{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.013686911890504704, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0, 'mean_word_length': 5.610169491525424, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
A Critical Discourse Analysis of Public Comments on the Removal of School Resource Officers

Public comments offered by citizens at local school board meetings play an important role in shaping the educational policy process. However, educational researchers have underexamined them in debates about educational policy change. Drawing from critical discourse analysis, this study examines the public comments offered at a school board meeting where a proposal to terminate a contract with the police department and remove school resource officers from schools was being considered. In particular, this study is interested in the arguments that stakeholders use to express their support for or opposition to the board’s proposal. My findings highlight the logics that stakeholders employ to let their perspectives be heard including conflicting notions of safety, the possibilities for alternatives, and individual encounters with “good” police. As more districts across the United States consider removing police, this study contributes new insights into the influence of public opinion on policy decisions, as well as into community attitudes toward police in schools.