Teach First in Denmark is a limited phenomenon compared to e.g. Sweden and UK, and no research has so far been conducted on this organisation, its actors, and results (see Nesje, 2021 for the adaptation of Teach First in Norway). Since 2015, 380 graduates have been admitted to the programme. Furthermore, the programme is run in close collaboration with the national (state provisioned) programme of ‘merit teachers’, limiting market forces and securing standards and accreditation for work in the Danish basic school. Still, the Danish adaptation of Teach First incorporates features known from the global organization of Teach for America and Teach for All (Thomas et al., 2021). For instance, candidates are enrolled on basis of prior university education – especially in math and the natural sciences – and selected as ‘the best’ or ‘top’ teachers. The programme’s mission is defined in terms of a philanthropic discourse aiming at raising the results of socially disadvantaged pupils. Curriculum consists mostly of hand-on training where candidates are assigned a Teach First mentor at schools in socially disadvantaged areas. This paper is based on professional life story interviews (Goodson, 2008) with newly qualified Teach First teachers addressing themes such as the background and motivation for commencing the Teach First programme; experiences of the programme, e.g. mission, curriculum, and mentors; current situation as qualified Teach First teacher, including how the philanthropic mission is (not) realised and what struggles and dilemmas it might give rise to. The interviews are analysed using a combination of poststructural identity theory (Ball, 2003; Bernstein, 2000; Dovemark & Holm, 2017) and structuralist conceptions of habitus and dispositions (Bourdieu, 2005; Bøje & Frederiksen, 2019; Courtney, 2016). Poststructural theory is apt at describing what subjectivities or identities the programme is ‘selling’ (Dovemark & Holm, 2017), while theory on habitus and dispositions will insist the programme is not ‘bought’ equally by different candidates with different backgrounds and trajectories. Together, the two approaches emphasize the adaptation of Teach First in Denmark at the teacher level. Results are expected to point out the individualisation that comes with Teach First’s philanthropic discourse, including the paradoxes and dilemmas teachers may face trying to combat inequality alone. Results may also show that some teachers progress through the program and are able – or feel able – to fulfil promises given by Teach First.

Ball, S.J. (2003). The Teacher’s Soul and the Terrors of Performativity. Journal of Education Policy, 18(2), 215-228. Bourdieu, P. (2005). Habitus. In: J. Hiller & E. Rooksby: Habitus: A Sense of Place. Ashgate. Bernstein, B. (2000). Pedagogy, symbolic control and identity. Lanham, Rowman & Littlefield. Bøje, J. D. & Frederiksen, L. F. (2019). Leaders of the Profession and Professional Leaders. School Leaders Making Sense of Themselves and Their Job. International Journal of Leadership in Education, 24(3): 291-312. Courtney, S.J. (2016). Corporatising School Leadership Through Hysteresis. British Journal of Sociology of Education, DOI: 10.1080/01425692.2016.1245131. Dovemark, M. & Holm, A. S. (2017). Pedagogic identities for sale! Segregation and homogenization in Swedish upper secondary school. British Journal of Sociology of Education, 38(4), 518-532. Goodson, I. (2008). Investigating Teacher’s Life and Work. Rotterdam, Sense Publishers. Thomas, M.A.M., Rauschenberger, E. & Crawford-Garrett, K. (2021). Examining Teach for All: International Perspectives on a Growing Global Network. London, Routledge. Nesje, K. (2021). The Origin and Adaptation of Teach First Norway. In: M.A.M. Thomas, E. Rauschenberger, & K. Crawford-Garrett: Examining Teach for All: International Perspectives on a Growing Global Network. London, Routledge.