Reconceptualizing Teacher Professional Competence at the Nexus of Autonomy and Accountability: A Systematic Review and Conceptual Framework for School Education

Abstract

Teacher professional competence, teacher autonomy, and teacher accountability are among the most extensively studied constructs in school-education research, yet they are rarely theorized together. This paper presents a systematic literature review and conceptual synthesis to examine how these three constructs relate in the context of school teachers and to propose reconceptualizing teacher professional competence as a construct co-produced at the intersection of autonomy and accountability rather than determined by either alone. Following a PRISMA-informed search and synthesis strategy, the review first examines each construct individually - competence as a continuum from disposition to performance (Blömeke et al., 2015), autonomy as perceived and structural control over classroom, school, and professional decisions (Pearson & Hall, 1993; Wermke & Salokangas, 2021), and accountability as the mechanisms by which teachers are held answerable for process and outcomes (Ordofa & Asgedom, 2022; Sahlberg, 2010) - before turning to three pairwise relationships: competence and autonomy, competence and accountability, and autonomy and accountability. The synthesis reveals a recurring pattern across the literature: autonomy and accountability are neither opposed nor simply complementary but exist in a conditional, context-dependent relationship in which each can either enable or constrain the development of professional competence, depending on the trust, evaluative purpose, and decision-making structures within which they operate. Building on this synthesis, the paper proposes an integrative conceptual framework in which teacher professional competence is positioned as the emergent outcome of a negotiated balance between autonomy and accountability, rather than as an independent teacher attribute. Four figures and four tables - a PRISMA flow diagram, a competence-continuum model, an autonomy-accountability quadrant matrix, and a nexus framework diagram, alongside an inclusion/exclusion criteria table, a definitional summary table, a comparative synthesis table, and an evidence table of key studies - are used to structure and illustrate the review. The paper concludes with implications for school-level policy, teacher evaluation design, and teacher professional development, and outlines an agenda for future empirical research.

Introduction

The text examines the relationship between teacher professional competence, teacher autonomy, and teacher accountability in school education. It argues that these three concepts are usually studied separately, even though they strongly influence one another.

Central argument

Modern education systems expect teachers to be both trusted professionals with decision-making freedom and accountable employees responsible for educational outcomes. This creates a tension between:

• Teacher autonomy: the degree of control teachers have over classroom, curriculum, school, and professional decisions.
• Teacher accountability: the systems through which teachers are evaluated and held responsible for their professional processes and outcomes.
• Teacher professional competence: teachers' knowledge, beliefs, motivation, situation-specific skills, decision-making abilities, and observable classroom performance.

The paper argues that autonomy and accountability should not simply be viewed as opposing forces. Instead, professional competence emerges partly from how autonomy and accountability are balanced within a particular school context.

Key theoretical ideas

The paper uses Blömeke et al.'s competence continuum, which describes competence as progressing from professional dispositions → situation-specific skills → observable performance. This means competence is not just what teachers know; it also involves how they interpret situations, make decisions, and perform in real classrooms.

Teacher autonomy is described as multidimensional, covering classroom, curricular, school-level, and professional decisions. Research shows that teachers often have substantial freedom in classroom matters but considerably less influence over school-wide policies.

The paper highlights the “autonomy paradox”: increasing teachers' decision-making freedom can sometimes increase their sense of constraint because greater autonomy also means greater responsibility for the consequences of their decisions.

Teacher accountability can involve:

• Standardized testing and outcome-based evaluation.
• Professional and collegial evaluation.
• Inspection and other formal monitoring mechanisms.

The literature suggests that accountability is more effective when it supports professional judgment rather than replacing it. Holding teachers responsible for outcomes while giving them little control over the conditions affecting those outcomes can create a mismatch between responsibility and power.

Methodology

The study conducts a PRISMA-informed systematic literature review using sources from Scopus, Web of Science, ERIC, and Google Scholar.

The review has two stages:

1. It examines the three constructs individually to establish their definitions and dimensions.
2. It examines their three pairwise relationships:
   • Competence and autonomy.
   • Competence and accountability.
   • Autonomy and accountability.

The selected literature is analyzed thematically rather than through meta-analysis, focusing on whether relationships are enabling, constraining, or context-dependent.

Main research gap

Existing research tends to treat:

• Autonomy as a condition that influences competence.
• Accountability as a mechanism for measuring or improving competence.
• Competence as an individual teacher characteristic.

The paper challenges this separation and argues that autonomy and accountability are actually part of the context through which professional competence develops and is demonstrated.

Conclusion

This paper set out to answer a question left largely implicit in prior research: what happens to teacher professional competence when it is examined not as an independent variable but as a construct produced at the intersection of teacher autonomy and teacher accountability? The systematic review of both the individual constructs and their three pairwise relationships shows that competence, autonomy, and accountability are conceptually and empirically entangled rather than separable. Competence is partly constituted by the situation-specific decision-making that autonomy governs and the performance that accountability measures (Blömeke et al., 2015); autonomy and accountability, in turn, expand and contract together rather than trading off cleanly against one another (Wermke & Salokangas, 2021). The Reconceptualized Nexus Framework proposed in this paper repositions teacher professional competence as an emergent outcome of how autonomy and accountability are jointly configured, rather than as a fixed teacher attribute that these two forces act upon separately. This reframing carries a clear practical corollary: efforts to raise teacher competence through accountability alone, or through autonomy alone, are likely to be incomplete, and in some conditions counterproductive, because they treat as independent what the literature reviewed here shows to be interdependent. Future research, discussed further below, is needed to test this framework empirically within specific school systems.

References

[1] Anuk, B., & Kat?ta?, S. (2025). The role of professional autonomy in the professional development of teachers. Nev?ehir Hac? Bekta? Veli Üniversitesi SBE Dergisi, 15(3), 1647–1666. [2] Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. W. H. Freeman. [3] Blömeke, S., Gustafsson, J.-E., & Shavelson, R. J. (2015). Beyond dichotomies: Competence viewed as a continuum. Zeitschrift für Psychologie, 223(1), 3–13. https://doi.org/10.1027/2151-2604/a000194 [4] Caldwell, B. J., & Spinks, J. M. (1988). The self-managing school. Falmer Press. [5] Darling-Hammond, L. (2000). Teacher quality and student achievement: A review of state policy evidence. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 8, Article 1. https://doi.org/10.14507/epaa.v8n1.2000 [6] Darling-Hammond, L., Hyler, M. E., & Gardner, M. (2017). Effective teacher professional development. Learning Policy Institute. [7] Evetts, J. (2011). A new professionalism? Challenges and opportunities. Current Sociology, 59(4), 406–422. https://doi.org/10.1177/0011392111402585 [8] Ingersoll, R. M. (2003). Who controls teachers’ work? Power and accountability in America’s schools. Harvard University Press. [9] Ingersoll, R. M. (2007). Short on power, long on responsibility. Educational Leadership, 65(1), 20–25. [10] Liebowitz, D. D. (2021). Teacher evaluation for accountability and growth: Should policy treat them as complements or substitutes? Labor Economics, 71, Article 102024. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.labeco.2021.102024 [11] OECD. (2020). TALIS 2018 results (Volume II): Teachers and school leaders as valued professionals. OECD Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1787/19cf08df-en [12] Ordofa, B., & Asgedom, A. (2022). School accountability and its relationship with learning outcomes: A systematic literature review. Social Sciences and Humanities Open, 6(1), Article 100358. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssaho.2022.100358 [13] Page, M. J., McKenzie, J. E., Bossuyt, P. M., Boutron, I., Hoffmann, T. C., Mulrow, C. D., Shamseer, L., Tetzlaff, J. M., Akl, E. A., Brennan, S. E., Chou, R., Glanville, J., Grimshaw, J. M., Hróbjartsson, A., Lalu, M. M., Li, T., Loder, E. W., Mayo-Wilson, E., McDonald, S., … Moher, D. (2021). The PRISMA 2020 statement: An updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. BMJ, 372, Article n71. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.n71 [14] Parcerisa, L., Verger, A., Pagès, M., & Browes, N. (2022). Teacher autonomy in the age of performance-based accountability: A review based on teaching profession regulatory models (2017–2020). Education Policy Analysis Archives, 30(100). https://doi.org/10.14507/epaa.30.6204 [15] Paulsrud, D., & Wermke, W. (2020). Decision-making in context: Swedish and Finnish teachers’ perceptions of autonomy. Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research, 64(5), 706–727. https://doi.org/10.1080/00313831.2019.1596975 [16] Pearson, L. C., & Hall, B. W. (1993). Initial construct validation of the teaching autonomy scale. The Journal of Educational Research, 86(3), 172–178. https://doi.org/10.1080/00220671.1993.9941155 [17] Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2000). Self-determination theory and the facilitation of intrinsic motivation, social development, and well-being. American Psychologist, 55(1), 68–78. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.55.1.68 [18] Sahlberg, P. (2010). Rethinking accountability in a knowledge society. Journal of Educational Change, 11(1), 45–61. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10833-008-9098-2 [19] Salokangas, M., Wermke, W., & Harvey, G. (2020). Teachers’ autonomy deconstructed: Irish and Finnish teachers’ perceptions of decision-making and control. European Educational Research Journal, 19(4), 329–350. https://doi.org/10.1177/1474904119868378 [20] Wermke, W., & Salokangas, M. (2021). The autonomy paradox: Teachers’ perceptions of self-governance across Europe. Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-65602-7 [21] Wills, J. S., & Sandholtz, J. H. (2009). Constrained professionalism: Dilemmas of teaching in the face of test-based accountability. Teachers College Record, 111(4), 1065–1114. https://doi.org/10.1177/016146810911100401

Copyright

Copyright © 2026 Senapati Nayak, Sambit Kumar Padhi, Smt. Ankita Sharma, Manoj Kumar Patel, Hemlata Patel. This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.