In this dissertation I undertook a critical analysis of the public education discourse in the United States. Specifically, this research took a critical look at the communicative practices used to establish and codify the discourse on public education to create an assumed common understanding and agreement on education practices. I utilized an analytical framework that combined the principles of Discourse Historical Approach to analysis with a hermeneutic manner to interpretation of social meaning found in textual representations of that discourse. Further, this analysis explored the evolution of meaning-making via the language used to define these textual representations. In so doing, this research sought to identify and unpack the underlying bases (ideologies, assumptions, etc.) of the language used in the discourse on public education and explore the ways in which social structures and entities have shaped the discourse according to changing dominant social hierarchies across time. Significantly, this research found that similar language has been leveraged to argue both for and against structural changes in public education aligned with changing social ideologies and norms.The findings revealed that much of the uncertainty and continued debate on the principles and structure of public education may be bound by the lack of a true common understanding of the language used in the discourse. Without a clear-cut, unambiguous definition of terms such as common good, there will be continuing debate about how to implement practice based on enigmatic meaning-making. This analysis exposed a disunion in definitive understanding of the specific language used, particularly among those with varied ideological stances, which has continually permeated the discourse. Contemporary public education discourse mirrors the seminal discourse in language and practice by assuming the specific terms and words used are commonly understood and accepted. Debates such as public-school funding, charter schools, curriculum, teacher professionalization, etc. are not new -- they are perpetual, highlighting the sense that the language used in this discourse may still be understood and represented via specific definition driven by ideologically based assumptions and beliefs. This research seeks to add to the body of literature by suggesting that specific language may be rendered functionally meaningless by presenting an illusion of common understanding. The objective of this critical analysis is to afford an understanding of the ways in which this discourse has impacted the perceptions and practice of public education. This work showed that much of the dysfunction ascribed to public education has been created and continued through this use of common language to argue opposing concepts or ideologies. The ongoing COVID-19 pandemic has further highlighted the need for clarification of language that has heretofore been much too ambiguous and open to various interpretations in practice and policy. [The dissertation citations contained here are published with the permission of ProQuest LLC. Further reproduction is prohibited without permission. Copies of dissertations may be obtained by Telephone (800) 1-800-521-0600. Web page: http://www.proquest.com.bibliotheek.ehb.be/en-US/products/dissertations/individuals.shtml.]