This paper illustrates how the media, particularly The LA Times, entered the debate surrounding teacher evaluation, resulting in a storyline that shaped how the public perceives teacher effectiveness. With their series of articles in 2010, The LA Times entered the conversation about the place and value of value-added measurement (VAM), arguing that it is a tool to root out the presumably ineffective teachers. Research examining education policy is often represented by the media in ways that direct the public to take up specific positions and assign responsibility to particular parties. In this paper, we build upon research around the power of news media to create common knowledge and shape a prevalent worldview.
Purpose/Objective/Research Question
We gave particular attention to the ways in which the media discourse functioned to politicize and (over)simplify issues related to VAM and teacher evaluation. We sought to understand the ways in which discourse choices worked to construct a certain version of policy issues related to teacher quality, positioning some individuals and even national groups on either side of a polarized debate.
Research Design
We conducted a discourse analysis of 52 articles published between 2009 and 2011 that were from or related to a series on VAM initially published in 2010 by The LA Times.
Conclusions/Recommendations
We argue that the striking similarities between the story of VAM in education reform, as told by The LA Times, and the culturally familiar storyline of a quest romance or wish-fulfillment narrative give this particular version of VAM a sense of familiarity, veracity and therefore power over the public imagination. We discuss the discursive features used to accomplish this and suggest the need for continued analysis of the role of the media in shaping public opinion on education policy.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
AaronsonD., BarrowL., & SanderW. (2007). Teachers and student achievement in the Chicago Public High Schools. Journal of Labor Economics, 25, 95–135.
2.
Amrein-BeardsleyA. (2012). Value-added measures in education: The best of the alternatives is simply not good enough. Teachers College Record. Date Published: January 12, 2012 http://www.tcrecord.org ID Number: 16648, retrieved: 3/19/2012.
3.
AnfaraV. A., BrownK. M., & MangioneT. L. (2002). Qualitative analysis on stage: Making the research process more public. Educational Researcher, 31(7), 28–38.
AtkinsonP. (1990). The ethnographic imagination. Textual constructions of reality.London, UK: Routledge.
6.
BakerE. L., BartonP. E., Darling-HammondL., HaertelE., LaddH. L., LinnR. L. (2010). Problems with the use of student test scores to evaluate teachers.Washington, DC: The Economic Policy Institute.
BilligM. (1996). Arguing and thinking: A rhetorical approach to social psychology. (2nd ed.), Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
9.
BrattonS., HornS., & WrightS. (1996). Using and interpreting Tennessee's Value-Added Assessement System: A primer for teachers and principals. Shearon For Schools. Retrieved from http://www.shearonforschools.com/documents/tvaas.html
10.
BriggsD., & DomingueB. (2011). Due diligence and the evaluation of teachers: A review of the value-added analysis underlying the effectiveness rankings of Los Angeles Unified School District teachers by the Los Angeles Times. Boulder: National Education Policy Center.
11.
ButlerJ. (1990). Gender trouble. Feminism and the subversion of identity.New York: Routledge.
CherringtonJ., & BrehenyM. (2005). Politicizing dominant discursive constructions about teenage pregnancy: Re-locating the subject as social. Health: An Interdisciplinary Journal for the Social Study of Health, Illness and Medicine, 9(1), 89–111.
16.
CohenJ. (2010). Teachers in the news: A critical analysis of one US newspaper's discourse on education, 2006–2007. Discourse: Studies in the Cultural Politics of Education, 31(1), 105–119.
17.
CoyneC., & LeesonP. (2009). Media as mechanism of institutional change and reinforcement. Kyklos, 62(1), 1–14.
18.
CreswellJ. W., & MillerD. L. (2000). Determining validity in qualitative inquiry. Theory Into Practice, 39, 124–130.
19.
CritcherC. (2008). Moral panic analysis: Past present and future. Sociology Compass, 2(4), 1127–1144.
20.
CroningerR., & ValliL. (2009). “Where is the action?” Challenges to studying the teaching of reading in elementary classrooms. Educational Researcher, 38(2), 100–108.
21.
Darling-HammondL. (2001). Standard setting in teaching: changes in licensing, certification and assessment. In RichardsonV., Handbook of research on teaching. (4th ed., pp. 751–776). Washington, DC: American Educational Research Association.
22.
DerridaJ. (1981). Positions.Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
23.
EdwardsD. (1997). Discourse and cognition.London, UK: Sage.
24.
EdwardsD. (2000). Extreme case formulations: Softeners, investment and doing non-literal. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 33(4), 347–373.
FelchJ., & SongJ. (2010, August 16). U.S. schools chief endorses release of teacher data: Secretary of Education Arne Duncan says parents have a right to know how effective teachers are at raising student test scores. “What is there to hide?” he says. Los Angeles Times. Retrieved from http://articles.latimes.com/2010/aug/16/local/la-me-0817-teachers-react-20100817
30.
FelchJ., SongJ., & SmithD. (2010, August 14). Who's teaching L.A.'s kids? A Times analysis, using data largely ignored by LAUSD, looks at which educators help students learn, and which hold them back. Los Angeles Times. Retrieved from http://articles.latimes.com/2010/aug/14/local/la-me-teachers-value-20100815
31.
FoucaultM. (1971). Orders of discourse. Social Science Information, 10(2), 7–30.
32.
FryeN. (1957). The anatomy of criticism.Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
33.
GoeL., BellC., & LittleC. (2008). Approaches to evaluating teacher effectiveness: A research synthesis.Washington, DC: National Conprehensive Center for Teacher Quality.
34.
GoldsteinR. A. (2011). Imaging the frame: Media representations of teachers, their unions, NCLB, and education reform. Educational Policy, 25(4), 543–576.
35.
GoodallH. L. (2000). Writing the new ethnography.Lanham, MD: AltaMira Press/Rowman & Littlefield.
36.
GubaE. G. (1981). Criteria for assessing the trustworthiness of naturalistic inquiries. Educational Communication and Technology Journal, 29, 75–91.
37.
HallS. (1997). Introduction. In HallS. (Ed.), Representation: Cultural representations and signifying practices. (pp. 1–11). London, UK: Sage.
38.
HarrisD. (2011). Value-added measures in education: What every educator needs to know.Cambridge, MA: Harvard Education Press.
HowarthD. (2000). Discourse.New York, NY: Open University Press.
41.
HowshamR. B. (1960). Who's a good teacher? Problems and progress in teacher evaluation.Burlingame: California School Boards Association and the California Teachers Association.
42.
InyengarS. (1991). Is anyone responsible? How television frames political issues.Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
43.
JorgensenM., & PhillipsL. (2002). Discourse analysis as theory and method.London, UK: Sage.
44.
KellnerD. (1995). Media culture: Cultural studies, identity politics between the modern and the postmodern.London, UK: Routledge.
45.
LaclauE., & MouffeC. (1985). Hegemony and socialist strategy.London, UK: Verso.
46.
LamerichsJ., & Te MolderH. F. M. (2009). ‘And then I'm really like’: ‘Preliminary’ self-quotations in adolescent talk. Discourse Studies, 11, 401–419.
McCaffreyD., KoretzD., LockwoodJ., & HamiltonL. (2004). The promise and peril of using value-added modeling to measure teacher effectiveness.Santa Monica, CA: Rand Corporation. Retrieved from http://www.rand.org/pubs/research_briefs/RB9050/RAND_RB9050.pdf
50.
McCaffreyD. F., SassT. R., LockwoodJ. R., & MihalyK. (2009). The intertemporal variability of teacher effect estimates. Education Finance and Policy, 4(4), 572–606.
51.
MuhrT. (2004). User's manual for ATLAS.ti 5.0.Berlin: ATLAS.ti Scientific Software Development GmbH.
PapayJ. (2010). Different tests, different answers: The stability of teacher value-added estimates across outcome measures. American Educational Research Journal, 48, 163–193.
54.
PomerantzA. (1986). Extreme case formulations: A way of legitimizing claims. Human Studies, 9, 219–229.
55.
PotterJ. (1996). Representing reality: Discourse, rhetoric and social construction.London, UK: Sage.
56.
PotterJ. (2004). Discourse analysis. In HardyM. A., & BrymanA. (Eds.), Handbook of data analysis. (pp. 607–624). London, UK: Sage.
57.
PotterJ., EdwardsD., & WetherellM. (1993). A model of discourse in action. American Behavioral Scientist, 36(3), 383–401.
58.
PotterJ., & WetherellM. (1987). Discourse and social psychology.London, UK: Sage.
59.
RabinowitzW., & TraversR. (1953). Problems of defining and assessing teacher effectiveness. Educational Theory, 3(3), 212–219.
RichardsonL. (1997). Fields of play: Constructing an academic life.New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press.
62.
RoeE. (1994). Narrative policy analysis: Theory and practice.Durham, NC: Duke University Press.
63.
SacksH. (1992). Lectures on conversation.Oxford: Blackwell.
64.
SandersB., & RiversJ. (1996). Cumulative and residual effects of teachers on future student academic achievement.Knoxville: University of Tennessee Value Added Research and Assessment Center.
65.
SchochetP., & ChiangH. (2010). Error rates in measuring teacher and school performance based on student test score gains.Washington, DC: Institute of Education Sciences.
TaylorS. (2001). Locating and conducting discourse analytic research. In WetherellM., TaylorS., & YatesS. J. (Eds.), Discourse as data: A guide for analysis. (pp. 5–48). London, UK: Sage.
68.
ThompsonM. (1962). A historical approach to teacher evaluation. The Clearing House, 37(3), 169–172.
69.
TileagaC. (2010). Public accountability, moral order and accounting for conflict of interest. Discourse Studies, 12(2), 223–239.
70.
TorfingJ. (1999). New theories of discourses: Laclau, Mouffe and Zizek.Oxford, UK: Blackwell Publishers Ltd.
71.
TracyK. (1995). Action-implicative discourse analysis. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 14(1–2), 195–215.
