The Value of Relational Teacher Autonomy

Abstract Autonomy is an ideal both defended and condemned by theorists and empirical scholars alike. I begin this article by suggesting that at least part of this ongoing debate can be explained by the fact that autonomy—and teacher autonomy, in particular—is a slippery concept. While some scholars characterize autonomy in ways that highlight teachers' control, others prioritize rational independence or even creativity and emotion. Such ambiguity makes it difficult to know what we are evaluating as a potential good that is worth defending for teachers, as well as to articulate the reasons we might have to preserve it. This article seeks to closely interrogate the concept of teacher autonomy through analyzing a normative case study. I first demonstrate how teacher autonomy can and should be understood as more than rational choice or control. Drawing on David Enoch's distinction between “autonomy as sovereignty” and “autonomy as non‐alienation,” as well as on Doris Santoro's notion of a teacher's “moral center,” I propose an account of teacher autonomy that prioritizes non‐alienation. However, the subsequent analysis reveals that this account on its own falls short of capturing all the ways in which a teacher's autonomy might be at stake. I suggest this is due to the deep relationality that characterizes how values are both constructed and expressed through teaching. That is, because teaching is a shared practice, teachers' values and commitments are often formed and enacted in relation with others. I argue that this has implications for the way we evaluate and advocate for the autonomy of teachers.