The increasingly common practice of engaging consulting firms to assist states with educational policy agendas requires an analysis of the role these consultants play in what is positioned as a democratic decision-making process. In this study, we examine the discourse of a state-level advisory committee formed to develop a new teacher evaluation policy under Race to the Top. We used discourse analysis methods to analyze audio recordings of 11 meetings of this committee. We identified two patterns of consultant talk as it related to committee decision making: making decisions through validationand deferring and redirecting decisions, and we describe their implications.
Amrein-BeardsleyA. (2012). Value-added measures in education: The best of the alternatives is simply not good enough [Commentary]. Teachers College Record. Retrieved from http://www.tcrecord.org/content.asp?contentid=16648
2.
BakerE.BartonP.Darling-HammondL.HaertelE.LaddH.LinnR.. (2010). Problems with the Use of student test scores to evaluate teachers. Washington, DC: Economic Policy Institute.
3.
BarnesR. (2007). Formulations and the facilitation of common agreement in meetings talk. Text and Talk, 27, 273-296.
4.
BilligM. (1991). Ideology and opinions: Studies in rhetorical psychology. London, England: Sage.
5.
BodenD. (1994). The business of talk: Organizations in action. Cambridge, UK: Polity Press.
6.
BodenD. (1995). Agendas and arrangements: Everyday negotiations in meetings. In FirthA. (Ed.), The discourse of negotiation: Studies of language in the workplace (pp. 83-100). Tarrytown, NY: Elsevier Sciences.
BulkleyK. E.BurchP. (2011). The Changing Nature of Private Engagement in Public Education: For-Profit and Nonprofit Organizations and Educational Reform. Peabody Journal of Education, 86(3), 236–251. doi:10.1080/0161956X.2011.578963
9.
BurchP (2009). Hidden markets: The new education privatization. New York, NY: Routledge.
10.
Coburn (1991)
11.
Connecticut State Department of Education. (2012). SEED: Connecticut’s system for educator evaluation and development: Pilot state model. Available from www.connecticutseed.org
12.
ConnellI.GalasinskiD. (1998). Academic mission statements: An exercise in negotiation. Discourse & Society, 9, 457-479.
13.
CucchiaraM.GoldE. V. A. (2011). Contracts, Choice, and Customer Service: Marketization and Public Engagement in Education. Teachers, 113(11), 2460–2502.
14.
DillonS. (2010, August9). Inexperienced companies chase U.S. school funds. The New York Times, p. A11.
15.
GabrielR.LesterJ. N. (2013a) Sentinels of Trust: the discursive construction of Value-added Measurement in policy conversations. Educational Policy Analysis Archives, 20(9). Retrieved from: http://epaa.asu.edu/ojs/article/view/1165
16.
GabrielR.LesterJ. N. (2013b). The romance quest of education reform: A discourse analysis of The LA Times’ reports on value-added measurement teacher effectiveness.Teachers College Record. 115(12).
17.
GarfinkelH. (1967). Studies in ethnomethodology. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
18.
GoldCucchiaraSimonRiffer (2005)
19.
Hess (2011)
20.
HeritageJ. (1997). Conversation analysis and institutional talk: Analysing data. In SilvermanD. (Ed.), Qualitative research: Theory, method and practice (pp. 161-182). London, England: Sage.
21.
HernsteinR. (1990). Rational choice theory: Necessary but not sufficient. American Psychologist, 45, 356-367.
22.
HonigM. I. (2004). The New Middle Management: Intermediary Organizations in Education Policy Implementation. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 26(1), 65–87.
23.
HuismanM. (2001). Decision-making in meetings as talk-in-interaction. International Studies of Management and Organization, 31(3), 69-90.
JeffersonG. (2004). Glossary of transcript symbols with an introduction. In LernerG. H. (Ed.), Conversation analysis: Studies from the first generation. Amsterdam, The Netherlands: John Benjamins.
26.
KoppichJ. E.EschC. (2012). Grabbing the brass ring: Who shapes teacher policy?Educational Policy, 26, 79-95. doi:10.1177/0895904811426866
27.
MarshJ. (2012). The micropolitics of implementing a school-based bonus policy: The case of New York City’s compensation committees. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 34, 164-184. doi:10.3102/0162373711428354
28.
McCafferyD.LockwoodJ.MarianoL.SteodjiC. (2005). Challenges for value-added assessment of teacher effects. Santa Monica, CA: RAND Corporation.
29.
McGuinnP. (2011). Stimulating reform: Race to the Top, competitive grants and the Obama education agenda. Educational Policy, 26, 136-159. doi:10.1177/0895904811425911
30.
PotterJ. (2004). Discourse analysis. In HardyM. A.BrymanA. (Eds.), Handbook of data analysis (pp. 607-624). London, England: Sage.
31.
PotterJ.WetherellM. (1987). Discourse and social psychology: Beyond attitudes and behavior. London, England: Sage.
32.
RavitchD. (2010). The death and life of the great American school system: How testing and choice are undermining education. New York, NY: Basic Books.
33.
SacksH. (1992). Lectures on conversation. Oxford, UK: Blackwell.
34.
SchwartzR.DavidsonA. (2005). The skilled facilitator fieldbook: Tips, tools, and tested methods for consultants, facilitators, managers, trainers and coaches. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
35.
SpillaneReiserReimer, 2002
36.
Stokoe (2011)
37.
StokoeE.HepburnA.AntakiC. (2012). Beware the “Loughborough School” of Social Psychology? Interaction and the politics of intervention.The British Journal of Social Psychology / the British Psychological Society, 51(3), 486–96. doi:10.1111/j.2044-8309.2011.02088.x
38.
SusskindL. (2010). Looking at negotiation and dispute resolution through a CA/DA lens. Negotiation Journal, 26, 163-166.
TownsendR. M. (2009). Town meeting as a communication event: Democracy’s act sequence. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 42, 68-89.
43.
U.S. Department of Education. (2009). Race to the Top program executive summary. Washington, DC: Author.
44.
WeaverS. W.GeskeT. G. (1997). Educational policy making in the state legislature: Legislator as policy expert. Educational Policy, 11, 309-329. doi:10.1177/0895904897011003003
45.
WeisbergD.SextonS.MulhernJ.KeelingD. (2009). The widget effect. New York, NY: The New Teacher Project.
46.
WoodC. J. (1989). Challenging the assumptions underlying the use of participatory decision-making strategies: A longitudinal case study. Small Group Research, 20, 428-448.
