You are on page 1of 9

1 tid13IMQ-?

'

0 (vickyl---j(-04...,),-K-Q.

Fts^.60k-

rbc-a-s-

1
POLICY ANALYSIS
what governments do, why they do it, and what difference it makes

.!?

George Bush takes the oath of office as president of the United States. (AP/Wide World Photos) 1

Policy Analysis
Policy Analysis

POLICY ANALYSIS IN POLITICAL SCIENCE This book is about public policy. It is concerned with w:Lacgovernments do, why they do it, and what difference it makes. It is also about political science and the ability of this academic discipline to describe, analyze, and explain public policy.

Definition. J Public policy is whatever governments choose to do or not to do.' Fovernments do many things. They regulate conflict within society; they organize society to carr on conflict with other societies; they distribute a great variety of symbolic rtfry AVria(Material services to members of the . society; and they extract money from society, most often in the form of taxes. Thu/public pofirrer r y regtor, organize bureaucracies, distribute benefits, or extract taxesor all these things at once.
Scope. Governments in the United States directly allocate about 35 percent of the Gross National Product, the sum of all of the goods and services produced in the nation each year. About two-thirds of the governmental sector of the GNP is accounted for by the federal government itself; the remaining one-third is attributable to eighty thousand state, city, county, township, school district, and special district governments combined. Overall government employment in the United States comprises 16 percent of the nation's workforce. Public olicies ma y deal with a wide varlet of substantive areasp et _er y, environment, foreign affairs, education, welfare, police, hi hwa s taxation, housin g; social security health economic opportunity, urban develo ment, inflation and recession, and so on. They may range from the vital to the trivialfrom the al ocation of of billions of dollars for a mobile missile system to the designation of an official national bird. Political Science. Public olic is lot a new concern of li the earli st writings of political philosophers reveal an interest in the policies uis e y governments, the forces shaping these policies, and the impact of these policies on society. Yet e major focus of attention of political science has never really been on policies themselves, but rather on the institutions and st,-uctures of government and on the political behaviors and processes associateil with policy making,. "Traditional" political science focused its attention primarily on the institutional structure and philosophical justification of government. This involved the study of constitutional arrangements, such as federalism, swaratioriof_power, and judicial review; powers and duties of official bodies such as Congress, president, and courts; intergovernmental relations; and
'Sec insert, "Defining Public Policy: Playing Word Games."

the or 1 o eration e, executive, and judisialagencies. Traditional studies described the institutions in which public policy was formulated. But unfortunately the linkages between important institutional arrangements and the content of public policy were largely unexplored. Modern "behavioral" political science focused its attention primarily. on the processes and behaviors associated with government. This involved the study of the sociological and psychologiCal bases of individual and group (C. behavior; the determinants of voting and other political activities; the functioning of interest groups and political parties; and the description of various processes and behaviors in the legislative, executive, and judicial arenas. Although this approach described the processes by which public policy was determined, it did not deal directly with the linkages between various processes and behaviors and the content of public policy. _ 5 1.6-R La mow, cse...ct rt.fpc. oct. et..vrer km.... palvlar.)(-0 ,.. Policy- tuc Today y_ri,olitical scientists have shifted the focusCS / tp_public o th e scr it:decau.ses and consequences otgotyLvaent activity. This focus involves a description of the content o public policy; an analysis of the impact of social, economic, and political forces on the content of public policy; an inquiry into the _effect stitutional arrangements and political processes on public policy; and arrevaluajiln olicies on society, in terms of both , expected and unexpected consequences.
DEFINING PUBLIC POLICY: PLAYING WORD AMES

otA p.

pc)

Fr
rAAADavy,

CX-D

/-0

X-E-oryN. a

P P.

This book discourages el, orate academicdiscussions of the definition of public policywe say simply that public policy is whatever governments choose to do or not to klo.Books, essays, and discussions of a "proper" definition of public pact' have proven futile, even exasperating, and they often divert attention front the study of public policy itself. Moreover, even the most elaborate definitions of public policy, upon close exa it to boil down to the same thing. For example, political scient st David Easton defintspithe authoritative allocation of values c society"but it turns out that onlx, tlu%g overnment can "authoritativelLat on the "whole" society, and everything . the ro y nt .houses t or not to ' f values" Political scion st)Tlarold L.asswel nd philosoph define policy as "a projected program of goals, values, and practices, an political scientist says, "ILts_en there be a goal, ob. , or purpose." These definitions imply a difference between specific governmental actions and an overall program of action toward a given goal. But the problem raised in insisting that government actions must have goals in order to be labeitsd "policy" is that we can never be sure whether or not a particular action has a goal, or if it does, what that goal is. Some people may assume that if a government chooses to do something there must be a goal, objective, or purpOse, but all we can really observe is what governments choose to do or not to do. RealisticalCV) i vin li .41.( CAA-0 OC( r"'") C/6/A.l)

fr)

Policy Analysis

Policy Analysis

ly, otriiiiitai7157r6rtc policy must include all actions of g overnment and not what governments or officials say they are going to o. e may wis tat governments act in a "purposeful goal-oriented" fashion, but we know that all too frequently they do not.' Still another approach to defining public policy is to break down this general notion into various component parts. Political scientist Charles O. Jones asks that we consider the distinction among various proposals (specified means for achieving goals); programs (authorized means for achieving goals); decisions (specific actions taken to implement programs); and effects (the measurable impacts of programs). But again we have the problem of assuming that decisions, programs, goals, and effects are linked-. Certainli in many policy areas we will see that the decisions of government have little to do with announced "programs," and neither are con-, nected with national "goals." It . may be unfortunate that our government does, not function neatly to link goals, programs, decisions, and effects, but as a matter. of fact, it does not. t supply still another definiPolitical scientis anding decision' characterized by tion of public polic : o is is define ke behaviors consistent and repetitiveness on the art of 0 It and those who abide by it." Now certainly it would be a wonderful thing if government activities were characterized by "consistency and repetitiveness"; but it is doubtful that we would ever find "public policy" in government if we insist on these criteria. Much of what government does inconsistent and nonrepetitive. So we shall stick with our simple definitioni public policy is whatever governments choose to do or not to do>1ote that we are focusing not only pn government action, clo. We but also on government inaction, that is, what government chooses ent inaction can havej,t2 st as great an iLact on societ as contentl government action.
See David Easton, 'the Political System (New York: Knopf, 1953), p. 129; Harold U. 1.asswell and Abraham Kaplan, Power and Society (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1970), p. 71; Carl J. Friedrich, Man and His Government (New York: McGraw-Hill, 1963), p. 70; Charles ()Jones, An Introduction to the Study of Public Policy_(11oston: Duxbury, 1977), p. 4; I kin/. Etilau'and Kenneth Prewitt, Labyrinths of Democracy (Indianapolis: Bobbs-Merrill, 1973), p. 465; and Fish .y 1972), p. 85. ileclo, "Policy Analysis," British Journal of Political Science, 2

can ask ,11,11 impact ittlilie policy has on societ y and its political system. By asking such questions we can improve our understanding of the linkages between socineconotnic forces, political processes, and public policy. An understanding of these linkages contributes to the breadth, significance, reliabilit y . and theoretical development of social science. understanding the causes and consequences of public policy permits ys to apply social science knowledge to the solution of practical problems. Fac6.71Tnowledge is a prerequisite to prescribing for the ills of society. If certain . ends are desired, then the t uestion of what oli i would best in-7177.7 these ends is factual uestion re airing scientific stud In other words, , in ten of "if ... then ..." olicy sttue".* an prod uce rofession statements, about (lim y to achieve desire goals) c(;
inirpo.Q1 to ensure that the nation adopts the "right" policies to (p achieve the "right." goals. It is frequently argued that policial science should not be silent tit- impotent in the face of great social and political crises, and that polii ical scientists have a moral obligation to advance specific public policies. An exclusive torus on institutions, processes, or behaviors is frequently looked upin I ;I s "dry," -irrelevant," and "amoral," because it does hill to t he really important policy questions facing American not direct society. Policy :;:.lidis can he undertaken not only for scientific and professionalpi_Eposes lint also to inform >olitical discussion, advance the level of c Hliev. Of course, these , political ait\\ are very su vet l y e purposesAmericans do not always agree on what constitutes the "right" policies or the "right" goalsbut we will assume that knowledge is preteralde to ignorance, even in politics.

Problem Soteing. Public policy can also be studied foirprofessiatual

12.e.mYyt,eft-Nato

reasons:1 9

olitical

Policy Recommendations. Finally, public policy can be studied for

co i-v)titi^

C<,(

o(A

QUESTIONS IN POLICY ANALYSIS What can 1\ C I C;I 1 I about public policy?


Description. First of all, we can descrthei public policy we can learn what government is doing (arid not doing) in tts;jfa defnn e, education, civil d so o leak h. the environment, taxatio n, ann. A factual basts of into narT7rTicy is re -alty an indispensable part of everyone's raTinon education. What does the Civil Rights Act of 1964 actually say about discrimination in employment? What did the Supreme Court rule in the Bakke case about affirmative action programs? What is the condition of,the na-

WHY STUDY PUBLIC POLICY? Why should political scientists devote greater attention to the study of public ,_policy?
Selena ic Understanding. First of all, public policy can be studied for purelytpentificraiTajuiderstand in g the causes and consequences of policy can beviewed decisions im roves our knowledge of societ . Public and we can ask what socioeconomic forces an as a. .pplitirn1 sysw characteristics operate to shape the onto t of policy. Alternative , public policy can be viewed as an inde endent variable, and we

ar.vvvot/A,

tion's social security program? What do the Medicaid and Medicare programs promise for the poor and the aged? What is the purpose of the MX missile,
oci/i-At.3.,a,cA , d.c, S A-)-i--A-

GA/) . .A-1'CA-kri) (I)


OR

i9OCZA1

Tx-Z IA' LaA., zawo ao,A,

4 '4 //7431CLA7) VOWS - CWiel.) -RX.A .A.6 en-,

P eoreto acAik-i rldP - A-54IfYNa414)4. "'QC- '24)1'4A) 1(evx:A ji-4141.A

e...r.4.0 va/1/s. ;--1...,0(4.7,) .

Policy Analysis

policy Analysis

en)the B-2 bomber, or the Trident submarine? flow much arc we really spend7 ing on national defense and on social welfare? How much money are we paying in taxes? How much money does the federal government spend each do year? These are ( xamples of descriptive questions. o what gover public olicy. Wiyispal Vii of political institutions, processes, they do? We might inquire about the effects and behaviors on public policies. For examp le:nake any difference) iiiiix and spending levels whether Democrats or Republicans control the r7 I presidency and Congress? What is the impact of interest group conflict on Ore ( federal aid to education? What is the impact of lobbying by the special interests on efforts to reform the federal tax system? We can also in uire about the effects of social, economic, and cultural forces in s aping public policy. For example: What are the effects of changing public attitudes about race on civil rights policy? What are the effects of wars and recessions on government spending? What is the effect of an increasingly older population on the social security and Medicare programs? In scientific terms. when} the causes of public .olic , policies become the de iendent variables, and their various olitical, social, economic, and cultural determinants become the riu ependent varia es. of public policy. What difference, if any, does pub lc ple's lives? For example: Does capital punishment help to deter crime? Are welfare programs a disincentive to work? Is busing an effective means of ending racial inequalities in education? Do liberal welfare benefits result in larger numbers of poor people? Does increased educational spending produce higher student achievement scores? In scientific terms, when we study the consequences of public policy, ` policies become the inde endent variables, and thew political, social,econotnic, zuld cultura impacts on society become d e - ependent verrirble.t. POLICY ANALYSIS AND POLICY ADVOCACY

Causes. Second, we can inquire about (he cause 6r determinant of

issues with the tools of systematic inquiry. There is to attack critical an implied assumption n policy anal sis that develo in se is knowled e ictan the consequences of ublic p21isy c about the forces shaping public is itself a sociali=-elevant activity.. and that such analysis is a prerequisite c and activism. v to rescri bon Specifically, public analysis involves: 0 j.4.-

1. A primary concern with explanation rather than prescription. tong, recommendasubordinate to description and explanationsif they are made , There is an. implicitat allarethat understanding is a prerequisite to pretion. judgment scription, and that understanding is best achieved through careful analysis rather than rhetoric or polemics. This search inL-ori.s search for the causes and conse uences o u A volves the use of scientific scan ar s o in erence. Sophisticated quantitative e p u in establishing valid inferences about causes and tec consequences, but they are not really essential. 3. An effort to develop and test general propositions about the causes and consequences of e. The obpublic-policy and to accumulate reliable research :ndin s o ener ject is to develop general theories about pu is policy that are reliable and that apply to different governmental agencies and different policy areas. Policy analysts clearly prefer to develop explanations that fit more than one policy decision or case studyexplanations that stand up over time in a variety of settings. "012 wrna(-0 POLICY ANALYSIS IN ACTION: ACHIEVING EDUCATIONAL OPPORTUNITY One of the more interestin exam les of olicy analysis over the ears has been the social science research one ua educational opportunit and how to achieve it. "Educational opportunity" has been one of the most controversial topics in American politics, and social science has played an important role in policy making in this area. However, as we shall see, the more controversial the policy area, the more difficult it is to conduct policy research. 1214A`Cl Early Researchthe Coleman Report The early landmark research on educational opportunity in America was sociologist James S. Coleman's Equality of Educational Opportunity, frequently referred to as the "Coleman Report."' The Coleman Report dealt primarily with the consequences of educational policyspecifically, the impact of schools on the aspiration and achievement levels of pupils. Although
'James S. Coleman, Equality of Educational Opportunity (Washington, D.C.: GovernMent Printing Office, 1966).

Consequences. Third, we can inquire about t e consequences,

Explaining It is important to distinguislitratcy ana/ysii from the causes and consequences of various policies is not equivalent to prescribing what policies governments ought to pursue. Learning why governments ,.. do what they do and what the con er uen s of th%La cs ons are is riot the same as saying what governments g t o or brThw iti about changes in s r tonic, persuasion, :what they do. Polic advocac re uires the s olicy analysis encourages scholars and students organization, and ac
CA-CA-1 A Ag.A Wm 4-)1,v)7{A eYx14^ /". 62/4 o(,,,.
Y

o x0A-Ict/vo

Policy Analysis

Policy Analysis

Coleman's study was not without its critics,' it was nonetheless the first comprehensive analysis of the American public school system and included data on 600,000 children, 60,000 teachers, and 4,000 schools. The results of Coleman's study undermined much of the conventional wisdom about the impact of public educational policies on student learning and achievement. Prior to the study, legislators, teachers, school adminis-

students in classes nearly half-black in composition were not any lower than those of white students in all-white schools. Finally, special programs to raise achievement levels in predominantly black schools were found to have no lasting effect.

more than Iwo grade levels. On the other hand, achievement levels of white

trators, school board members, and the general public assumed that factors such as the number of pupils in the classroom, the amount of money spent on each pupil, libraitand labOritory facilities; teachers' salaries, the quality of the curricultn,- and Other tharicteristics of the school affected the quail, ty of education and educational opportunity. But systematic analysis revealed that these factors had no significant effect on student learning or achievement. Even the size of the class was found to be unrelated to learning, although educatOri had asserted the importance of this factor for decades. In short, the things that "everybody knew" about education turned out not to be soh The only factors that were found to affect a student's learning to any significant degree were (1) family background and (2) the family background

Policy Implications
The Coleman Report made no policy recommendations. But, like a great deal of policy research, policy recommendations were inferred from its conclusions. First of all, if the Coleman Report was correct, it seemed pointless to simply pour more money into the existing system of public educationraising per pupil expenditures, increasing teachers' salaries, lowering the number of pupils per classroom, providing better libraries and laboratories, adding educational frills, or adopting any specific curricular innovations. These policies were found to have no significant impact on learning. The findings of the Coleman Report undermined the logic of Title I of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 (see Chapter 7). This piece of congressional legislation authorized large amounts of federal
assistance each year for "poverty impacted" schools. The purpose of this program was to remedy learning problems of disadvantaged children by increasing spending for special remedial programs. But the Coleman Report. implied that compensatory programs have little educational value. They may have symbolic value for ghetto residents, or political value for officeholders who seek to establish an image of concern for the unde-privileged, but they are of little educational value for children. The reaction of professional educators was largely one of silence. Perhaps they hoped the Coleman Report would disappear into history without significantly affecting the longstanding assumptions about the im portance of money, facilities, classroom size, teacher training, and curricula. Perhaps they hoped that subsequent research would refute Coleman's findings. Daniel Moynihan writes:
The whole rationale of American public education came very near to crashing

of classmates. Family background affected the child's verbal abilities and attitudes toward education, and these factors correlated very closely with scholastic achievement. Of secondary but considerable significance were the verbal abilities and attitudes toward education of the child's classmates. Peergroup influence had its greatest impact on children from lower-class families. Teaching excellence mattered very little to children from upper- and middleclass backgrounds; they learned well despite mediocre or poor teaching. Children from lower-class families were slightly more affected by teacher quality. Reanalyzing Coleman's data for the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, Thomas F. Pettigrew and others found that black students attending predominantly black schools had lower achievement scores and lower levels of aspiration than black students with comparable family backgrounds who attended predominantly white schools.* When black students attending predominantly white schools were compared with black students attending predominantly black schools, the average difference in levels of -achievement amounted to
'For reviews of the Coleman Report, see Robert A. Dentler, "Equality of Educational Opportunity: A Special Review," The Urban Review (December 1966); Christopher Jenks, "Education:The Racial Gap," The New Republic (October 1,1966); James K. Kent, "The Coleman Report: Opening Pandora's Box," Phi Delta Kappan ( January 1968); James S. Coleman, "Educational Dilemmas: Equal Schools or Equal Students," The Public Interest (Summer I966); James S. Coleman, "Toward Open Schools," The Public Interest (Fall 1967); and a special issue devoted to educational opportunity of Harvard Educational Review, vol. 38 (Winter 1968). 'U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, Racial Isolation in the Public Schools, 2 vols. (Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office, 1967).

down, and would have done so had there not been a seemingly general agreement to act as if the report had not occurred. But it had, and public education will not now be the same. The relations between resource input and educational output, which all school systems, all legislatures, all executives have accepted as given, appear not to be given at all. At very least what has heretofore been taken for granted must henceforth be proved.'

p. 195.

'Daniel P. Moynihan, Alaximunt Feasible ilisunderslmuling (New York: Free Press, 1969),

Policy Analysis 10 Policy Analysis

11

The U.S. Commission on Civil Rights used the Coleman Report to buttress its policy proposals to end racial imbalance in public schools. Inasmuch as money, facilities, and compensatory programs have little effect on student learning, and inasmuch as the socioeconomic background of the student's classmates does affect his or her learning, it seemed reasonable to argue that the assignment of lower-class black students to predominantly middleclass white schools would be the only way to improve educational opportunities for ghetto children. Moreover, because the findings indicated that ' the achievement levels of middle-class white students were unaffected by blacks in the classroom (as long as blacks were less than a majority), the commission concluded that assigning ghetto blacks to predominantly white schools would not adversely affect the learning of white pupils. Hence, the Commission called for an end to neighborhood schools and for the busing of black and white children to racially balanced schools.
Research on Busing

cannot be used only when they fit the political beliefs of social scientists and ignored when their policy implications are painful.8
Busing and "White Flight"

Coleman himself reentered the fray in 1975 with the publication of n. , This "Second Coleman Report" a new report, Trends in School Desegregatio about busing as a means to achieve appeared to counter earlier implicatio ns examining changes in segregation equality of educational opportunity. In cities, Cole, over time in twenty-two large cities and forty-six medium-siz ed man found that an increase in desegregation was associated with a loss of white pupils"white flight." This white response to desegregation was of black school pupils, which greatest in large cities with large proportio ns were surrounded by predominantly white, independent, suburban school districts. Coleman predicted that the long-run effect of white-pupil loss in these cities would offset government efforts to desegregate public schools
explained:

rather than less racial isolation. As Coleman and contribute to greater policy in which the result of the There are numerous examples of governme nt interaction between policy and response is precisely the opposite of the result in the intended by those who initiated the policy. It is especially important to examine this interaction, because many of the case of school desegregatio n , and some of those taken by their local governactions taken by individual s ment bodies, have precisely the opposite effect to that intended by the federal government. The most obvious such individual action, of course, is a move of residences to flee school integration." t benefits of Coleman had not lost his earlier belief in the achievemen school integration. But he believed that large-scale busing had so many
The Public Interest, no. 31 (Spring 1973), Double 'David J. A I nn it, "The DoubleColemanStandard," found in the work of Harvard educator the Report is 119-31. Still another reaction to and Schooling in America (New Reassessme nt of the Effect of Family Christopher Jenks, Inequality: A reanalyzed Coleman's data and conducted additional research Jenks York: Basic Books, 1972). on economic success. He found that school quality has little effect schooling

However, in 1972, Harvard sociologist David Armor reviewed the available evidence of the effect of busing on achievement levels of black students.' His conclusions: busing black students out of their neighborhoods to predominantly white schools did not improve their performance relative to that of white students, even after three or four years of integrated education. His interpretation of the impact of busing on the achievement levels
of black students indicated that black students were not being helped "in

any significant way" by busing, and he urged consideration of the question of whether psychological harm was being done to black students by placing them in a situation where the achievement gap was so great. Note that Armor was not contradicting the Coleman Report. Coleman was observing black result children who were attending predominantly white schools not as a of deliberate government action, but rather within the previously existing pattern of "neighborhood schools." In contrast, Armor was observing black children who had been deliberately reassigned to integrated schools by
government action. The policy implications of Armor's work appeared to support opscientists ponents , of governmeia-mandated racial balancing. Other social

disputed Armor's review of the relevant research findings, including Thomas F. Pettigrew, who originally used the Coleman data in support of busing.' They argued that Armor's work undermined progress toward an integrated society and reinforced racism. But Armor replied that social science findings
nu. 2$ (Summer 1972), 'David J. Armor, "The Evidence on Busing," The Public Interest, 90-126. The Public Interest, 'Thomas F. Pettigrew et al., "Busing: A Review of 'The Evidence,'" no. 31 (Spring 1973). 88-113.

of on the individual's subsequent success in earning income. He concluded, therefore, that no on an impact amours of educational reform would ever bring about economic equality. Jenks assumed that to achieve is the goal of society, not merely equality of opportunity absolute equality of income economic success. Because the schools cannot ensure that everyone ends up with the same income, Jenks concludes that nothing short of a radical redistribution of income (steeply progressive taxes and laws preventing individuals from earning more than others) will bring about true eqalit in Aerica. Attempts to improve die educational system, therefore, are a waste m u y Thus, the Coleman findings have been used to buttress radical arguments of time and effort. about the ineffectivenes s of liberal reforms. 7'rends in School Desegregation 1968-1973 (Washington, D.C.: Ur'James S. Coleman et al.,

ban Institute, 1975). "Ibid., p. 2.

12

Policy Analysis

Policy Analysis

13

negative consequences, including white flight from the cities, that busing was self-defeating as a means of achieving equal educational opportunity.

Critics of the notion of "white Bight" argue that there are many reasons besides desegregation which encourage white migration out of central cities." Many before and after studies of black students bused to majority-white middle-class schools report significant gains by the black students in verbal and mathematical skills over several years. And almost all researchers report that desegregation has little, if any, effect on the achievement levels of white students.' 2 There is very little racial interaction in desegregated schools except in supervised activities such as sports, band, and cheerleading.
Educational Reform: What Works?

Early educational policy analysis, especially Coleman's research in the 1960s and 1970s, documented the ineffectiveness of many policy alternatives. Spending more money on the existing educational system was unproductive: as federal aid to education increased during the 1970s, student achievement test scores declined. Racial imbalances in many large city school systems
increased despite busing, and the achievement scores of inner city black pupils failed to improve. But social science can take little comfort from predicting what does not work. Social science has a societal responsibility to search for policies that do work. In recent years, spurred on by evidence that American students perform poorly in comparison with students of other advanced industrial nations," social scientists as well as policy makers throughout the United States sought to identify policy alternatives that could improve the educational achievement levels of pupils (see Chapter 7). Again, sociologist James S. Coleman and his associates produced the most influential analysis of school factors that affected achievement levels. While Coleman's early research indicated that nearly all differences in student achievement levels are attributable to home and peer group influences and very little to differences in public schools, Coleman remained

puzzled by the consistently higher achievement scores of pupils in Catholic schools. Indeed, Coleman documented the fact that overall differences in verbal and mathematical achievement levels between tenth-grade students in Catholic schools and public schools was over two full grade levels." But
"See Edward J. Hayes, Busing and Desegregation: The Real Truth (Springfield, Mass.: Charles C. Thomas, 1981). "See Nicolaus Mills, ed., The Great School Bus Controversy (New York: Teachers College Press, 1973); and Gary 0i : field, Must We Bus? (Washington, D.C.: Brookings Instilution, 1978). "National Commission on Excellence in Education, A Nation at Risk (Washington. D.C.: Government Printing Office, 1983). "James S. Coleman, Thomas Hoffer, and Sally Kilgore, High School Achievement (New York: Basic Books, 1982).

achievement scores are not really good measures of educational outcomes. Others argued that Catholic schools were "creaming" off the better students ' and leaving poorer students in the public schools. Still others repeated the myth that Catholic schools expelled problem children that public schools had to accept. (Actually Catholic schools receive many problem and delinquent pupils from families who send them there because "they need discipline.") Catholic school students not only performed better on achievement tests than students from comparable backgrounds in public schools, Catholic school students also learned more over time. Coleman and his associates followed up on their earlier study of tenth graders by testing these same pupils in the twelfth grade. Catholic school students raised their scores significantly more than public school students over these two years. The greatest gains in achievement in Catholic schools occurred among students from disadvantaged backgrounds: blacks, Hispanics, and children of parents with low education levels. Moreover, the dropout rate for public school students in Coleman's study for this two-year period was 14.3 percent; in Catholic schools it was only 3.4 percent. And the lower dropout rate for Catholic schools occurred among students of all family backgrounds.

he quest ion remained whether this difference was a product of different educational policies and practices in Catholic and public schools, or differences in the types of pupils and families who chose to send their children to Catholic schools. Coleman was able to control statistically for differences in race, religion, socioeconomic status, family type, and other student background characteristics, by comparing achievement levels of Catholic and public school students with the same backgrounds. It turned out that sttidents who attended Catholic schools scored over one full grade level higher than public school students from comparable fancily backgrounds. In short, while family background is mbst important, schools can and do make a difference in educational achievement. Yet the "Catholic school effect" was not a result of smaller classrooms, or higher teachers' salaries, or better facilities; on the contrary, Catholic schools scored poorly on these traditional educational policy measures. Many public school educators were angered by the implication that Catholic schools produced better results than public schools. Some fell back on the old argument of "progressive" education that verbal and mathematic

Why do Catholic schools work better than public schools? Coleman himself attributed the different results of Catholic and public schools to "social capital"strong relationships within the family and between the family and the school. The families of Catholic school pupils deliberately chose to send their children to Catholic schools. When the school is perceived by the student as an extension of the family, or in cases where no strong family ties exist and the school is a substitute for the family, students perform well.

14

Policy Analysis

Policy Analysis

15

Agreement among family, pupil. iassitiates.,ind teacher on values and norms produces a iigh expectation for at-I lie ,. et nem and an orderly and disciplined learning environment. These factors help explain why students from comter in Catholic schools than in public parable family backgrounds pet 1! win schools. Reforming Public Schools Thus, social science research indicates that children's educational performance improves when the schtiiil is perceived as an extension or substitute for the family. The family act of rhoocing a school for the child, rather than having the child assigned to a school by government authorities, helps to establish the linkage between famil y and .school. What are the implications of this research for public policy? The research provides a rationale for reforming education to encourage parental choice of schools. Some reformers use the research to support the use of educational vouchers given to parents to spend at any school they choose, public or private. The state would redeem the vouchers submitted by each school in amounts equivalent to the costs of educating each child. Schools would be encouraged to compete for students since educational funds would flow to schools on the basis of enrollment. Competition would encourage magnet schools to allow freedom for principals and teachers to determine goals, curriculum, discipline, and structure within their schools, and to develop programs that appeal to parents, their "customers." The "best" schools would have excess demand and might have to turn pupils away; other schools would have to improve themselves or close. Alternatively, a parental choice system might be limited to public schools. This would be a less radical reform, but it would still encourage parental involvement in education and competition among schools. Several states and school districts have already experimented with choice plans: parents choose a public school for their children and state educational funds flow to the schools on the basis of enrollment. (See Chapter 7.) However, not many in the public educational establishmentschool district administrators, state education officials, colleges of education, teachers' unionsare prepared to support these refOrms. Parental choice threatens the traditional power of educators to assign pupils, determine curricula, establish goals, and monitor student progress, with only minimal parental involvement. Policy Analysis and Political Conflict The point of this brief discussion is that policy analysis sometimes produces unexpected and even embarrassing findings, that public policies do not always work as intended, and that different political interests will inters.

pret their findings of policy research differentlyaccepting, rejecting, or using these findings as they fit their own purposes. POLICY ANALYSIS AND THE QUEST FOR "SOLUTIONS" TO AMERICA'S PROBLEMS It is questionable that policy analysis can ever provide "solutions" to America's problems. War, ignorance, crime, poor health, poverty, racial cleavage, inequality, poor housing, pollution, congestion, and unhappy lives have afflicted people and societies for a long time. Of course, this is no excuse for failing to work toward a society free of these maladies. But our striving for a better society should be tempered with the realization that "solutions" to these problems may be very difficult to find. There are many reasons for tempering our enthusiasm for policy analysis, some of which are illustrated in the battle over educational policy.
i

Limits on Government Power. First of all, it is easy to exaggerate the importance, both for good and for ill, of the policies of governments. It is not clear that government policies, however ingenious, could cure all or even most of society's ills. Governments are constrained by many powerful environmental forceswealth, technology, patterns of family life, class structure, child-rearing practices, religious beliefs, and so on. These forces are not easily managed by governments, nor could they be controlled even if it seemed desirable to do so. In the final chapter of this volume we will examine policy impacts, but it is safe to say here that some of society's problems are very intractable. For example, it may be that the only way to ensure equality of opportunity is to remove children from disadvantaged family backgrounds at a very early age, perhaps before they are six months old. The weight of social science evidence suggests that the potential for achievemerit may be determined at a very young age. However, a policy of removing children from their family environment at such an early age runs contrary to our deepest feelings about family attachments. The forcible removal of children from their mothers is "unthinkable" as a governmental policy. So it may turn out that we never really provide equality of opportunity because cultural forces prevent us from pursuing an effective policy.

Disagreement Over the "Problem." Second, policy analysis cannot offer "solutions" to problems when there is no general agreement on what the problems arc. Coleman's research assumed that raising achievement levels (measures of verbal and quantitative abilities) and raising aspiration levels (the desire to achieve by society's standards) were the "problems" to which our efforts should be directed. But others argue that racial segregation in

16

Policy Analysis

Policy Analysis

17

the schools is constitutionally impermissible, whether or not integration improves the achievement levels of students. In other words, there is no real agreement on what societal values should be implemented in educational policy. Policy analysis is not capable of resolving value conflicts. At best it can advise on how to achieve certain outcomes, after these outcomes have been agreed upon as valuable; it cannot determine what is truly valuable for society.
Subjectivity in Interpretation. Third, policy analysis deals with very subjective topics and must rely upon interpretation of results. Professional researchers frequently interpret the results of their analyses differently. Social science research cannot be "value-free." Even the selection of the topic for research is affected by one's values about what is important in society and worthy of attention. Years ago, sociologist Louis Wirth observed:

Since every assertion of a "fact" and the social world touches the interests of

some individual or group, one cannot even call attention to the existence of certain "facts" without courting the objections of those whose very raison diire in society rests upon a divergent interpretation of the "factual" situation." Limitations on Design of Human Research. Another set of problems in systematic policy analysis centers around inherent limitations in the design of social science research. It is not really possible to conduct some forms

Complexity of Human Behavior. Perhaps the most serious reservation about policy analysis is the fact that soci21liarolAmsaresosoupU com p lex social scientists are unable to make accurate predictions about the impact of proPosed policies. Social scientists simply do not know enough about individual and group behavior to be able to give reliable advice to policy makers. Occasionally policy makers turn to social scientists for "solutions," but social scientists do not have any "solutions." Most of society's problems are shaped by so many variables that a simple explanation of them, or remedy for them, is rarely possible. A detailed understanding of such a complex system as human society is beyond our present capabilities. The fact that social scientists give so many contradictory recommendations is an indication of the absence of reliable scientific knowledge about social problems. Although some scholars argue that no advice is better than contradictory or inaccurate advice, policy makers still must make decisions, and it is probably better that they act in the light of whatever little knowledge social science can provide than that they act in the absence of any knowledge at all. Even if social scientists cannot predict the impact of future policies, they can at least attempt to measure the im,p_a_ct of current and past public policies and make this knowledge available to decision makers.

of controlled experiments on human beings. For example, researchers cannot order middle-class white children to go to ghetto schools for several years just to see if it has an adverse impact on their achievement levels. Instead, social researchers must find situations in which educational deprivation has been produced "naturally" in order to make the necessary observations about the causes of such deprivation. Because we cannot control all the factors that go into a real-world situation, it is difficult to pinpoint precisely what it is that causes educational achievement or nonachievement. Moreover, even where some experimentation is permitted, human beings frequently modify their behavior simply because they know they are being observed in an experimental situation. For example, in educational research it frequently turns out that children perform well under any new teaching method or curricular innovation. It is difficult to know whether the improvements observed are a product of the new teaching method or curricular improvement or merely a product of the experimental situation. Finally, it should be noted that the people doing policy research are frequently program administrators who are interested in proving the positive results of their programs. It is important to separate research from policy implementation, but this is a difficult thing to do.
"Louis Wirth, Preface to Karl Mannheim, Ideology and Utopia: An Introduction to the Sociology of Knowledge (New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, 1936).

L-CWv-1):1" ctAvv-k412ijw D Ct9 AFT T AI J ALYSISAS AR6tA Ne'') r).t4A) 'CLP P01!1C`,Q11NLI"ka Pottya. r4t-ecaAA ^-%-t" -eko Understanding public policy is both an art am! a craft. It is anbrjecause it requires insiativity, and imagination in identifying societal problems and describing them. in devising public policies that might alleviate them and then, in finding out whether these policies end up making things better or worse. It is a era Because t ese as s usua y require some knowledge of economics, political science, public administration, sociology, law, and statistics. Polhese traditional academic discs phi We doubt that there is any "model of choice" in policy analysisthat is, a single model or method that is preferable to all others and that consistently renders i he best solutions to public problems. Instead we are in agreement with political scientist Aaron Wildaysky, who wrote:
Policy analysis is onc activity for which there can be no fixed program, for policy analysis is synonymous with creativity, which may be stimulated by theory and sharpened by practice, which can be learned but not taught."

i(Ct

Wilda y sky goes on to warn students that "solutions" to great public questions are not to be expected.
"Aaron Wilda ysky, Speaking Truth to Power (New York: John Wiley, 1979), p. 3.

You might also like