Policy Reforms Positioning Preschool Teachers from Invisible to Visible
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Since 1972, the Swedish preschool has undergone several policy reforms that state guidelines for the work in preschool where preschool teachers and caregivers work close together in work teams. Since 2010, preschool teachers have been given increased responsibility for preschool education and its pedagogical content, including lead teaching, which has been identified as a challenging and complex issue in preschool practice. This study analyzes how preschool policies have positioned preschool teachers over time and how this plays a role in making it possible for preschool teachers to take increased responsibility for preschool education. Building on positioning theory and using a qualitative research design with content analysis of seven policy documents over time, the results show that policy documents have positioned preschool teachers as invisible between 1972 and 2010 by downgrading their position and as visible from 2010 to the present by upgrading their position. The results indicate that policies either marginalize or empower preschool teachers, with insights into the broader implications of policy decisions. Policy plays a crucial role as a mechanism with the power to reshape responsibilities and redistribute power within preschools. It is essential to overcome policy ambiguities when responsibilities overlap between preschool teachers and the work team, which enables opportunities for contested positions in which preschool teachers and caregivers can reinterpret their roles and responsibilities.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.010 | 0.020 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.011 | 0.012 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.011 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".