Within the wider context of education reform, Teach for All both reflects and sustains the formation of neoliberal teacher subjectivities and is thus part of the broader ‘struggle over the teacher’s soul’ (Ball, 2003) which continues to reshape the teaching profession. Hargreaves (1998) and, more recently, Englund & Gerdin (2019) are amongst many who have identified the profound influence of marketisation, performativity and the promotion of a naïve positivist sensibility on teachers’ subjectivities. In England, teachers are constructed as independent authorities competing for recognition and reward, whilst the act of teaching is a performance in which teachers demonstrate their value by mobilizing ‘what works’ to improve student outcomes. Teach First, which has trained thousands of teachers in England since it began in 2002, has been explored elsewhere (e.g. Rauschenberger, 2021), but few studies consider the experiences of participants. Our analysis of documentary materials and interviews with graduates reveals a view of teachers as the most important people in schools and the most significant influence on children’s lives. Overwhelmingly, teaching is constructed as a form of charismatic leadership. Those associated with Teach First have immediate status in schools and classrooms because of their own high achievement. That they are merit worthy – hard working and able to make the most of their talents – is seen as a strength since their example and advice is assumed to motivate and enable their students to do the same. Their strength of character is demonstrated by their willingness to work conscientiously and unwaveringly in difficult circumstances. Their contribution is understood to be heroic, requiring long hours of selfless dedication to the marginalized rather than building a lucrative career elsewhere. Instead, their reward comes from personal satisfaction, life experience and an enhanced character that will equip them for future leadership challenges. Yet despite these tendencies, overstating this characterization would be unfair since many Teach First graduates are also deeply committed to their students, whilst the responsibilities and expectations placed on these teachers are often unrealistic. Developing Rizvi’s notion of ridding (2021), we identify this to be as much cultural, in the sidelining of collectivist and humanistic practice (Noddings, 2005; Beck, 2006; and many more), as it is material. But because these threatened versions of teaching are rooted in timeless expressions of what it is to be human, it may be that those tasked with the ridding are also inclined to resist.

Ball, S. J. (2003). The teacher’s soul and the terrors of performativity. Journal of Education Policy, 18(2), 215–228. Beck, J. (2006). ‘Directed time': Identity and time in New Right and New Labour policy discourse. In: Moore, R., Arnot, M., Beck, J. & Daniels, H. (Eds) Knowledge, power and educational reform: Applying the sociology of Basil Bernstein. London, Routledge. Englund, H & Gerdin, J. (2019). Performative technologies and teacher subjectivities: A conceptual framework. British Educational Research Journal, 45(3), 502–517 Hargreaves, A. (1998). The emotional practice of teaching. Teaching and Teacher Education, 14(8), 835–854. Noddings, N. (2005). The challenge to care in schools: An alternative approach to education (2nd Edition). New York, Teachers College Press. Rauschenberger, E. (2021). From Teach For America to Teach First: The initial expansion overseas. In: Thomas, M., Rauschenberger, E. & Crawford-Garrett, K. (Eds) Examining Teach for All: International perspectives on a growing global network. London, Routledge. Rizvi, F. (2021). Forward. In: Thomas, M., Rauschenberger, E. & Crawford-Garrett, K. (Eds) Examining Teach for All: International perspectives on a growing global network. London, Routledge.