The Politics of Interpretation: Critical Discourse Analysis and Education Policy

Introduction

Ever since the rise of the digital age, we have found ourselves living just finger-taps away from a seemingly endless amount of information. We have all become accustomed to the phrase “don’t believe everything you see on the internet” but what about the information we read from institutions and sources we consider neutral or trustworthy? We often extend a certain level of trust to these sources without necessarily questioning how that trust is established or maintained.  Within politically polarized debates, complex policy issues can be communicated through simplified explanations, selective language and competing narratives. Language is not simply a means of communicating information; it is a tool for constructing meaning, shaping how we understand issues, reinforcing existing beliefs, and emphasizing particular perspectives without necessarily presenting information that is factually false. The words we choose, the way we structure sentences, and the information we emphasize or omit can influence how a policy is interpreted, and which consequences receive our attention. Even technical or seemingly neutral language can obscure important distinctions, including a policy’s potential implications for equity. As members of the public, we have a responsibility to hold institutions accountable for how they communicate information and to critically examine the language being used, regardless of its source or whether it aligns with our existing beliefs.

Recently, I came across a press release from the U.S. Department of Education announcing the rescission of federal civil rights guidelines for vocational education programs. Even before examining the text itself, it is important to consider the institutional context from which it originates. As a federal agency responsible for administering and distributing billions of dollars in funding across K-12 and higher education, the Department carries significant institutional authority. This authority may shape how readers initially perceive the information it communicates, potentially lending the press release a degree of credibility or legitimacy before its language and claims are examined more closely. However, institutional credibility does not necessarily mean that the language used to communicate the policy decision is neutral or free from particular perspectives. The press release provides an opportunity to examine how an institution communicates a complex policy decision, emphasizing certain aspects of the recission while giving less attention to others. Linguistic choices are significant because they shape how the policy change is represented without necessarily establishing whether the Department’s claims are accurate or inaccurate. By applying Norman Fairclough’s Three-Dimensional Model of Critical Discourse Analysis, I examine the choices made like specific vocabulary, grammatical choices and institutional contexts of this press release to understand how that meaning was constructed and communicated. Through this analysis, I argue that critically examining the language of official communications is essential to public accountability because understanding a policy requires considering not only what an institution tells us, but how they choose to tell it.

Background

While my analysis will focus specifically on the Department’s press release announcing this decision, it is important to first provide context regarding the guidelines being rescinded and their role in vocational education policy.

Prior to the U.S. Department of Education, HEW or the U.S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare (HEW) was the federal agency responsible for education and the enforcement of federal laws in schools, including civil rights laws. In both departments, The Office for Civil Rights (OCR) was charged with investigating discrimination within schools or other institutions receiving federal funding. According to the U.S. Department of Education (2026) one such example would be claims of violating Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 which declared that any institution receiving federal assistance may not discriminate on the basis of race, color or national origin.

The creation of these guidelines was a result of HEW being sued in Adams v. Richardson (1973), a case heard in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, in which HEW was challenged for its failure to adequately enforce Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 despite its awareness of ongoing discriminatory practices in federally funded educational institutions (U.S. Department of Education, 2026). Ultimately, this case led the court to order HEW to actively enforce Title VI and subsequently create the 1979 Guidelines. 

The 1979 Guidelines created a proactive system for enforcing civil rights protections within vocational education programs. Rather than relying on a reactive, complaint-based model, the Guidelines required recipients of federal funding to develop Methods of Administration (MOAs), conduct compliance reviews, collect and analyze demographic data, provide technical assistance, and implement corrective actions to address discriminatory practices (U.S. Department of Education, 2026). This approach reflected the understanding that discrimination is often systematic rather than isolated, requiring proactive federal oversight to identify and address inequities before they become entrenched.

In July 2026, the Department of Education rescinded these Guidelines, eliminating Appendix B and the MOA requirements while withdrawing specialized federal guidance for monitoring discrimination within Career and Technical Education (U.S. Department of Education, 2026). The DOE justified the rescission by asserting that the changes in both law and circumstances had rendered the Guidelines unnecessary, while simultaneously emphasizing that rescinding the Guidelines “does not affect the obligations of recipients of Federal financial assistance to comply with Federal civil rights laws because the regulations articulating those substantive obligations remain unchanged.” (U.S. Department of Education, 2026).

Critical Discourse Analysis of Press Release

Norman Fairclough’s Three-Dimensional Model of Critical Discourse Analysis provided a framework for examining how language contributes to the framing and representation of policy decisions in the DOE’s press release. Rather than examining language in isolation, Fairclough’s model considers how linguistic choices interact with the production and interpretation of discourse and the broader social structures in which they occur. Rather than assuming the Department’s language is either objective or intentionally deceptive, this framework allows me to consider how its linguistic choices shape the presentation of its policy decision.

Language, Framing and Policy Representation

The textual analysis reveals a recurring pattern of contrasting representations, with the Methods of Administration (MOA) requirements associated with administrative inefficiency and their removal linked to greater state discretion and student outcomes. Out of the 331 words analyzed, unnecessary is repeated five times, as is burden and burdensome. The text also uses terms and phrases such as red-tape, administrative requirements, duplicative, redundant, bureaucratic, and extra layer of oversight. Rather than functioning solely as descriptive language, these terms carry evaluative meanings that associate the MOA and federal oversight with burden, bureaucracy, redundancy, and excess. 

That semantic field is accompanied by recurring vocabulary associated with removal and reduction, including variatons of eliminate, reduce, cut, rescind. At the same time, the press release uses positively evaluative terms such as significant, important, win-win, empowering and improving outcomes when discussing the removal of the guidelines. Taken together, these lexical patterns create a contrast between the existing oversight requirements, characterized primarily as administrative burdens and their removal, presented as an opportunity for greater state flexibility and improved outcomes for students. The significance of this contrast lies in the historical circumstances that led to the establishment of these requirements. By the Department’s characterization of the MOA requirements, the press release gives less attention to the original purpose of supporting proactive civil rights monitoring and identifying potential discrimination. This framing directed attention toward the perceived benefits of deregulation while minimizing the discussion of the civil rights oversight mechanisms established through the requirements.

Grammar also reveals patterns in how agency is distributed throughout the press release, particularly in relation to federal and state authority. The Department is frequently positioned as the active actor, while the state and CTE programs are often portrayed as the recipients of federal action. For example, the text states that “the Department has imposed” requirements and refers to “requirements for states.” In another instance, the requirements themselves are given agency in the statement “These requirements pull resources away from the states.” In contrast, states are represented as working to invest resources in student success and improve student outcome. Grammatically, this creates a relationship in which federal requirements are associated with the diversion of resources, while states are associated with efforts to direct those resources toward students. This distinction is especially important given the longstanding tensions surrounding the division of authority between federal and state governments in education. By associating federal requirements with resources being taken away from students, the Department’s language constructs a tension between federal oversight and state educational priorities, with comparatively less attention to civil rights protections these requirements were intended to provide. Despite the framing, the Department does not provide evidence demonstrating how the removal of these requirements would increase resources available to students or improve educational outcomes.

Modality and nominalization provide additional insight into how the Department presents its policy decision. For example, the statement that state agencies “may” continue conducting reviews, compared with the earlier requirement that states “must” conduct them, reflects a shift from obligation to discretion. Similarly, the claim that resources “can” be used to better serve students suggests a potential benefit without establishing how this outcome will occur. The headline’s use of “elimination” rather than “eliminates” also places greater emphasis on the Department’s action itself. Collectively, these examples demonstrate how seemingly small linguistic choices can influence which aspects of a policy decision receive attention and which remain less visible.

Beyond linguistic choices within the text, Fairclough’s framework also considers how discourse is produced and communicated. Published by the U.S. Department of Education on July 22, 2026, the press release presents the Department’s explanation and justification for rescinding the 1979 guidelines. As the institutional author, the Department determines which aspects of the policy decision are emphasized and how they are communicated to the public. The Department incorporates elements of civil rights and regulatory discourse while framing its decision through ideas of administrative efficiency, state authority and student-centered improvement. Rather than presenting the recission primarily as a change in civil rights enforcement, the Department’s language associates it with administrative improvement, greater state discretion and potential benefits for students. Although the press release recognizes that federal civil rights obligations remain in place, via a complaint-driven system, it places greater emphasis on the anticipated benefits of removing the requirements than on the oversight functions they were intended to support. As a result, both the Department’s authority and the language it uses plays a role in shaping how the public may understand the decision. 

The broader social and institutional context reveals an important tension between the historical purpose of the 1979 Guidelines and the Department’s justification for rescinding them. The Guidelines emerged from concerns about inadequate federal civil rights enforcement and introduced mechanisms designed to strengthen oversight and identify potential discrimination in vocational educational programs. Yet, the 2026 press release characterizes these same requirements as burdensome, redundant and bureaucratic. The significance of this contrast extends beyond word choice, reflecting a broader difference between understanding the requirements as mechanisms for civil rights protection and viewing them as administrative obligations. Viewed within the broader context of educational federalism, this framing highlights competing perspectives on whether federal oversight requirements are essential for accountability or whether greater state flexibility can achieve similar objectives. By connecting administrative efficiency and state flexibility to student benefits, the Department emphasizes the anticipated advantages of rescission without establishing how the oversight mechanisms previously required under the Guidelines will be preserved or replaced.

An important consideration is that civil rights protections can remain legally binding even as the procedures used to monitor compliance with those protections change. While announcing the rescission, the Department also affirms that existing civil rights obligations remain in place and that individuals can continue seeking enforcement through complaints to the Office of Civil Rights. The rescission therefore changes how civil rights compliance is monitored without necessarily changing the legal obligations themselves. Under the previous structure, states were required to conduct certain proactive compliance activities, whereas the press release now explains that states “mat still conduct these reviews as they see fit.” The shift from requires to may indicates a transfer of discretion to states over whether to continue those particular reviews. This raises an important question about how civil rights compliance will be monitored when the legal obligations remain in place, but the procedures previously used to identify potential violations are no longer required. This presents the continued existence of civil rights obligations as a point of reassurance while leaving the implications of changes to enforcement mechanisms less clearly addressed. 

Conclusion

Policy discourse does more than describe government actions; it also contributes to how those actions are interpreted and understood within broader contexts. This analysis, guided by Fairclough’s Three-Dimensional Model, demonstrates how the Department’s linguistic choices and institutional position operate within broader social contexts to frame the rescission of the 1979 Guidelines. By focusing on administrative burdens, state flexibility and student outcomes, the Department presents the rescission mainly as a way to improve how states operate. Understanding the historical purpose of these requirements adds another dimension to the analysis by distinguishing between the protections under civil rights law and the mechanisms developed to monitor their enforcement.

Rather than evaluating the merits of the rescission, this analysis focuses on how the Department's language frames the policy decision and influences which aspects receive attention. Examining institutional discourse can reveal the assumptions, priorities and perspectives embedded in the communication of policy decisions. Critical examination remains important even when policy information comes from an authoritative source, as institutional language can shape which aspects of a decision are foregrounded and which remain less visible. Ultimately, understanding policy requires more thatn examining what is said; it requires questioning how language shapes what is emphasized, what is over looked and what comes to be accepted.

________

References

Rescinding guidelines for eliminating discrimination and denial of services on the basis of race, color, national origin, sex, and handicap in vocational education programs. (2026, July 23). Federal Register.  https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2026/07/23/2026-14892/rescinding-guidelines-for-eliminating-discrimination-and-denial-of-services-on-the-basis-of-race

U.S. Department of Education Announces Elimination of Unnecessary Burdens on Career and Technical Education Programs. (2026, July 22). U.S. Department of Education. https://www.ed.gov/about/news/press-release/us-department-of-education-announces-elimination-of-unnecessary-burdens-career-and-technical-education-programs