The purpose of this article was to analyse how teachers's€™ continuing professional development (CPD) contributes to the government of the teaching profession. This is done by examining the CPD initiatives organized by two Swedish national educational agencies since 1991 involving the school subjects of Swedish (standard language education) and mathematics. Four programmes of professional development are identified in the investigated material, each motivated by specific conceptions of teachers and professional development. One important trend is that agency engagement in teachers’ CPD and school development has increased over time and that CPD programmes have become more prescriptive and elaborate in their use of evaluations. While this may result in a more standardized and centrally governed teaching profession, centrally governed initiatives could also provide teachers with professional arenas for developing ideas without being influenced by local school management.

This article discusses teacher autonomy. It questions a contemporary understanding of the phenomenon that constructs it in terms of a control vs. freedom dichotomy. In relation to Nordic research on teacher autonomy a two dimensional device consisting of institutional autonomy and  service autonomy is presented. The first dimension focus the teaching profession as a collective in terms of rights and duties as well as status. The latter dimension considers the practical aspects of professionals’ work, in schools and classrooms. Teacher autonomy is always about control, exerted internally by the profession itself and facilitated externally by state standards. The analytical device is empirically examined in relation to the development of the Swedish teaching profession since the 1980’s. The autonomy of the Swedish teaching profession has been transformed over the subsequent years. In addition, the restriction of teacher autonomy in recent times is also related to a simplified understanding of the phenomenon through the deregulation, decentralization, changed distribution of responsibilities and marketization reforms of the 1990’s. This development has in some respects led to a reduction of complexity in the Swedish school system and an increased state standardization, which restricts teacher autonomy today.

In this chapter I want to present considerations about teachers’ continuing professional development (CPD) and how it is related to the autonomy teachers have in their profession in different national contexts. These thoughts relate to my PhD thesis developed in several discussions with Eva Forsberg. This chapter aims to honour her as a very inspiring and influential person to my academic work.

One aspect of teachers’ CPD that is rather underexposed is the question of the impact of the context as Guskey already writes in 1995 and as it is echoed again in Bolam & McMahon (2004). Instead CPD is often treated as a phenomenon that is universal for all teachers in the world. The character of the field of research on teachers’ CPD as being fragmented in a plethora of often highly context-related individual studies could not contribute to a further conceptualisation of the impact of the context on CPD yet (ibid.). Mostly it is only stated that studies in different national contexts often produce the same results which is seen as prove that there exist universal principles [Sprinthall et. al., already in (1996), as example: Avalos’ review on teachers’ CPD from (2011) in Teaching and Teacher Education]. Consequently, models for successful school and teacher improvement are imported and exported as they were common goods from developed to the developing countries, whereas the respective status can be seen at the league tables of international large scale studies (Steiner-Khamsi, 2010). When such models do not work out then, often teachers’ hostility against reform and change is blamed. This chapter tries to tackle this situation by considering guiding mechanisms that have impact on teachers’ CPD in different national contexts. The idea is to investigate crucial aspects of the teaching profession and examining then their impact on teachers’ CPD. Such an approach might contribute to an understanding of different CPD habits of teachers in different national contexts. In this chapter I focus on one very crucial aspect of the profession: Teacher autonomy. What teachers are allowed to do in their practice is highly context related. By comparing the professional development of teachers in Germany and Sweden as example of teaching professions having different kind of autonomy, I will argue for theoretical considerations – though on a very explorative level – on how particular teacher context related autonomy relates to their continuing professional development. The chapter starts with the presentation of my understanding of teacher autonomy as a multidimensional phenomenon. Then shortly both comparative cases, Germany and Sweden are presented regarding their specific teacher autonomy. In the third part German and Swedish teachers’ perceptions on CPD are presented as they appeared in my PhD studies. In the last part both sections are combined in the earlier mentioned aim of this chapter, a theoretical framework on the relation of teachers’ CPD to teacher autonomy.

This article focuses on globalisation in Nordic curriculum theory by investigating the issue of space. It puts forward an increased interest in the practical levels of schooling and argues globalisation should be investigated not only as a policy phenomenon, but also as instructional matter in different contexts. It presents two perspectives of space, a container and a relational perspective. A distinction between the two perspectives contributes to an understanding of how the world is constructed at different levels of curriculum. The article tests its argument with an explorative social studies and citizenship textbook study in the national contexts of Sweden, England and Germany. It can be shown that all cases differ in their portrayals of globalisation and in the constructions of space related issues.

Autonomy is a widely used concept in education policy and practice. The etymology of the concept derives from the Greek autonomos ‘having its own laws’ (Oxford Dictionaries, 2015). As such, the debates around the concept circulate around individuals’ or groups’ ability and capacity to self-rule, and the governance and/or constraints, which limit such a capacity. However, autonomy has also been widely contested in philosophy, and as suggested by Rawls (1980), for example, the concept has been defined in a variety of ways. In educational research too, the concept has been debated from varying viewpoints, as, for example, scholars engaged in education history (Smaller, 2015), education sociology and policy (Ball, 2006; Apple, 2002), legal issues (Berka, 2000) and pedagogy (Reinders, 2010; Little, 1995) have all problematised and defined its meaning in relation to education.

When applied to educational practice, this nuanced and complex concept may indeed mean a variety of things. Take school-level autonomy as an example. Schools are complicated social systems in which multiple actors operate in different roles, and in which one's scope of action may affect the decision-making capacity of that of others. The question of who in a school community may possess autonomy (e.g. the teachers, the principals, or the learners) has fundamental implications for the ways in which the school operates. Also, the matters over which the members of the school community enjoy autonomy have important implications for what school autonomy means in practice. If we consider teacher autonomy more closely, it becomes apparent that teacher autonomy is often understood in terms of a dichotomous pairing of constraint vs. freedom (Wermke & Höstfält, 2014). It could be argued that teacher autonomy is always about constraint, and drawing from Gewirtz's and Cribb's (2009) work, we suggest focussing on the ways in which autonomy is constrained, as well as the matters over which autonomy is enjoyed and by whom. Therefore, teacher autonomy should be distinguished from other forms of autonomy, for example, school or local autonomy. Indeed, increased school autonomy, or local autonomy, as witnessed, for example, in relation to the Friskola movement in Sweden or Academies movement in England, does not automatically grant to teachers an increased scope of action (Kauko & Salokangas, 2015; Salokangas & Chapman, 2014; Wermke & Höstfält, 2014).

Moreover, the teacher autonomy debate has been influenced by and reflects wider global education trends and international comparisons. Indeed, autonomy has been a central concept in education policy in Nordic countries (Frostenson, 2012) as well as elsewhere (Caldwell, 2008; Glatter, 2012). Recently, this could be seen, for example, in relation to ‘PISA envy’, and the ways in which Finland's consistent success in PISA has been explained, at least partly, through its highly educated and autonomous teaching workforce (Lopez, 2012; Stenlås, 2011). However, as the contributions in this issue highlight, international comparisons concerning teacher autonomy must remain sensitive to the national and local contexts in which teachers operate, and consider what autonomy actually means for teachers in those settings (Salokangas & Kauko, in press; Wermke, 2013).

It is these complexities, inherent in the concept of autonomy, as well as its practical applications, that this edited collection was set to discuss and offer contributions to varied discourses concerning this important, widely debated, and contested concept. The special issue is divided into two sections. The first section presents three invited essays that offer theoretical perspectives on autonomy. The first two, by Gerald Dworkin and Evert Vedung, respectively, are not educational per se, but offer important conceptual contributions to the discussion. The third essay by Magnus Frostenson discusses the multidimensionality of the concept with a focus on education and teaching. The second section comprises empirical studies that discuss the concept of autonomy in different national and local contexts. The articles report on research conducted in Norway (Christina Elde Mølstadt & Sølvi Mausethagen), Germany (Martin Heinrich), Sweden (Sara Maria Sjödin, Andreas Bergh, Ulf Lundström) and England (Ruth McGinity).

Autonomy is a widely used concept in education policy and practice. The etymology of the concept derives from the Greek autonomos ‘having its own laws’ (Oxford Dictionaries, 2015). As such, the debates around the concept circulate around individuals’ or groups’ ability and capacity to self-rule, and the governance and/or constraints, which limit such a capacity. However, autonomy has also been widely contested in philosophy, and as suggested by Rawls (1980), for example, the concept has been defined in a variety of ways. In educational research too, the concept has been debated from varying viewpoints, as, for example, scholars engaged in education history (Smaller, 2015), education sociology and policy (Ball, 2006; Apple, 2002), legal issues (Berka, 2000) and pedagogy (Reinders, 2010; Little, 1995) have all problematised and defined its meaning in relation to education.

When applied to educational practice, this nuanced and complex concept may indeed mean a variety of things. Take school-level autonomy as an example. Schools are complicated social systems in which multiple actors operate in different roles, and in which one's scope of action may affect the decision-making capacity of that of others. The question of who in a school community may possess autonomy (e.g. the teachers, the principals, or the learners) has fundamental implications for the ways in which the school operates. Also, the matters over which the members of the school community enjoy autonomy have important implications for what school autonomy means in practice. If we consider teacher autonomy more closely, it becomes apparent that teacher autonomy is often understood in terms of a dichotomous pairing of constraint vs. freedom (Wermke & Höstfält, 2014). It could be argued that teacher autonomy is always about constraint, and drawing from Gewirtz's and Cribb's (2009) work, we suggest focussing on the ways in which autonomy is constrained, as well as the matters over which autonomy is enjoyed and by whom. Therefore, teacher autonomy should be distinguished from other forms of autonomy, for example, school or local autonomy. Indeed, increased school autonomy, or local autonomy, as witnessed, for example, in relation to the Friskola movement in Sweden or Academies movement in England, does not automatically grant to teachers an increased scope of action (Kauko & Salokangas, 2015; Salokangas & Chapman, 2014; Wermke & Höstfält, 2014).

Moreover, the teacher autonomy debate has been influenced by and reflects wider global education trends and international comparisons. Indeed, autonomy has been a central concept in education policy in Nordic countries (Frostenson, 2012) as well as elsewhere (Caldwell, 2008; Glatter, 2012). Recently, this could be seen, for example, in relation to ‘PISA envy’, and the ways in which Finland's consistent success in PISA has been explained, at least partly, through its highly educated and autonomous teaching workforce (Lopez, 2012; Stenlås, 2011). However, as the contributions in this issue highlight, international comparisons concerning teacher autonomy must remain sensitive to the national and local contexts in which teachers operate, and consider what autonomy actually means for teachers in those settings (Salokangas & Kauko, in press; Wermke, 2013).

It is these complexities, inherent in the concept of autonomy, as well as its practical applications, that this edited collection was set to discuss and offer contributions to varied discourses concerning this important, widely debated, and contested concept. The special issue is divided into two sections. The first section presents three invited essays that offer theoretical perspectives on autonomy. The first two, by Gerald Dworkin and Evert Vedung, respectively, are not educational per se, but offer important conceptual contributions to the discussion. The third essay by Magnus Frostenson discusses the multidimensionality of the concept with a focus on education and teaching. The second section comprises empirical studies that discuss the concept of autonomy in different national and local contexts. The articles report on research conducted in Norway (Christina Elde Mølstadt & Sølvi Mausethagen), Germany (Martin Heinrich), Sweden (Sara Maria Sjödin, Andreas Bergh, Ulf Lundström) and England (Ruth McGinity).

This special issue collects papers presented at the Fifth Nordic Curriculum Theory Conference that took place at Uppsala University, Sweden, on 23 and 24 October 2013. Around 60 researchers from all the Nordic countries gathered to discuss the challenges presented by the emergence of curriculum theory over the past 20 years. This issue is devoted to approaches which theorise curriculum from both novel and revitalised perspectives. In doing so, it aims to elaborate on analytical instruments for the understanding of our object of study in a globalising world. There have been explicit expressions of desire for a transnational curriculum theory which might satisfy a need for devices that contribute to an under- standing of how public education is reshaped, at a time when earlier reference frames, such as the nation state systems which took a Westphalian form, are undergoing transformation within highly interdependent transna- tional spaces. This issue presents, in particular, approaches that on the one hand provide possible analytical as well as empirical means which have the potential to sharpen our arguments and deepen the discussion on curriculum from a transnational perspective. On the contrary, the ap- proaches illustrate the value of curriculum theory to other fields of research, such as comparative and international education.

This study aims to develop a model for comparing different forms of teacher autonomyin various national contexts and at different times. Understanding and explaining localdifferences and global similarities in the teaching profession in a globalized world requireconceptions that contribute to further theorization of comparative and internationaleducation. Drawing on a governance perspective and building on considerations ofcurriculum evaluation, the study argues that teacher autonomy is a crucial factor that hasto be conceptualized in its national and historical contexts. It presents an examination ofthe teaching profession from both an institutional and service perspective. In both perspectives,teacher autonomy, framed by curriculum evaluation, can be regarded as bothextended and restricted, but not necessarily at the same time. This point of view enablesus to discuss different forms of autonomy in relation to each other. To support this idea,the study discusses cases of teachers in various contexts of time and space.

The article presents different models of comparative education by discussing the government committee reports (SOU) which prepared the Swedish teacher education reforms of 2001 and 2011. These serve as examples for different kinds of policy borrowing from an international Bologna process discourse in national government document. The article facilitates Waldow (2009) term of “silent borrowing”. The reform of 2001 shows distinct references to international discourses without making this explicit. The reform of 2011 is then an example for explicit borrowing. The related government committee report refers very obvious to the Bologna process. However, this is seen as strategy in order to mark its distinction to its predecessor reform. Our cases are assumed to show how socio-historical and political contexts condition national discourses’ resources of legitimation.