Futures research and long‐range planning in an urban school district involve the use of a methodology having no direct answers or precise rules in terms of experimental and design alternatives. While some design options can be found in operations research and management science, futures research projects in education are more likely to follow the directions for policy analysis initially suggested by Yehezkel Dror and re‐examined in Aaron Wildavsky. They note in policy analysis, 1. Much attention would be paid to the political aspects of public decision‐making and public policy‐making (instead of ignoring or condescendingly regarding political aspects) … 2. A broad conception of decision‐making and policy‐making would be involved (instead of viewing all decision‐making as mainly a resources allocation) … 3. A main emphasis would be on creativity and search for new policy alternatives, with explicit attention to encouragement of innovative thinking … 4. There would be extensive reliance on … qualitative methods … 5. There would be much more emphasis on futuristic thinking … 6. The approach would be looser and less rigid, but nevertheless systematic, one which would recognise the complexity of means‐ends interdependence, the multiplicity of relevant criteria of decision, and the partial and tentative nature of every analysis … (Wildavsky, Aaron, “Rescuing Policy Analysis from PPBS” Public Administration Review 29. 1969. pp. 189–202. Wildavsky's reference is to Dror's “Policy Analysts : A New Professional Role in Government Service” Public Administration Review. 27. 1967. pp.200–201). The intent is to describe a single futures research project conducted in a large urban school district staff development program. It is reported here as a means to outline a general approach to policy planning that might be used or adapted by other administrators who share an interest in futures research.
Read full abstract