In Sweden there have been some teaching reforms enabling teachers to improve their teaching competence and knowledge. A presumption within these reforms is that teaching is something that one always can improve and therefore never should be seen as something “completed”. Similar opinions are often articulated when teachers assess student teachers´ performances during their teaching practice.

However there are as well policy texts that emphasize the importance of controlling teaching competence, suggesting that teaching isn´t something that everyone has the talent to do. As a consequence gatekeeping function should be highlighted enabling only the right persons to enter the profession.

In total these different discourses of teaching competence could be related by suggesting an “essential base-competence” where gatekeeping should be more emphasized, and thereafter specific sub competencies focusing learning and development.

But how can one understand such an “essential base - competence” in terms of content and in terms of gatekeeping strategies? One way to answer this question might be done by examining gatekeeping within teacher education and by asking teacher educators under what circumstances they will suggest a failure grade during student teachers´ teaching practice. The research questions in the thesis are:

RQ 1: What do teachers, working as mentors during student teachers´ teaching practice, describe as an ”essential base-competence”, those aspects influencing whether to suggest a failure grade or not?

RQ 2: What kind of experiences do mentors describe after working with student teachers doing their “second chance” in a new school? What, in the essential base, is seen as possible to develop, how might this be done, and what is seen as more difficult to develop, suggesting a failure grade once more?

I have analyzed some initial pilot surveys (with a national sample) where different administrators have described what normally is seen as insufficiency in student teachers´ performances, suggesting for example that it seldom is a lack of content knowledge, but rather subtle interaction issues and relational aspects.

As a theoretical statement I have tried to see children’s self-understanding as something growing from interaction situations where teachers´ (or student teachers´) contributions are of crucial importance. When children are able to see themselves through the eyes of a teacher, self-understanding processes are involved enabling further development and learning processes. This is a theoretical presumption of human development that has some roots in Hegels, Fichtes and Meads philosophies. A dialectical perspective of communication make it possible to emphasize the importance of teachers being able to understand childrens´/pupils’ perspectives and feelings without suppressing their own subjectivity in a classroom situation.

Moreover, this intersubjective perspective of pedagogy might as well be fruitful when it comes to the second research question – that is, when it comes to the student teacher´s owns development and the mentor´s contribution in this sense.

Goodwin, A. L., & Oyler, C. (2008). Teacher educators as gatekeepers. Deciding who is ready to teach. In M. Cochran-Smith, S. Feiman-Nemser, D. J. McIntyre, & K. E. Demers. (Ed.), Handbook of research on teacher education: Enduring questions in changing contexts, (p. 468-489). New York, NY: Routledge. Hegender, H. (2010). The assessment of student teachers’ academic and professional knowledge in school-based teacher education, Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research, 54(2), 151-171. Knudsen, R. E., & Turley, S. (2000). University supervisors and at-risk student teachers. Journal of Research and Development in Education, 29(2), 35-58. Nordänger, U-K. & Lindqvist, P. (2015). ”Det såg vi från början …” ? – Underkännanden i den svenska lärarutbildningens verksamhetsförlagda delar. In Press: Nordic Studies in Education. Polanyi, M. (1962) Personal Knowledge. Towards a Post-Critical Philosophy. University of Chicago Press. Chicago, IL. Raths, J. & Lyman. F. (2003). Summative evaluation of student teachers. An enduring problem. Journal of Teacher Education, 54(3), 206-216. Uljens, M. (2001) Om hur människan blir människa bland människor - om pedagogik och intersubjektivitet. Utbildning & Demokrati, 10(3), 85-102.