This analysis presents a framework to evaluate evidence claims in education policy, highlighting rhetorical insights for better scrutiny.
Policy proposals routinely claim the authority of evidence. This paper argues that the tools available to challenge such claims, although analytically rigorous, often lack the rhetorical capacity to disrupt poorly produced evidence narratives. Using Frankfurt’s account of bullshit and criteria used for evaluating argument, I develop a five-level Policy Bullshit Index (PBI) applicable to any policy document claiming an evidence base – government proposals, commission reports, think-tank briefs, or advocacy documents. The PBI’s distinctive contribution is that it combines defensible scholarly criteria with a rhetoric capable of disrupting evidence-based authority claims that routinely close down scrutiny. I apply the PBI to a Grattan Institute (Australia) report on multi-school organisations which has already been taken up in one state. The analysis shows that the report falls at Level Three (High) on the Index. I propose that the PBI is a potentially useful addition to existing approaches to policy scholarship and policy activism.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Pat Thomson (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: