Search
Browse By Day
Browse By Time
Browse By Person
Browse By Mini-Conference
Browse By Division
Browse By Session or Event Type
Browse Sessions by Fields of Interest
Browse Papers by Fields of Interest
Search Tips
Conference
Location
About APSA
Personal Schedule
Change Preferences / Time Zone
Sign In
X (Twitter)
The disruptions caused by school closures during the coronavirus pandemic have been well-documented. The decentralized nature of America’s education system meant that as Congress was passing legislation and federal agencies were issuing waivers to federal requirements, states and localities were responsible for implementing policy change. In addition to changing the learning modality for millions of children, school officials were also forced to rapidly adapt a variety of nutrition assistance programs that serve millions of food insecure children across the nation.
Political and environmental characteristics have a strong impact on the way that localities frame their policy implementation approaches. In other words, while the agenda is set outside of the districts, local officials have considerable leeway in how they frame the implementation of the National School Lunch Program (NSLP) and School Breakfast Program (SBP). The characteristics of the student population, the geography of the school district, and the relationship between the state and local departments of education may all influence how districts conveyed changes in school nutrition programs to the community.
We assert that, while the implementation of changes to the NSLP and SBP were constrained by top-down directives, the framing of these changes was controlled by street-level school officials. The paper argues that on-the-ground administrators are responsive to their district characteristics and strategic in the framing they use to roll out policy changes that are often beyond their control. To test this, we analyze Facebook posts from school districts in three states (Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Virginia) to ascertain how those local characteristics affected the framing of school nutrition programs during the pandemic. These states are particularly useful case-study selections because they are reasonably similar demographically and geographically, particularly in terms of the student population they serve, but offer variation in their political environment. As of March 2020, Ohio had a Republican governor and legislature; Pennsylvania had a Democratic governor and Republican legislature; and Virginia had a Democratic governor and legislature. We also selected specifically for school-year reopening plans. The state of Ohio recommended multiple modalities upon reopening, while Pennsylvania and Virginia required multiple modalities. We also consider the community-specific characteristics of the districts in these states.
Early results suggest that urban and rural districts are far more communicative about school nutrition programs on Facebook, when compared with suburban districts. This suggests that the portion of eligible students a district serves has considerable impact on the efforts officials expend to communicate important policy information to the school community. Understanding street-level policy framing, particularly on social media, offers valuable insight into the factors that motivate local administrators to communicate important policy information; and the ways that these local officials can use their own understanding of the communities they serve to communicate with and more effectively serve target populations.