The presentation aims to theorize about the local production of education data within the teaching profession. New educational policy, such as the production of various data cannot be handled by the individual teachers alone. Different cooperation forms have become necessary for mandatory work with school profiles, school curriculum and national curriculum testing, to name a few internationally employed challenges teachers face today (Bondorf, 2012). Teachers’ service has changed through contemporary paradigm shifts in school governance as pointed out by rich empirical research, e.g. in the Nordic and German speaking countries (Lundström, 2015; Mickwitz, 2015) (Bondorf, 2012; Heinrich, 2015). We see such developments as significant parts of the teaching profession, who’s working conditions always have changed in relation to societal trends, thus we ask how the new technologies can attach to inner professional structures and organisational structures of the school. In this presentation we consider this issue as an interdependent relation that includes the production of data as a legitimization of the existence of the profession and the state organised school. Consequently, we see teachers as an ascriptive profession. With Vanderstraeten (2007) we argue, that the role of the practitioners is the direct result of their active membership and assigned position. This membership is the foundation for the profession’s existence, its duties as well as its assets. Consequently, the group of professionals must supervise its members, to prevent misconduct that can damage the profession as a whole and the organisation it needs to exist. Various control mechanisms can be described by employing classical work on teacher cooperation and collegiality, as presented by Warren-Little (1990) or Rosenholtz (1989). The idea is that “among the psychological costs associated with rigorous collaboration is the loss of individual latitude to act on personal preferences-or to act on personal preference unexamined by and unaccountable to peers.” (Little 1990, p.521). Due to such costs, teachers might control each other, in order to reduce the risk of being hurt (Rosenholtz 1989). Employing interview material from teachers in Germany, Sweden, and Norway both on teacher autonomy and also accountability reform implementation, we discuss different roles within the profession that are supposed to mediate between state needs as well as professional and organisational needs. Such roles might draw on legal, moral or cultural standards in a complex structure of carrots and sticks and where different roles within the profession can be identified.

Bondorf, N. (2012). Profession und Kooperation: Eine Verhältnisbestimmung am Beispiel der Lehrerkooperation. Frankfurt/Main: Springer. Heinrich, M. (2015). Metamorphoses of pedagogical autonomy in German school reforms: continuities, discontinuities and synchronicities illustrated by empirical studies on school development planning, school profiling and school inspection. Nordic journal of Studies in Educational Policy, 1(2). Lundström, U. (2015). Teacher autonomy in the era of New Public Management. Nordic journal of Studies in Educational Policy, 1(2). Mickwitz, L. (2015). En reformerad lärare. Konstruktionen av en professionell och betygssättande lärare i skolpolitik och skolpraktik: Stockholm University. Rosenholtz, S. J. (1989). Teachers' workplace. The social organization of schools. New York/London: Teachers College Press. Vanderstraeten, R. (2007). Professions in organizations, professional work in education. British Journal of Sociology of Education, 28(5), 621-635. Warren Little, J. (1990). The persistence of privacy: Autonomy and initiative in teachers' professional lives. Teachers College Record, 91(4), 509-536.