This article studies the Teacher Professional Identity (TPI) in teachers working in schools where children and youth recover from interrupted educational trajectories in Chile. Specifically, the article focuses on teachers working in second-chance schools, exploring their motivations for entering and staying in the teaching profession, their beliefs about teaching and learning, and their satisfaction with their current job.

TPI has been broadly studied, but not in the context of second-chance schools. Neither in Europe nor Chile has this topic been deeply studied. Therefore, this article configures an opportunity to advance this line of research on both sides of the Atlantic.

I use different concepts around TPI in the world of second-chance schools. The first characteristic is the emotional and affective dimension of identity. Meo & Tarabini's (2020) research in two schools in the cities of Barcelona and Buenos Aires identifies the "ethics of care" as one of the three central elements of IPD in these schools. The ethics of caregiving involves making meaningful connections between adults and students, emphasizing care for the relationship and a sense of responsibility for the other. This element is related to the emotional and affective components of the person. A similar finding is presented by Te Riele et al. (2017) study in three re-entry schools in Australia. McGregor & Mills' (2014) study of teacher motivations in re-entry schools in Britain and Australia also shows that teachers helped their students meet a wide range of basic human needs. Finally, the study by Thomas et al.  (2020) in the state of Tasmania in Australia explores the characteristics that re-entry school principals observe in their school teachers. In coherence with the studies already mentioned, this study indicates the ability of teachers to create and maintain safe and supportive environments for students, in addition to having strong interpersonal and communication skills (Thomas et al., 2020).

A second prominent element is a centrality in human relationships. Meo & Tarabini (2020) point out the emphasis of teachers on personalizing teaching by relieving students of their individuality in terms of their context and learning characteristics. Te Riele et al. (2017) highlight an effort by teachers to generate personal connections with students, for example, taking care to recognize the student in all its dimensions and to generate relationships that do not "patronize." Along the same lines, Morgan's (2014, 2017) research in 5 re-entry schools in Queensland (Australia) explored the characteristics of "being and becoming" a teacher in this type of school.

Finally, a third element is an emphasis on collective work. The study by Meo & Tarabini (2020) indicates that teachers conceived teaching as a collective effort, where it was crucial to work with others to cope with the complexity and demands of this type of school. In turn, Te Riele et al. (2017) also point out that teachers had a sense of working with others who were "on the same page." Teachers created a "work culture" that promoted companionship and emotional support. This dimension also included a sense of solidarity towards students, seeking to practice with a perspective of addressing structural inequalities. Finally, McGregor & Mills (2014) highlight the "sense of community" as a critical element in teaching.

I studied the case of two second-chance schools. Case study research is a method that explores the different constituent parts of a phenomenon and how events, actors, and structures converge in the space or setting (Ragin & Becker, 1992). The two schools will be selected according to a purposive sampling criterion, a form of non-probability sampling where the researcher defines different variables that can account for the phenomenon under study (Quinn Patton, 2014). The criteria of school´s years old (one with more and one with less than 20 years ), number of students (one with more and one with less than 200), number of teachers (one with more and one with less than 20), and both located in the Metropolitan Region, but in different municipalities, were used. I used two data collection methods: (i) In-depth semi-structured interview (n=20 per school): consists of a verbal exchange led by the researcher and based on open-ended questions that can be altered in order and content as the interview progresses (Quinn Patton, 2014). (ii) Focus group (n=4 per school): a qualitative technique that allows capturing the subjectivity of individual discourses, expressed in the framework of a collective scenario of enunciation and reciprocity between peers (Kamberelis & Dimitriadis, 2013; Krueger & Casey, 2000). To deepen this exploration, other actors will also be interviewed: members of the leadership team(n=2 per school), education assistants who are members of the psychosocial team (n=per school), parents(n=6 per school), and students(n=8 per school). It is intended that the information of these actors helps to better understand PTI in second chance schools. The information collected was subjected to a thematic analysis of narratives (Wells, 2011; Riessman, 2008), which seeks to highlight central themes in the narratives in particular of those who teach, but also of other informants, concerning context (Phoenix, 2008) and critical events (Webster & Mertova, 2007). This analysis is effective in studies on teachers (Elbaz-Luwisch, 2007). In the case of interviews and focus groups will be coded according to a directed process (Creswell, 2015), with openness to include first-order codes, codes that emerge from a second-order inductive analysis (Miles et al., 2014). After this phase of analysis (already accomplished), comparing the two schools subject to the case studies will be conducted, examining similarities and differences (Eisenhardt, 1989). Case-ordered displays will be created (Miles & Huberman, 1994).

The dimensions highlighted in the literature section (emotional and affective, centrality in human relationships, and the collective work distinguishing PTI) appear in the narratives of the teachers interviewed here. At the same time, those dimensions of their PTI are corroborated by bosses, colleagues, parents, and, more importantly, by their students. This finding occurs across teachers regardless of the school where they teach, the subject, years in the profession, or years teaching in a second-chance school. The development of the TPI in this type of teacher also occurred in a dynamic process. Not dynamic in the sense of the well-studied phenomenon of TPI in teachers working in general/regular schools that changes and develops over time. That is also true here, but deeper. These teachers express a dynamicity characterized by being professionals who have to permanently transact between their role’s cognitive and socioemotional dimensions. At specific points, their narratives took a path that it was not easy to recognize a teacher in front but a social worker, psychologist, or pastor. Teachers working in the settings we study also have to negotiate between their agendas and the role this type of school has. Coming results remain around a finer distinction of the two cases, so to study if a different type of second-chance school (size, age, etc.) affects in different ways the TPI is acquired.

Beauchamp, C., & Thomas, L. (2009). Understanding teacher identity: An overview of issues in the literature and implications for teacher education. Cambridge journal of education, 39(2), 175-189. Beijaard, D., Meijer, P. C., & Verloop, N. (2004). Reconsidering research on teachers’ professional identity. Teaching and teacher education, 20(2), 107-128. Clandinin, D. J. (2015). Stories to live by on the professional knowledge landscape. Waikato Journal of Education, 20(3) Day, C. (2018). Professional identity matters: Agency, emotions, and resilience. In Research on teacher identity (pp. 61-70). Springer, Cham. Flennaugh, T. K., Cooper Stein, K. S., & Carter Andrews, D. J. (2018). Necessary but insufficient: How educators enact hope for formerly disconnected youth. Urban education, 53(1), 113-138. Gee, J. P. (2000). Identity as an analytic lens for research in education. Review of Research in Education, 25, 99125. McAdams, D. P., & McLean, K. C. (2013). Narrative Identity. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 22(3), 233–238. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963721413475622 Meo, A., & Tarabini, A. (2020). Teachers’ identities in second chance schools: A comparative analysis of Buenos Aires and Barcelona. Teaching and Teacher Education, 88, 102963. McGregor, G., & Mills, M. (2014). Teaching in the ‘margins’: Rekindling a passion for teaching. British Journal of Sociology of Education, 35(1), 1-18. Morgan, A. (2017). Cultivating critical reflection: educators making sense and meaning of professional identity and relational dynamics in complex practice. Teaching Education, 28(1), 41-55. Morgan, A., Pendergast, D., Brown, R., & Heck, D. (2014). The art of holding complexity: A contextual influence on educator identity and development in practice in a system of alternative ‘flexi’schools. Reflective Practice, 15(5), 579-591. Noonan, J. (2019). An affinity for learning: Teacher identity and powerful professional development. Journal of Teacher Education, 70(5), 526-537. Rodgers, C. R., & Scott, K. H. (2008). The development of the personal self and professional identity in learning to teach. In Handbook of research on teacher education (pp. 732-755). Routledge. Rodrigues, F., & Mogarro, M. J. (2019). Student teachers’ professional identity: A review of research contributions. Educational research review, 28, 100286. Te Riele, K., Mills, M., McGregor, G., & Baroutsis, A. (2017). Exploring the affective dimension of teachers’ work in alternative school settings. Teaching Education, 28(1), 56-71. Thomas, J., Cruickshank, V., Herrlander Birgerson, E., Reid, D., & te Riele, K. (2020). It takes a special type of teacher. An investigation into the capabilities of staff working with disengaged students. International Journal of Inclusive Education, 1-16.