Across the literature on Teach For America (TFA) and the global spread of its model, there is a common assumption that TFA and Teach First – the two founding organisations of Teach For All (TFAll) – are very similar (e.g., Ball, 2012; Ahmann, 2015). When differences are acknowledged, the effects are seen as relatively minor (e.g., McConney, Price and Woods-McConney, 2012). This is likely due to the unified front, universal values, and powerful myths TFAll espouses publicly. There also appears a tendency to assume that TFA, as the first programme, is dominant model of emulation across the TFAll network. This problematic view must give way to a deeper understanding of the two original models, their founding circumstances, and early evolution, which will help promote a more nuanced research into TFAll and the possibility that, behind the global brand, competing ideas are shaping its expansion and impact. To address this issue, the paper first briefly examines the historical roots and evolution of TFA and then highlights how, in 2002, the idea was received and reinvented when it was transferred to England. The paper draws on a doctoral study of Teach First’s emergence (Rauschenberger, 2016) in which 50 semi-structured interviews were conducted with key informants involved in the establishment of TFA or Teach First. Using narrative analysis, transcript data were triangulated and contextualized to reconstruct the policy story of Teach First’s emergence. The resulting narrative uncovered the motives, politics, and institutional pressures shaping Teach First and revealed how the original idea was ‘reinvented’ at three critical points to circumvent local resistance and appease powerful stakeholders. The story illuminates the strategies policy entrepreneurs employed to build an influential network to transfer and implement policy. In sum, the paper provides important insights into critical differences in the recruitment, design, and politics of both TFA and Teach First that may shape its impact in particular ways. It also outlines how these lessons can be utilized in future research of TFAll programmes and its network. Understanding key differences that may exist among TFAll programmes (e.g., how they recruit graduates, engage with university-based teacher education, use the private sector, etc.) may challenge prevailing ideas about the impact of these programmes. It may also help researchers identify which policy ideas and which sub-networks and supporters within the wider TFAll network are proving most globally influential (Ball, 2009; Goodwin, 2009).

Ahmann, C. (2015) ‘Teach For All: Storytelling “Shared Solutions” and Scaling Global Reform’, Education Policy Analysis Archives/Archivos Analíticos de Políticas Educativas, (23). Available at: http://www.redalyc.org/resumen.oa?id=275041389066 (Accessed: 8 December 2017). Ball, S. J. (2009) ‘Beyond Networks? A Brief Response to “Which Networks Matter in Education Governance?”’, Political Studies, 57(3), pp. 688–691. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-9248.2009.00805.x. Ball, S. J. (2012) Global Education Inc.: New policy networks and the neoliberal imaginary. Abingdon, Oxon: Routledge. Goodwin, M. (2009) ‘Which Networks Matter in Education Governance? A Reply to Ball’s “New Philanthropy, New Networks and New Governance in Education”’, Political Studies, 57(3), pp. 680–687. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-9248.2009.00804.x. McConney, A., Price, A. and Woods-McConney, A. (2012) ‘Fast Track Teacher Education: A Review of the Research Literature on “Teach For All” Schemes’. Available at: http://www.eric.ed.gov/ERICWebPortal/contentdelivery/servlet/ERICServlet?accno=ED529919 (Accessed: 6 May 2012). Rauschenberger, E. (2016) Reconstructing the Emergence of Teach First: Examining the Role of Policy Entrepreneurs and Networks in the Process of Policy Transfer. PhD Dissertation. University of Edinburgh.