This study turns a rhetorical lens on the debate about how best to use value-added modeling (VAM) in teacher evaluation by addressing the question, Which arguments legitimize the dismissal of expert caution about proposed education reforms? My rhetorical analysis of a corpus of nonacademic texts (e.g., newspapers, magazines, political speeches) reveals three persuasive strategies that function to get around technical concerns about VAM. By pointing out these strategies and explaining how they work, the study disrupts their persuasive potential and suggests a potentially overlooked role of expertise in public decision making.
American Educational Research Association. (2015). AERA statement on use of value-added models (VAM) for the evaluation of educators and educator preparation programs. Educational Researcher, 44(8), 448–452.
AndersonG. L. (2007). Media’s impact on educational policies and practices: Political spectacle and social control. Peabody Journal of Education, 82(1), 103–120.
5.
AsenR. (2010). Reflections on the role of rhetoric in public policy. Rhetoric and Public Affairs, 13(1), 121–143.
6.
AsenR. (2012). Lyndon Baines Johnson and George W. Bush on education reform: Ascribing agency and responsibility through key policy terms. Rhetoric & Public Affairs, 15(2), 289–317.
7.
AsenR.GurkeD.ConnersP.SolomonR.GummE. (2013). Research evidence and school board deliberations: Lessons from three Wisconsin school districts. Educational Policy, 27(1), 33–63.
8.
BitzerL. F. (1968). The rhetorical situation. Philosophy and Rhetoric, 1(1), 1–14.
9.
BourdieuP. (1975). The specificity of the scientific field and the social conditions of the progress of reason. Social Science Information, 14(6), 19–47.
10.
BoydW. L. (1999). Paradoxes of educational policy and productivity. Educational Policy, 13(2), 227–250.
11.
BrommeR.GoldmanS. R. (2014). The public’s bounded understanding of science. Educational Psychologist, 49(2), 59–69.
CeccarelliL. (2011). Manufactured scientific controversy: Science, rhetoric, and public debate. Rhetoric & Public Affairs, 14(2), 195–228.
15.
CoburnC.ToureJ.YamashitaM. (2009). Evidence, interpretation, and persuasion: Instructional decision making at the district central office. Teachers College Record, 111(4), 1115–1161.
16.
CohenJ. L. (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.
DuncanA. (2011, March22). The road less traveled: Remarks of U.S. Secretary of Education Arne Duncan at the United Way of Greater Los Angeles Education Summit. Retrieved from https://www.ed.gov/news/speeches/road-less-traveled
FischerF.ForesterJ. (1993). The argumentative turn in policy analysis and planning. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.
29.
FreudenburgW. R.GramlingR.DavidsonD. J. (2008). Scientific Certainty Argumentation Methods (SCAMs): Science and the politics of doubt. Sociological Inquiry, 78(1), 2–38.
30.
GabrielR.LesterJ. N. (2013). 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), 1–32.
31.
GoldsteinR. A. (2011). Imaging the frame: Media representations of teachers, their unions, NCLB, and education reform. Educational Policy, 25(4), 543–576.
32.
HammersleyM. (2014). The limits of social science: Causal explanation and value relevance. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
33.
HermansenP. M. (2014). “There was no one coming with enough power to save us”: Waiting for “Superman” and the rhetoric of the new education documentary. Rhetoric & Public Affairs, 17(3), 511–540.
JasanoffS. (2012). Science and public reason. New York, NY: Routledge.
36.
JasinskiJ.2001. The status of theory and method in rhetorical criticism. Western Journal of Communication, 65(3), 249–270.
37.
JohnsonB. L.Jr. (1999). The politics of research-information use in the education policy arena. Educational Policy, 13(1), 23–36.
38.
KatikireddiS. V.HiltonS.BondL. (2016). The role of the Sheffield model on the minimum unit pricing of alcohol debate: The importance of a rhetorical perspective. Evidence & Policy: A Journal of Research, Debate and Practice, 12(4), 521–539.
KrathwohlD. R. (2009). Methods of educational and social science research: The logic of methods (3rd ed.). Long Grove, IL: Waveland.
41.
LadnerM.LipsD. (2012). Report card on American education: Ranking state K-12 performance, progress, and reform. Washington, DC: American Legislative Exchange Council. Retrieved from https://www.alec.org/publication/2012-education-report-card/
42.
LatourB.WoolgarS. (1979). Laboratory life: The construction of scientific facts. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
MajoneG. (1989). Evidence, argument and persuasion in the policy process. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
49.
McIntushH. G. (2000). Defining education: The rhetorical enactment of ideology in A Nation at Risk. Rhetoric & Public Affairs, 3(3), 419–443.
50.
MessickS. (1981). Evidence and ethics in the evaluation of tests. Educational Researcher, 10(9), 9–20.
51.
MorganD. L. (2008). Emergent design. In GivenL. M. (Ed.), The SAGE encyclopedia of qualitative research methods (pp. 246–248). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
National Council on Teacher Quality. (2015). State of the states 2015—Evaluating Teaching, Leading and Learning. Washington, DC: Author. Retrieved from http://www.nctq.org/dmsStage/StateofStates2015
54.
National Council on Teacher Quality. (2017). Running in place: How new teacher evaluations fail to live up to promises. Washington, DC: Author. Retrieved from http://www.nctq.org/dmsStage/Final_Evaluation_Paper
55.
OreskesN.ConwayE. M. (2010). Merchants of doubt: How a handful of scientists obscured the truth on issues from tobacco smoke to global warming. New York, NY: Bloomsbury.
PearsonM. (2010). “What do we know? What should we do?” Melding research validity and rhetoric in the analysis of policy making. Evidence & Policy: A Journal of Research, Debate and Practice, 6(1), 77–90.
58.
PhillipsK. R. (2004). Testing controversy: A rhetoric of educational reform. Cresskill, NJ: Hampton.
RussellJ.GreenhalghT.ByrneE.McDonnellJ. (2008). Recognizing rhetoric in health care policy analysis. Journal of Health Services Research & Policy, 13(1), 40–46.
69.
ShaddishW. R.CookT. D.CampbellD. T. (2002). Experimental and quasi-experimental designs for generalized causal inference. Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin.
70.
ShapinS.SchafferS. (1985). Leviathan and the air-pump: Hobbes, Boyle, and the experimental life. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
71.
SlavinR. E. (2002). Evidence-based education policies: Transforming educational practice and research. Educational Researcher, 31(7), 15–21.
72.
SteudemanM. J. (2014). “The guardian genius of democracy”: The myth of the heroic teacher in Lyndon B. Johnson’s education policy rhetoric, 1964–1966. Rhetoric & Public Affairs, 17(3), 477–510.
WalshL. (2010). Before Climategate: Visual strategies to integrate ethos across the “is/ought” divide in the IPCC’s Climate Change 2007. Issues in the Rhetoric of Science and Technology, 6(2), 33–61.
WeathersJ. (2007). Privatizing schools: The struggle over how we define democracy and the role of public institutions. Working Papers in Educational Linguistics, 2(2), 67–93.
WinslowL. (2015). The undeserving professor: Neoliberalism and the reinvention of higher education. Rhetoric & Public Affairs, 18(2), 201–245.
79.
WisemanA. W. (2010). The uses of evidence for educational policymaking: Global contexts and international trends. Review of Research in Education, 34, 1–24.
80.
ZarefskyD.2008. Knowledge claims in rhetorical criticism. Journal of Communication, 58(4), 629–640.
