Purpose: The purpose of this paper is to explore media's discursive strategies that shaped public narratives related to the National School Boards Association's (NSBA) 2021 letter to the Biden administration (“The Letter” hereafter) and the NSBA's response following media coverage. The Letter requested federal support to address the threats and violence toward educators and district leaders occurring largely at school board meetings. Research Method: We employed critical discourse analysis and a lens of possessive investment in whiteness to examine nearly 100 national and local news articles, which were primarily conservative-leaning, and archives related to The Letter. Findings: We highlight three themes among the discursive strategies of this data, which included the misrepresentation of the term domestic terrorism, the use of war-like metaphors, and the mischaracterization of parents. We also described how these strategies likely contributed to the public backlash of the NSBA, including a declining membership, and the organization's attempt at damage control through public apologies, organizational changes, and a shift in its equity-oriented work related to racial justice. Implications for Research and Practice: These findings illustrate the importance of educational intermediary organizations and leaders to proactively engage with journalists, foreground their equity commitments in evidence-based research and expert consultation, and communicate beyond media. These findings also underscore the need for media to reconsider the content of their reporting, whose voices they emphasize and ignore, and the discursive strategies they adopt when reporting on educational issues.
AlexanderT. N.ClarkL. B.Flores-GanleyI.HarrisC.KohliJ.McLellandL.MoodyP.PowellN.ReinhardK.SmithM.ZatzN. (2023). CRT Forward Tracking Project. Retrieved July 6, 2023 from www.crtforward.law.ucla.edu
2.
AndersonG. L. (2007). Media’s impact on educational policies and practices: Political spectacle and social control. Peabody Journal of Education, 82(1), 103–120. https://doi.org/10.1080/01619560709336538
3.
ArmatM. R.AssarroudiA.RadM.SharifiH.HeydariA. (2018). Inductive and deductive: Ambiguous labels in qualitative content analysis. The Qualitative Report, 23(1), 219–221. https://doi.org/10.46743/2160-3715/2018.2872
4.
BakerP.McEneryT. (2015). Corpora and discourse studies: Integrating discourse and corpora. Palgrave Macmillan.
BierbaumA. H. (2021). News media’s democratic functions in public education: An analysis of newspaper framings of public school closures. Urban Education (Beverly Hills, Calif.), 56(9), 1485–1519. https://doi.org/10.1177/0042085918756713
12.
BoykoffM. T. (2011). Who speaks for the climate? Making sense of media reporting on climate change. Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511978586
ChouliarakiL.FaircloughN. (1999). Discourse in late modernity: Rethinking critical discourse analysis (pp. viii–viii). Edinburgh University Press. https://doi.org/10.1515/9780748610839
17.
CoeK.KuttnerP. J. (2018). Education coverage in television news: A typology and analysis of 35 years of topics. AERA Open, 4(1). https://doi.org/10.1177/2332858417751694
18.
CrenshawK. (1991). Mapping the margins: Intersectionality, identity politics, and violence against women of color. Stanford Law Review, 43(6), 1241–1299. https://doi.org/10.2307/1229039
19.
CrenshawK.GotandaN.PellerG.ThomasK. (Eds.). (1995). Critical race theory: The key writings that formed the movement. The New Press.
20.
DalyA. J.SupovitzJ.FresnoM. D. (2019). The social side of educational policy: How social media is changing the politics of education. Teachers College Record (1970), 121(14), 1–26. https://doi.org/10.1177/016146811912101402
21.
DiemS.FrankenbergE.ClearyC. (2015). Factors that influence school board policy making: The political context of student diversity in urban-suburban districts. Educational Administration Quarterly, 51(5), 712–752. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013161X15589367
22.
EmersonR. M.FretzR. I.ShawL. L. (2011). Writing ethnographic fieldnotes (2nd ed). University of Chicago Press.
23.
FaircloughN. (1992). Discourse and text: Linguistic and intertextual analysis within discourse analysis. Discourse & Society, 3(2), 193–217. https://www.jstor.org/stable/42887786
24.
FaircloughN.WodakR. (1997). Critical discourse analysis. In Van DijkT. A. (Ed.), Discourse studies: A multidisciplinary Introduction (pp. 258–284). Sage Publications.
GeeJ. P. (2011). How to do discourse analysis: A toolkit. Routledge.
27.
GentzkowM.ShapiroJ. M. (2006). Media bias and reputation. Journal of Political Economy, 114(2), 280–316. https://doi.org/10.1086/499414
28.
Gerstl-PepinC. I. (2002). Media (mis)representations of education in the 2000 presidential election. Educational Policy (Los Altos, Calif.), 16(1), 37–55. https://doi.org/10.1177/0895904802016001003
HaasE. (2004). The news media and the heritage foundation: Promoting education advocacy at the expense of authority. Journal for Critical Education Policy Studies, 2(2), 98–147. http://www.jceps.com/archives/484
HindmanM. (2008). The myth of digital democracy. Princeton University Press.
36.
HonigM. I. (2004). The new middle management: Intermediary organizations in education policy implementation. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 26(1), 65–87. https://doi.org/10.3102/01623737026001065
LevinB.SohnJ.MaharajS. (2013). Facts in Education: The News Media’s Influence on Public Perceptions of Educational Research. American Educational Research Association. San Francisco, CA. April 27-May 1.
LingardB.RawolleS. (2004). Mediatizing educational policy: The journalistic field, science policy, and cross-field effects. Journal of Education Policy, 19(3), 361–380. https://doi.org/10.1080/0268093042000207665
44.
LipsitzG. (2018). The possessive investment in whiteness: How white people profit from identity politics. Temple University Press.
45.
LópezR. M. (2015). Through no fault of their own? A critical discourse analysis of the DREAM Act and undocumented youth in evening television news [Dissertation]. University of Colorado at Boulder. In ProQuest Dissertations and Theses. https://www.proquest.com/docview/1719152127/abstract/B6DC8ECC3E004CF7PQ/1
46.
LópezR. M. (2020). Discursive De/humanizing: A multimodal critical discourse analysis of television news representations of undocumented youth. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 28, 47. https://doi.org/10.14507/epaa.28.4972
47.
LópezM. E.KreiderH.CoffmanJ. (2005). Intermediary organizations as capacity builders in family educational involvement. Urban Education, 40(1), 78–105. https://doi.org/10.1177/0042085904270375
48.
LubienskiC.ScottJ.DeBrayE. (2011). The rise of intermediary organizations in knowledge production, advocacy, and educational policy. Teachers College Record.
49.
LukeA. (1996). Text and discourse in education: An introduction to critical discourse analysis. Review of Research in Education, 21(3), 3–48. https://www.jstor.org/stable/1167278
MosesM. S.SaenzL. P. (2008). Hijacking education policy decisions: Ballot initiatives and the case of affirmative action. Harvard Educational Review, 78(2), 289–310. https://doi.org/10.17763/haer.78.2.031547102j610762
PiazzaP. (2014). The media got it wrong! A critical discourse analysis of changes to the educational policy making arena. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 22, 36. https://doi.org/10.14507/epaa.v22n36.2014
RodwellG. (2020). Politics and the mediatization of school educational policy: The dog whistle dynamic. Routledge.
84.
RosenbergJ. M.BorchersC.DyerE. B.AndersonD.FischerC. (2021). Understanding public sentiment about educational reforms: The next generation science standards on Twitter. AERA Open, 7(1). https://doi.org/10.1177/23328584211024261
85.
RossT. (1990). Innocence and affirmative action. Vanderbilt Law Review, 43, 297–316.
86.
SaenzL. P.MosesM. S. (2010). Deliberating about affirmative action: Linking education policy research and the media. American Journal of Education, 116(2), 263–287. https://doi.org/10.1086/649494
SaldañaJ. (2013). The coding manual for qualitative researchers (2nd ed). Sage.
89.
SalinasC.FranquizM. E. (Eds.). (2004). Scholars in the field: The challenges of migrant education. AEL. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED482321
90.
ScottJ.DiMartinoC.HernándezL. E.LeibovitzT.ChongS. (2025). Organizations in education policy and politics. In Cohen-VogelL.YoungsP.ScottJ. (Eds.), Handbook of education policy research (2nd ed., pp. 785–821). American Educational Research Association.
91.
ScottJ.JabbarH. (2014). The hub and the spokes: Foundations, intermediary organizations, incentivist reforms, and the politics of research evidence. Educational Policy, 28(2), 233–257. https://doi.org/10.1177/0895904813515
SupovitzJ. (2015). Twitter gets favorited in the education debate: With the common core, for the first time, education policy is playing out on social media as much as it is in statehouses and school board meetings. Phi Delta Kappan, 97(1), 20–20. https://doi.org/10.1177/0031721715602230
94.
SupovitzJ.DalyA. J.Del FresnoM. (2018). The common core debate on twitter and the rise of the activist public. Journal of Educational Change, 19(4), 419–440. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10833-018-9327-2
95.
TamirE.DavidsonR. (2011). Staying above the fray: Framing and conflict in the coverage of education policy debates. American Journal of Education, 117(2), 233–265. https://doi.org/10.1086/657889
van DijkT. A. (1993). Analyzing racism through discourse analysis: Some methodological reflections. In StanfieldJ. H.& DI. I.RutledgeM. (Eds.), Race and ethnicity in research methods (pp. 92–134). Sage Publications.
98.
van DijkT. A. (1996). Power and the news media. In PaletzD. (Ed.), Political communication in action: States, institutions, movements, audiences (pp. 9–36). Hampton Press.
99.
van DijkT. A. (2001). Critical discourse analysis. In TannenD.SchiffrinD.HamiltonH. E. (Eds.), Handbook of discourse analysis (pp. 352–371). Blackwell.
100.
van DijkT. A. (2004). Racist discourse. In CashmoreE. (Ed.), Encyclopedia of race and ethnic studies (pp. 351–355). Routledge.
WalkerE. T. (2014). Grassroots for hire: Public affairs consultants in American democracy. Cambridge University Press.
103.
WangYFikisD. J. (2019). Common core state standards on Twitter: Public sentiment and opinion leaders. Educational Policy, 33(4), 650–683. https://doi.org/10.1177/0895904817723739
104.
WilliamsS. M.SwainW. A.GrahamJ. A. (2021). Race, climate, and turnover: An examination of the teacher labor market in rural Georgia. AERA Open, 7, https://doi.org/10.1177/2332858421995514
105.
YamamotoE. K. (1997). Critical race praxis: Race theory and political lawyering practice in post-civil rights America. Michigan Law Review, 95(4), 821–900. https://doi.org/10.2307/1290048
106.
YettickH. (2009). The research that reaches the public: Who produces the educational research mentioned in the news media?Education and the Public Interest Center & Education Policy Research Unit.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
