Gemensam kunskapsbas eller uppdelad lärarkår? En studie om lärares kompetensutveckling med bakgrund i förstelärarreformen

Sammanfattning: Aim: The aim of this study is to provide information on differences between Swedish first teachers (förstelärare) and teachers’ conditions and opportunities for professional development, and, to analyse what content of professional development they are offered. Theory: The results were analysed using concepts and models from previous research on professions, such as: a definition of profession, governance of professions and the wish to control the process of professionalization. Furthermore, the theory section begins with a background of the first teacher reform, a review of a legislative proposal to strengthen the reform, and a short historical overview of teachers’ professional development. Method: By using a quantitative method, with descriptive statistic analysis, the results from the study are compared to previous research on professions. The data is collected from a survey study (n. 12 884) with the aim to investigate the first teachers’ reform Utvald eller bortvald – ett yrke i förändring, 2020. Due to the aim of this study, questions about teachers’ professional development were selected and used in cross tables. The result is presented in percent, effekt size and in mean comparison analysis. Results: In terms of opportunities and conditions for professional development for the two groups, the results indicate that there is a significant difference, with a small but constant effect size. Throughout, the results show that förstelärare are more positive to the professional development they are offered, and that they participate more regularly in professional development initiatives than teachers. The similarities seen in the results between the two groups apply to questions where the respondents are allowed to express their views on their needs for profess ional development. From a professional theory perspective, it is problematic that the teachers have different opportunities for, and different content of, profess ional development. However, when it comes to the expressed needs for profess ional development, there are small differences between the two groups, which indicates a consensus in what it takes to develop the profession.