This study examines the Teach First initiative in Norway, which is an informal part of the Teach For All global policy network established worldwide (Straubhaar & Friedrich 2015). The Teach For All idea of teacher education differs from and challenges the national pathways of teacher professionalization (Seddon, Ozga & Levin, 2013; Ellis et al. 2016). As Seddon et al. (2013) points out; global policy ideas such as Teach For All are mediated by the national and local cultures in which they are embedded, allowing local cultures to produce particular localized formations. Thus, this study aims to clarify the motives and objectives behind the establishment of Teach First Norway (TFN). How and why was this global programme brought into the Norwegian context and in what ways has TFN been shaped in and by its local contexts? TFN was launched in 2010 through collaboration between the Oslo educational authorities, the University of Oslo, and the energy company Statoil. Like other TFAll programmes, TFN is framed within the in the concept of a mission, which, for TFN, is to “meet the major challenges in education and science subjects by developing skilled graduates into effective and inspiring teachers” (www.teachfirstnorway.no). Consequently, TFN only recruits science graduates into the two-year programme. To explore the above research question, this study includes an analysis of webpages from different national contexts (Ellis et al. 2016), relevant policy documents and qualitative interviews with key representatives of the three collaborating partners. Interviewees include university-based teacher educators involved with TFN, teacher unions and university faculty voicing some resistance to the TFN idea, and key actors’ involved in the establishment and implementation of the programme. These multiple perspectives are then analysed to highlight wider concerns and impacts of TFN in Norway. Finally, the paper also addresses the prevailing perception that participants in TFAll programmes constitute a fairly uniform and “exclusive” group of participants (Labaree, 2010) who are joining mainly a “graduate employment scheme” (Smart et al. 2009). However, research shows that TFN candidates represent a rather heterogeneous group with complex career motivations and various goals (Nesje, 2016; Nesje, Canrinus & Strype, 2018). Consequently, the study explores a group of alumni TFN candidates’ perceptions of TFN’s stated mission and explore what they consider to be potential means of effectively addressing the problem of recruitment of teachers in the STEM-subjects.

Ellis, V. et al. (2016) ‘Teaching other people’s children, elsewhere, for a while: the rhetoric of a travelling educational reform’, Journal of Education Policy, 31(1), pp. 60–80. Labaree, D. (2010) ‘Teach for America and Teacher Ed: Heads They Win, Tails We Lose’, Journal of Teacher Education, 61(1–2), pp. 48–55. Nesje, K. (2016) ‘Teach First Norway - who joins and what are their initial motivations for teaching?’, Acta Didactica Norge, 10(2), pp. 150–178. Nesje, K., Canrinus, E. T., & Strype, J. (2018). “Trying on teaching for fit”–Development of professional identity among professionals with multiple career opportunities. Teaching and Teacher Education, 69, 131-141. Seddon, T., Ozga, J.& Levin, J. (2016) ‘Global Transitions and Teacher Professionalism’, in Seddon, T. and Levin, J. (eds) World Yearbook of Education 2013: Educators, Professionalism and Politics: Global Transitions, National Spaces and Professional Projects. 1st edition. Abingdon, Oxon, U.K.: Routledge, pp. 3–24. Smart, S. et al. (2009) ‘Processes of middle-class reproduction in a graduate employment scheme.’, Journal of Education and Work, 22(1), pp. 35–53. Straubhaar, R. and Friedrich, D. (2015) ‘Theorizing and Documenting the Spread of Teach For All and its Impact on Global Education Reform’, Education Policy Analysis Archives (23).