses:

Task autonomy mediates the influence of management style on the fulfilment of a teacher’s basic need for autonomy in grades 1 and 2 of primary school.

The hypothetical model is presented in Figure 5.2. It shows the relationship between an autonomy-enhancing or autonomy-suppress-ing management style, task autonomy, the basic need for autonomy and aspects of job perception.

Research method

Study sample

The study sample was made up of Dutch primary school teachers working in grades 1 and 2 of primary education. The operational popu lation comprised all Dutch teachers working with these grades at the time of the study (April 2016).

A random sample was drawn of a size in line with recommenda-tions for model testing (at least ten times as many respondents as var-iables and at least 200 respondents) (Bentler & Chou, 1987). Multistage sampling was used to ensure a balanced distribution across the Neth-erlands, with random selection carried out per province. In order to avoid a nested data structure, only one respondent from each school was admitted to the sample. School characteristics, which were not measured, could play a background role.

It is also important to bear in mind systematic non-response, which model testing could combat. The questionnaire might not have reached a relevant section of the study population, namely teachers who may have left the profession because of a lack of professional autonomy or who were on sick leave, for the same reasons. This could distort the results because participants with a perceived management style that was relatively highly restrictive and a perceived autonomy that was relatively limited would be missing from the study sample. The size of this group of respondents who could not be reached is unknown.

Figure 5.2 Hypothetical model

Instrument

A digital questionnaire was compiled and distributed with the help of Qualtrics. For the purposes of model testing, all individual variables were measured using statements with response options on a 6-point scale. Uniform scales made it possible to make comparisons. Providing six response options meant respondents could give a nu-anced response, and providing an even number of response options, with no neutral mid-point, forced respondents to adopt a position. In part, standardized instruments were used. The operationalization is described below for each variable.

Autonomy

Professional autonomy was operationalized in two ways: per-ceived task autonomy and fulfilment of the basic need for autonomy. An adaptation of the Teacher-perceived autonomy scale (TAS) (Moomaw, 2005) was used to find out about perceived task autonomy, the degree to which a teacher can act independently and exert influence on the work environment. Information about the validity of this instrument can be found in Pearson and Moomaw (2006). To limit the scope of the questionnaire, nine of the 18 items were selected from both parts of the TAS: the General autonomy scale and Curriculum autonomy scale, the balance between the two parts being kept the same. When delet-ing questions, particular attention was paid to redundancy (caused by the repetition of a question) and lack of clarity (e.g., caused by the fact that the questions do not always match the Dutch situation). The items were translated into Dutch, the original 4-point scale was modified to a 6-point scale, and the wording and response scale were adapted slightly so that respondents could give their answers on a 6-point scale. For example, ‘In your situation, who determines ... (e.g., the activities you choose for the children in your class)’, from 1 = ‘I decide entirely myself’ to 6 = ‘It’s entirely decided by others’. Moomaw (2005) shows that both parts of the TAS, the General autonomy scale and the Curriculum autonomy scale, are strongly related. Following Moomaw (2005), the scaled score was calculated on the basis of the

average of all items (Cronbach’s

α

so that a higher score corresponded to greater task autonomy The fulfilment of the basic need for autonomy, defined as the feel-ing of befeel-ing able to work without pressure (Van den Broeck et al., 2009) and being free to act in accordance with one’s own goals and val-ues (Ryan & Deci, 2000), was measured using the Dutch version of the

Work-related Basic Need Satisfaction Scale (Broeck et al., 2010), Section:

Autonomy Satisfaction, all six items. Information about the validity of this instrument can be found in Broeck et al. (2010). The scale was modified from the original 5-point to a 6-point scale (e.g., ‘My tasks

at work correspond to what I really want to do’, from 1 = ‘Completely disagree’ to 6 = ‘Completely agree’). The scaled score was calculated

on the basis of the average of the six items (Cronbach’s

α

Management style

Management style involves two constructs: recognition and trust

and controlling management style, the latter of which was measured in relation to two separate aspects of management behaviour: top-down

management and vertical control. The items in the questionnaire are based on statements from respondents in the exploratory study that prompted the present study (see Chapter IV). All items enquired about teachers’ experience and situation in the current school year, involving statements with response options from 1 = ‘Completely disagree’ to 6 = ‘Completely agree’. Recognition and trust were measured by three items (e.g., ‘The head teacher has confidence in my expertise’). The scaled score was calculated on the basis of the average of the three

items (Cronbach’s

α

meas-ured with two separate, single items. To measure a top-down

manage-ment style, respondents were asked to rate the statement: ‘The head teacher involves me and my colleagues in decisions that affect our work’. The scores on this scale were reversed so that a higher score corresponds to a stronger top-down style. To measure vertical control, respondents rated the statement: ‘The head teacher checks whether I am adhering to the rules’.

Job perception

The respondents’ job perception was measured on two compo-nents: perceived teaching quality and teacher engagement: vitality and job involvement. Respondents were informed that the questions related to their job perception over the past two months.

The items that were designed to measure the perception of

teach-ing quality were based on statements by respondents in the explora-tory study that prompted the present study (e.g., ‘The children can develop optimally in the current working conditions in my class’, from 1 = ‘Completely disagree’ to 6 = ‘Completely agree’, and ‘I feel that I am not giving the children what they need’, 1= ‘Never’ to 6 = ‘Every day’). The scaled score for teaching quality was calculated on the basis of

the average of eight items (Cronbach’s

α

With respect to engagement, respondents were asked to rate statements about the teaching situation on a 6-point scale, from 1 = ‘Never’ to 6 = ‘Every day’. Questions from the short version of the Utrecht Work Engagement Scale (UWES) were used (Schaufeli & Bakker, 2003). Five of the nine items from that scale were used to measure

vitality (‘vigour’ in the UWES; for example: ‘I’m bursting with energy at

work’), and job involvement (‘dedication’ and ‘absorption’ in the UWES; for example: ‘My job inspires me’). The questions were supplemented by five negatively worded questions to measure lack of vitality (e.g., ‘I sometimes feel I can’t keep going for much longer’) and low engage-ment (e.g., ‘I sometimes think about looking for a new employer’). The scaled score for vitality was calculated on the basis of the average of

four items (Cronbach’s

α

was calculated on the basis of the average of six items (Cronbach’s

α

Additional statements

In addition to questions for the purpose of model testing, the questionnaire contained two general statements about working with young children in the current social context, based on the exploratory study that prompted the present study. One was about the respond-ent themselves: I feel that I must actively protect young children from

outside influences on the educational approach in grades 1 and 2, and one about the head teacher: The head teacher actively safeguards the

quality of teaching to young children.

Procedure

The DUO list (2016) of main locations of primary schools, which is organized by province, was used as a sampling frame. Every twen-tieth school on the list was selected. The grade 1 and 2 teachers were approached by phone, at random for each school. In some cases there was a ‘gatekeeper’ who requested information about the study before passing on the teacher’s details. In these instances the gatekeeper was only given general information about the study, and not given the questionnaire itself. They were told that the work environment was one of the items being asked about. No explicit mention was made of the fact that management style was one of the aspects of work envi-ronment. This was in order to reduce any possible influence by man-agement on participation. Each participating respondent received an individual link to the questionnaire, which could only be used once. It took about 10-15 minutes to complete the questionnaire. Respondents who promised to take part but did not respond were sent an email reminder after 14 days.

Analysis

The study sample will first be described in relation to regional distribution, general characteristics of the sample and responses to the general statements about working with young children in the cur-rent social context.

calculated for all individual variables. Structural equation modelling with the aid of the LISREL 8.80 analysis program was used to test the relationships within the hypothetical structural model (Jöreskog & Sörbom, 1996). Several goodness-of-fit measures were determined (Byrne, Shavelson, & Muthén, 1989; Hox, 1999), included: the χ² / df ratio (i.e. the ratio between χ² and the degrees of freedom), the P-Value for test of close fit, the Root Mean Square Error of Approximation (RMSEA), the Goodness of Fit Index (GFI), the Incremental Fit Index (IFI) and the Adjusted Goodness of Fit Index (AGFI). Because the χ², the P-statistic and the (A)GFI are sensitive to the size of the sample and deviations from the assumed normal distribution, we also report the χ² / df ratio, the RMSEA and the IFI. Fit indices above .95, an RMSEA be-low .05 and an χ² / df ratio bebe-low 2 are indicative of a good fit (Marsch et al., 2004; Byrne, 2010).

Results

Description of the sample

Phone calls were made to a total of 349 schools in accordance with the procedure outlined. At 41 schools, contact could not be es-tablished with a year 1 or 2 teacher because the teacher was not avail-able or the gatekeeper refused participation (in 10 cases). In all, 308 teachers were approached. Seven did not wish to receive the question-naire. In most cases, work pressure was cited as the reason for not taking part. Three hundred and one teachers undertook to participate and were sent a questionnaire. Two hundred and fifty questionnaires were returned, five of which were not filled in completely and were therefore eliminated from the database. Two hundred and forty-five teachers filled in the entire questionnaire (response rate of 80% of the 308 teachers approached).

There was an even national distribution within the sample. Of the 245 teachers in the sample, 98% were female. Respondents’ ages ranged from 20 to 64 years, with an average age of 46. Fifty-two per-cent of respondents were older than 49. In terms of qualifications, the majority of respondents has primary-school teacher training (4-year PABO) (51.4%), while 36.7% had preschool teacher training (KLOS), 9.4% had former primary teacher training (PA), and 2.4% had another quali-fication. The schools where the respondents worked were 33.5% non-denominational, 26.9% Protestant, 28.9% Roman Catholic, and 10.9% another denomination. Twelve percent of the schools were of a spe-cific school type (Jenaplan, Montessori, Steiner, Dalton, experience-based education), of which over half (6.5%) were Dalton.

Working with young children in the current social context

Respondents rated two statements about working with young children in the current social context. There was an uneven distribu-tion of responses for the statement: I feel that I must actively protect young children from outside influences on the educational approach in grades 1 and 2. Eighty-seven percent of respondents agreed with the statement, with the largest group (33%) being in complete agree-ment. Twelve percent disagreed, of whom only two percent completely disagreed. The average of the overall score is 4.8, which is well above the middle in the score range from 1 (minimum) to 6 (maximum).

The distribution was less skewed for the statement: The head

teacher actively safeguards the quality of teaching to young children.

Again, the majority of respondents agreed with the statement (73%), while 27% disagreed. The average of the overall score is 4.1, which is above average in the score range from 1 (minimum) to 6 (maximum).

Model testing

The LISREL 8.80 (Jöreskog & Sörbom, 2006) was used to test the hypothetical model showing the assumed relationships between man-agement style (recognition and trust, vertical control and top-down

management), professional autonomy (task autonomy and basic need) and job perception (perception of work quality and of vitality and job

involvement) (see Figure 5.2).

The management characteristics (recognition and trust, vertical

control and top-down management) are regarded as independent vari-ables in the model. The two components of professional autonomy (task autonomy and basic need) and the individual aspects of job per-ception (perper-ception of work quality and of vitality and job

involve-ment) are regarded as mediating and dependent variables

respective-ly. The unique standardized regression weights were calculated for all indicators. The calculation between the indicators for job perception were set free.

The Pearson’s correlations, shown in Table 5.1, formed the start-ing point for the analyses. The table also shows the mean scores for the different items, together with the standard deviations.

Table 5.1 shows a high correlation between the scales that meas-ured job perception. The same is true of both aspects of autonomy. The correlations between the individual aspects of management style are less consistent. The correlations between vertical control and the other two items are low and not significant, whereas there is a signifi-cant and fairly strong correlation between top-down management and

trust/recognition. Also conspicuous are the significant correlations be-tween all of the separately measured items of management style and the two aspects of autonomy, and also the positive/negative relation-ship point to a confirmation of the hypothetical model. The correla-tions between both aspects of autonomy and aspects of job perception are almost all strong, whereby the correlations with autonomy as a

basic need are significantly stronger than those with autonomy as task

autonomy.

With regard to the frequencies of aspects of management style, we see that the average rating for recognition/trust is high: 5 on a scale from 1 to 6. The two remaining aspects are fairly low, with

verti-cal control rated just below the middle, and top-down management well above the middle. We also note that the average rating for the two items relating to autonomy are above the middle: both at 4.3. The distribution for autonomy as a basic need was a little wider than for

task autonomy. The average scores for the aspects of job perception are also above the middle, with the score for job involvement being the highest (4.9 on a scale from 1 to 6).

Table 5.1 Pearson’s correlations between variables (2-sided) (N= 245), including mean

scaled scores and standard deviations

Variables: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 X SD Management style 1. Recognition/Trust 1 5.0 0.85 2. Vertical control -.122 1 3.4 1.44 3. Top-down management -.626** .103 1 2.2 1.10 Professional autonomy

4. Autonomy (task autonomy) .417** -.260** -.432** 1 4.3 0.74 5. Autonomy (basic need) .469** -.291** -.412** .653** 1 4.3 1.01

Job perception

6. Perceived work quality .434** -.181** -.323** .509** .703** 1 4.2 0.90

7. Vitality .407** -.194** -.315** .354** .590** .625** 1 4.4 0.88

8. Job involvement .441** -.164* -.324** .428** .604** .672** .820** 1 4.9 0.83

** p< 0.01 * p< 0.05

Model testing

The results of the model testing using LISREL 8.80 (Jöreskog & Sörbom, 2006) are shown in Figure 5.3 and Table 5.2. Figure 5.3 shows all the direct effects.

The total and indirect effects are shown in Table 5.2. These are standardized regression weights.

For the model, shown in Figure 5.2, the goodness-of-fit value

χ² 18 =23.88 (p=.16), and the ratio χ² /df= 23.88/18= 1.33. The RMSEA

is .035 and the P value for test of close fit is .72. The GFI of the model is .977, the CFI .996, and the AGFI .95. We may conclude from the vari-ous goodness-of-fit measures that the model in Figure 5.2 is a suitable model for the data collected. The model was therefore not rejected.

Explanation

There are significant indirect effects of all aspects of management

style on all aspects of job perception. The effects take two routes, with both components of professional autonomy functioning as mediator variables.

In particular, the effects of experienced autonomy on the job

per-ception of the teachers are large. These effects are all strong, unique contributions of autonomy (basic psychological need). The model as a whole explains 49% of the variance in perceived teaching quality, 35% of the variance in perceived vitality and 37% of the variance in per-ceived job involvement.

Figure 5.3 and Table 5.2 also show that 26% of autonomy (task

Figure 5.3 Structural equation model showing the interrelationships between management style, aspects of professional autonomy and aspects of job perception (N=245).

autonomy) can be explained by the head teacher’s management style. This involves direct effects of all aspects of management style distin-guished in the model. The stronger the sense of recognition and trust by the school leader, the stronger they experience the feeling that they can influence their work environment. Vertical control and top-down management, by contrast, reduce this experience of autonomous con-trol.

Management style also has both a direct and an indirect effect on the fulfilment of the basic need for autonomy, with the excep-tion of a direct effect of top-down approach (not significant). Indirect

Table 5.2 Standardized solution of indirect (IE), direct (DE), total effects (TE) and the correlations (R)

Management style Professional autonomy

1. 2. 3. 4. 5.

Recognition/ Vertical Top-down Autonomy Autonomy Trust control management (task (basic need) autonomy) Professional autonomy 4. TE 0.222** -0.205** -0.272** Autonomy DE 0.222** -0.205** -0.272** (task autonomy) IE -- -- -- R 0.417 -0.260 -0.432 5. Autonomy TE 0.325** -0.232** -0.185** 0.512** (basic need) DE 0.212** -0.127** -0.045 0.512** IE 0.114** -0.105** -0.139** -- R 0.469 -0.291 -0.412 0.653 Job perception 6. TE 0.229** -0.163** -0.130** 0.360** 0.703** Perceived DE -- -- -- -- 0.703** teaching quality IE 0.229** -0.163** -0.130** 0.360** --R 0.330 -0.205 -0.290 0.459 0.703 7. Vitality TE 0.192** -0.137** -0.109** 0.302** 0.590** DE -- -- -- -- 0.590** IE 0.192** -0.137** -0.109** 0.302** --R 0.277 -0.172 -0.243 0.385 0.590 8. Job involvement TE 0.196** -0.140** -0.111** 0.309** 0.604** DE -- -- -- -- 0.604** IE 0.196** -0.140** -0.111** 0.309** --R 0.283 -0.176 -0.249 0.394 0.604 ** p< 0.01

V

effects of management style on perceived autonomy (basic need) go via autonomy (task autonomy). Teachers experience a stronger sense of choosing a task themselves in a situation in which they experience

task autonomy. A sense of recognition and trust from their school leader has a direct and an indirect influence on this sense of psycho-logical freedom. Vertical control by the school leader decreases this sense of psychological freedom, again, both directly and indirectly through task autonomy. The effect of the top-down approach on per-ceived autonomy (basic need), however, is fully mediated by autonomy

(task autonomy).

The total explained variance in perceived autonomy (basic need) is 49%. The contribution of autonomy (task autonomy) to perceived autonomy (basic need) consists partly of a direct effect and the media-tor effect of aspects of management style. Table 5.2 shows that 43% of perceived autonomy (basic need) can be explained by the unique direct effect of autonomy (task autonomy).

Discussion

The aim of the analysis was to check whether the professional autonomy of Dutch teachers in grades 1 and 2 of primary school medi-ates between the head teacher’s management style and teachers’ job perception. In addition, it was investigated in which way two concepts of autonomy distinguished in the literature (regulating space and ba-sic psychological need), play a role in this mediating function.

Both hypotheses formulated for this purpose are not contradicted by the results of the analysis. Our first conclusion is that professional

autonomy mediates the link between management style and the job perception of Dutch teachers in the first two grades of primary school. The results support both the importance of autonomy in the educa-tional workplace for teaching quality and teacher wellbeing (Ryan & Deci, 2000; Biesta, 2011; Bleach, 2014; Kelchtermans, 2012) and the influence of context (e.g., Deci et al., 1994) and the head teacher as key factor in creating that context (e.g., Minnaert & Odenthal, 2018). Per-ceived autonomy has pronounced effects on teacher’s job perceptions. These effects are all strong, unique contributions of autonomy (basic

need). The correlation between perceived autonomy and perceived

teaching quality is particularly high: teachers evidently see the degree to which they feel free to act in accordance with their own goals and values reflected in the quality of their teaching. The influence of

man-agement style on perceived autonomy (the left-hand side of the model) was also strong. Fifty percent of autonomy (basic need) is explained, directly or indirectly, by the head teacher’s management style. The direct effects of aspects of management style on aspects of autonomy show a diverse picture and are generally less strong than is the case

for the direct relationships between autonomy and job perception (the right-hand side of the model). A possible influencing factor may have been the systematic non-response mentioned earlier. Teachers who, because of a lack of professional autonomy, may have left the profession or gone on sick leave and were therefore not reached in the present sample, may have reported a perceived management style that was relatively highly restrictive and a relatively limited perceived autonomy. This possible non-response may have suppressed the cor-relations to some extent.

The second conclusion is that perceived task autonomy partial-ly mediates the influence of management style on fulfilling the basic

need for autonomy among teachers in the first two grades of primary school. By linking the two concepts of autonomy in a hypothetical model, more insight has been gained into the way school leaders can influence the fulfilment of teachers’ basic need for autonomy and into the role of task autonomy associated with it. Providing actual task autonomy is one of the aspects within the educational context with which the school leader can influence the fulfilment of the basic psy-chological need for autonomy (Van den Broeck et al., 2008; Schaufeli & Taris, 2013), but independently of this, recognition and trust also seem important (Deci et al., 1994; Fullan, 2007; Kelchtermans, 1994; Moomaw, 2005). We see that the influence of a top-down management style is fully mediated by the perceived task autonomy: there is no significant direct effect of a top-down approach by the head teacher on the fulfilment of the teacher’s basic need for autonomy. An explanation could be that the degree of top-down management is mainly directly observed in terms of the degree of task autonomy. Vertical control, on the other hand, has both direct and indirect effects on the perception of the basic need for autonomy, with the direct effect on task

autono-my being stronger than the direct effect on basic need.

For recognition/trust, the direct effects are almost the same. It is obvious to assume that the degree of perceived recognition of, and trust in, the teacher’s expertise is largely reflected in the extent to which the teacher is involved in decision-making. The fact that there is also a strong direct correlation with fulfilment of the basic need for autonomy could perhaps point to the significant direct role played by communication (Deci et al., 1994). A critical question here is: Does having/acquiring influence also affect the teacher’s sense of recogni-tion? There could be recursive relationship. Van den Berg et al. (2012) posit that ‘a lack of autonomy makes teachers feel they are valued less because no confidence is placed in their professional competence’ (p. 49).

Limitations of the study

The study is not without its limitations. The research question for measuring management style was based on an earlier exploratory study within the specific target group and was therefore exploratory in nature. This resulted in two single questions for the aspects of vertical control and top-down management, whereas the other aspects were all measured on the basis of composite scores. For follow-up studies, it would be recommended to measure these aspects again in greater detail for this target group.

Another issue is that all variables were measured as respondent perceptions. There could be a discrepancy, for example, between the recognition and trust of management as perceived by teachers and the way in which the management itself might report on it. We have been unable to check this as it was not included in the study. Van den Berg et al. (2012) point out in their study that perceived acknowledgement did not correspond to actual acknowledgement by the environment. However, in the model under study it is the perceived and not the

actual management style that influences autonomy (again perceived) and job perception (also subjective).

A third concern is the interrelationship between engagement (vitality and job involvement) and teaching quality. Various research-ers who have shown that autonomy is a precondition for engagement identify a separate causal link between engagement and teaching qual-ity (e.g., Appleton, 2008; Day & Gu, 2007; Schaufeli & Bakker, 2013). This was not included in this model testing because it was beyond the scope of the research question.

Fourth, De Lange, De Witte, and Notelaers (2008) point to the small number of longitudinal studies that have looked at relation-ships between work environment and engagement. They also point to the dominance of unidirectional causal models. The few studies that tested recursive or bidirectional effects showed that these effects definitely exist and are better than unidirectional models at showing that employees themselves can be regarded as ‘active shapers or job crafters of their work environment, rather than as passive receivers only’ (2008, p. 203). As in most studies of the influences of work en-vironment on aspects of job perception, we tested a model with uni-directional relationships and did so just once, because we focused on the question of how school leaders, through strengthening the pro-fessional autonomy of teachers, can influence various aspects of job perception.

A follow-up longitudinal study could investigate these bidirec-tional relationships more closely. This is especially important because the influence of management is by no means a fully determining fac-tor. Despite significant results, management style explains only part

of the variance in perceived autonomy. Teachers sometimes still per-ceive a fairly high degree of professional autonomy in restrictive en-vironments as well (see Chapter IV). Many researchers cited earlier in this chapter emphasize that, while autonomous motivation can be promoted by the environment, factors within individuals themselves also play an important role (e.g., Imants et al., 2016; Minnaert, 2005; Ryan & Deci, 2000; Schaufeli & Taris, 2013). Teachers are not only the ‘object’ of action by others, but can themselves maintain or change cultures and reproduce or interrupt structures (Imants et al., 2016). This suggests important new research questions about how teachers are able to exploit, bend and stretch the professional space.

Relevance to society

A good deal of attention has recently been paid to the importance of professional autonomy in education and to the role of head teach-ers in creating the right conditions (Imants et al., 2016; Kessels, 2012; Rothmann & Fouché, 2018). In addition to the significance of auton-omy for teaching quality, the significance of autonauton-omy for turnover within education is of growing importance (Rothmann & Fouché, 2018; Van den Berg et al., 2012). Retention of teachers is one of the lines of action of the government against the current teacher shortage (Slob & van Engelshoven, 2018). Particularly in relation to current policy, where growing pressure is being observed on increasing educational outcomes (Van den Berg et al., 2012; Biesta, 2007; Imants et al. 2016; Kelchtermans, 2012; Osgood, 2006), the role of head teachers is an important factor when it comes to turnover. ‘Accountability pressure is sharpening the traditionally collegial relationship with head teach-ers and their managteach-ers’ (van den Berg et al., 2012, p. 49). Government policy aims to expand that autonomy, but this focus entails at the same time a tightening of the supervisory framework (Van den Berg et al., 2012; Kessels, 2012). Within this strained relationship between professional space and an administrative tendency towards control (Van den Berg et al., 2012; Kessels (2012) outlines the manager’s dif-ficult position between the government and the workplace. According to Kessels: ‘administrators of sector councils will encourage school boards and head teachers to change, which will then focus their influ-ence once again on teachers’ (Kessels, 2012, p. 17). Kessels believes, however, that head teachers are able to interpret their leadership dif-ferently and look for forms of horizontal leadership in which difficult issues are tackled together with colleagues. Imants et al. (2016) show that the Dutch primary education system offers scope for local head teachers to develop a bottom-up approach where there is room for teacher ownership. In the results presented above, we have seen that this space exists in the lower grades of primary education. Moreover,

we also saw that most of the head teachers were at least partly suc-cessful at utilizing this space. The average score on experienced top-down management style was rather low, at 2.2 on a scale of 6 (see Table 5.1). In contrast, the perception of recognition and trust from the school management was high, at 5 on a 6-point scale.

Specifically for the educational work context, Minnaert (2018) points out that management can enhance educational quality by de-ploying the basic needs of teachers as a fundamental tool for main-taining teacher engagement in a learning process aimed at improving education. For the teaching profession, engagement means – by defi-nition – engagement with the child. This is because the ‘product’ of education is the optimum development of pupils. This engagement with children is a prerequisite for their optimum development. The first two grades of primary school lay the foundation for the further school career. It is remarkable that many teachers in this study felt that they had to actively protect young children from outside influ-ences on the educational approach in grades 1 and 2. The majority of them also reported that they were supported by their head teacher in this. However, a considerable group of teachers (27%) did not experi-ence support from the school management. Here, there is still room for substantial improvement.

In their position, situated between the government and the work-place, the head teacher can make a vital mediating contribution to maintaining a healthy balance between external regulations and pro-fessional autonomy of teachers in the lower grades of primary educa-tion. The study provided some practical tools for influencing the job perception of teachers in a positive way: creating room for task auton-omy, recognizing and relying on the specific expertise of ECE teachers and avoiding strong vertical control. This confirms the results of the preliminary exploratory study (see Chapter IV), which showed that the head teacher, in a form of horizontal leadership (Kessels, 2012), can facilitate teachers in the lower grades to find appropriate responses to external demands themselves, within their own context and based on their own expertise. In this situation, teachers experience trust and recognition of their specific expertise.