Since its emergence in the early 2000s, social media has profoundly shaped how Americans engage with media, politics, and each other. With an estimated 60% of the global population utilizing these platforms (Chan and Yi, 2024), their influence extends across diverse cultural and political contexts, offering unprecedented opportunities for democratic participation, facilitating access to information, enabling collective action, and fostering connections across geographical boundaries (Kumar & Sharma, n.d.). In the education sector, advocates have harnessed these platforms to amplify campaigns, mobilize supporters, and drive meaningful policy change at the state and local level.
However, emerging research over the past several years has begun to reveal a more troubling dimension of social media’s impact—particularly its role in deepening political polarization. While these platforms were designed to connect us, their underlying algorithms often do the opposite, reinforcing division, amplifying conflict, and distorting public discourse in ways that affect every sector, including education. The situation in the U.S. presents a particularly stark case, with Americans themselves perceiving significant societal division, often more so than citizens in other advanced economies. Education, historically sometimes viewed as a domain capable of fostering unity or enjoying bipartisan focus, has increasingly become a central battleground within this polarized landscape.
The Perception of Division
The same systems that enable connection and outreach can also distort public discourse. While social media can be a force for collective action, it also carries broader implications that warrant careful consideration. Increasingly, interactions on these platforms amplify the perception of division, making Americans feel more politically polarized than we truly are. Research shows that platform algorithms are engineered to maximize engagement—often by surfacing emotionally charged content, especially posts that provoke anger or frame opponents as threats. This dynamic skews users’ sense of reality, reinforcing exaggerated views of ideological difference and deepening affective polarization. Even when Americans share common ground on key issues, the way those issues are framed and surfaced online can make meaningful dialogue feel out of reach (Kumar & Sharma, n.d.).
The concepts of "echo chambers" and "filter bubbles" (where algorithms and user choices insulate individuals from opposing viewpoints) are frequently invoked in this research (Kumar & Sharma, n.d.) However, the prevalence and impact of these phenomena for the average user are contested. Some research suggests that many individuals still encounter diverse viewpoints online, often consuming news from mainstream or centrist sources, and that offline social networks can sometimes be more ideologically homogeneous than online ones (Guess et al., n.d.). An alternative mechanism proposed is that digital media drives polarization not necessarily through isolation, but through partisan sorting (where political party affiliation aligns with and absorbs other social, cultural, and demographic identities) facilitated by increased interaction outside of localized, heterogeneous networks (Tornberg, 2022). By connecting individuals across geographic and social boundaries, online platforms may accelerate the alignment of diverse conflicts along national partisan lines, eroding the moderating effects of local community and relationship (Tornberg, 2022). Furthermore, studies have shown that exposure to opposing views online does not always lead to moderation; instead, it can sometimes trigger a "backfire effect," where individuals counter-argue using motivated reasoning, leading to increased polarization and commitment to pre-existing beliefs (Bail et al., 2018).
Compounding the problem, social media platforms are being exploited by foreign and domestic “bad actors” who understand how to leverage these mechanics. Through coordinated disinformation campaigns, fake accounts, and algorithmic manipulation, these groups systematically work to deepen mistrust, inflame division, and erode the public’s confidence in shared institutions (U.S. Government Accountability Office, 2024).
In short, social media, and perhaps online discourse more broadly, has become a space where Americans increasingly feel disconnected—from one another, from shared values, and from the possibility of common ground.
The Fight For Change
Unfortunately, this is the fractured environment education advocates must navigate. Gains made in one year can be swiftly dismantled the next, not due to policy failure, but because progress itself is often reframed as partisan. In an era of constant division and vilification, even broadly beneficial outcomes can be rejected simply because they’re perceived as coming from “the other side.” As a result, advocates are forced to expend enormous time and resources defending incremental change—while students, educators, and school communities bear the cost of stagnation.
Weaponization of Commonly Used Terms
The mounting challenge doesn’t stop there. Advocates are increasingly hamstrung by the weaponization of commonly used terms. Concepts central to education debates such as “equity,” “CRT,” and even “public school”, have become politicized flashpoints in online discourse. Research shows that social media platforms amplify emotionally charged rhetoric, particularly content that provokes anger or emphasizes out-group threats (the prception that a group of people who are not part of one’s own identity group (the “out-group”) poses a danger—whether real or perceived—to one’s values, beliefs, status, or safety) (Bail et al., 2018)**.**Once such language becomes politicized, it often functions as a non-starter in dialogue, triggering defensiveness or disengagement rather than understanding (Koetke et al., 2024; Tucker et al., 2018). For education advocates, this means that otherwise rational discussions around funding fairness, curriculum design, or school reform are frequently derailed before they can even begin.
How can we meaningfully improve education in the United States when the very language we use to discuss it is being distorted by inflammatory online discourse and social media-driven polarization? Too often, productive conversations are derailed before they even begin, not because we disagree on goals, but because of the socially polarized lens through which those goals are framed. Social media doesn't just amplify debate—it reinforces division, driving wedges between people who might otherwise agree. To make real progress, we need a new approach, one that moves beyond the noise, resists false divides, and rebuilds the trust necessary for meaningful, lasting change.
The Perception Gap
As mentioned previously in this article, social media usage has led to a perception gap in the average American user. Research suggests Americans are more aligned on core values than we realize. More in Common's 2019 report, The Perception Gap, reveals that both Democrats and Republicans significantly overestimate the extremity of the other side's views. This misperception is especially pronounced among the most politically active individuals, who are more likely to consume partisan media and engage in political discussions on social media platforms. For instance, individuals who share political content on social media have an average perception gap of 29%, compared to 18% for those who do not share such content (Yudkin et al., 2019).
These distorted perceptions contribute to increased hostility and distrust, making it challenging to find common ground. However, the research also indicates that when people engage in direct, respectful conversations, they often discover shared values and beliefs. Recognizing and addressing the perception gap is a crucial step toward rebuilding trust and fostering meaningful dialogue in education and beyond.
Finding Common Ground
At Bright Matter, we believe there’s common ground to build on, starting with the shared belief that every young person deserves access to an excellent education, no matter their zip code, race, beliefs, or background. Across political lines, Republican, Democrat, or otherwise, most of us agree: when children thrive, our communities, our workforce, our economy, and our future thrive with them.
We believe that real progress starts with human connection, not likes, shares, or soundbites, but honest conversations that cut through the noise. So we invite you to step outside the bubble. Talk to someone who sees things differently. Listen for the values you might actually share. The foundation for change is already there—we just have to be willing to find it.
I attended SXSW EDU in March and while there heard an excellent session by the CEO of Search for Common Ground, Shamil Idriss, on how to best find common ground, particularly in tense political and social situations. Stay tuned for our next article where we’ll discuss some of the key takeaways from that presentation and how we might build better bipartisan coalitions in education advocacy that build community based on human connection and trust.
