Boyd provides interesting discussion on several areas about the intent of policy analysis and specifically regarding education. Boyd (1998) states:

                    Because schools have generally been viewed as one of the United States
                    chief means of solving social problems, policy analysis naturally has
                    been heavily applied within the public education arena (p.501)

However, Boyd is quick to follow with the reaction that there are many in the field skeptical (p. 501). While programs developed as a result of policy analysis have provided some evidence of progress there are also other undesired outcomes. Examination of the cause of those outcomes reach further than a simplistic definition that states that policy analysis is the act of collecting data to enable the best decision to reach an objective. It addresses the root core subject of analysis itself. While the working definition of policy analysis as provided in the article gives a rather broad focus, policy analysis still tends to be viewed by many as a "means of problem solving for data decisions" (Boyd, 1998, p. 502). During the course of article there are several other, possibly more important aspects of policy analysis and how it is developing which provide for what I believe is a broader more encompassing focus for defining the purpose of engaging in policy analysis.

It is in the definition of the what, the who and the alternative hows that provide the core of the ingredients in policy analysis. During the 1960's, the premise was that proven economic formulas had portability to societal problems. More simply stated a prescriptive approach to solve the ills of society. This meant that large-scale solutions could be applied to problems if the analysis calculated correctly. The use of economic models, while providing insight in the cost effectiveness of how to provide the 'lowest cost' or' best cost' solution to a particular problem in the short run, do not lend themselves easily to including subjective criterion.

The basic premise in cost benefit analysis is to ascertain the best possible combination that limits the 'cost' to one group by providing a 'benefit' to another, or the 'break-even' point. What occurs however is a situation where there will always be a loss or gain by one group over another. This would be true in any type of process. The ‘trick’ is to accommodate by using the ‘best’ set of numbers. The question to be asked is: when does that ‘loss’ or ‘gain’ get to the point where it is no longer palatable to the groups being serviced? What is occurring is a form of risk management or the discovery of a point of ‘consensus of value’. At what point do the possible benefits possible costs provide the best balance? These initial attempts to shape society did not always have the long-term effect that was desired. In fact, in some cases, we are still as a society, dealing with some unintended outcomes of those policies. Given that many were implemented in education, those that failed to live up to their expectations or promise were used as a tool to rail against this large-scale approach.

The focus shifted to a more incremental method, which tends to be more descriptive. It purports to be more bottom-up oriented (Wildavsky in Boyd, 1998, p. 503) and more narrowly focused. This approach is related to addressing smaller sections of problems. This is also an area of concern in that what may be happening is simply a smaller version of the large-scale approach. Guba (1984) appears to indicate that the analyst focusing on the problem being addressed needs to not only the address the problem itself but also by the method of data collection as well as the desired outcome and players in the process.
 

Boyd indicates that currently there is a belief by many in the field the policy analysis is more of an art than a science. He indicates that others believe that policy analysis is comprised of three parts: science, engineering as well as craft (Elmore in Boyd, 1998, p.503). In my mind, using the working definition of policy analysis, the definitions of the alternative outcomes appear to be developed in the 'craft' area. In proposing broad categories of approaches as objectivist or subjectivist it seems to me that we should also be concerned with attempts at delivering one full blown answer to a question (prescriptive) and focus more on the examination of the possible underlying issues that should be addressed (descriptive). By the provision of a descriptive analysis some adjustments to the problem being addressed could occur.

It is unsettling to consider that the motives of parties either directing or requesting an analysis are based on the failure of past policy. Partisanship not only politically but also intellectually ( one method of research exhorting that others have no relevance) as the reason for promoting a ‘better method’ continues to be a problem. As each possible approach brings possibly different problems and biases, it is important to remember that the intent is the provision of the best alternatives available. Opening up the analysis process by looking at different veiwpoints to be considered is one way to test for variables not previously considered, but would not be cost effective in most cases and it is not certain that consensus on the appropriate issue to be addressed would be reached. Our problem in this regard as a society seems to be an unwillingness to provide adequate resources to initially define a problem, thus ensuring additional cost in exploring the now correctly identified 'correct' course of action.
 

Currently, there appears to be movement toward merging the various aspects of policy analysis to provide a more comprehensive set of solutions that focus on achieving results (Boyd, 1998). One outcome of this process may to be including a more diverse pool from which to draw information or to frame the approach. Remembering that the success of the policy depends largely on how it is implemented should pause the decision process long enough to allow questions about implementation plans and appropriateness to be addressed. Also shifts in policy should attempt to incorporate the positive aspects of prior policy (where possible) to enable more effective and robust long-term solutions. While time can prove a policy has some merit, often enough time for the real impact to occur is not permitted. Attempting to totally change society with a 5 or even a 10-year plan is a daunting task. As we look at society today, changes occur at such a rapid rate in some areas that before the ink is dry, the core issue may have changed. Again, the changing political climate, as well as our desire for something different can spur us in a completely different direction if the desired outcome is not immediate and does not meet our understood expectations. It seems to me that the last issue that is being addressed by Boyd is the melding of policy analysis as it evolves as a field. It is important to understand the shortcomings posed by policy analysis and to realize that it is a tool to aid in the decision making process and to assess and suggest alternative decisions to solve an issue. We still must continue to question and inquire about the validity of the alternatives being suggested. We need to continue this investigative process for ourselves as well as others in society.
 

Boyd, William. (1998) "Policy Analysis, Education Policy, and Management: Through a
        Glass Darkly?" pp.501-522 in (ed.) Boyan, N.J., Handbook of Research on Educational Administration
        White Plains: Lonagman.

Guba, Egon. (1984). "The Effect of Definitions of Policy on the Nature and Outcomes
         of Policy Analysis. Educational Leadership 42(2) 63-70.