Andrea
Throughout the semester, the role of ethics and moral values in policymaking has been a center-point of discussion. As we have discussed, the Rational Actor Model suggests that policymaking is made without plurialistc conflict, and seeks the most effective solutions without ethical considerations.
Other models suggest less clear-cut rationales behind policy decision-making. For example: Forester (1984) argues that individual agendas complicate decision-making; Sabatier (1999) argues that “deep core beliefs” and “policy values” at least partially dictate policy analysis and action.
A recent New York magazine article, “Them and Them,” about the political takeover and subsequent policy changes in a public school district in Ramapo, NY, seems to corroborate the various models suggesting that individual agendas and policy values play a role in dictating how policies are evaluated.
In Ramapo, the sizeable Hasidic community, which for the most part does not enroll its children in public schools, has succeeded in gaining control of the school local board. Now in control, they are steadily cutting funding and programs, and diverting resources to support yeshiva-based education programs for their own children, leaving children who rely on the public school system without the necessary resources to excel, or even graduate.
The implementation of policies that divert public resources from the general population to a special interest group seems inarguable unethical, but Hasidic community leaders argue that residents can vote with their feet: “You don’t like it?…. Find another place to live,” one leader said.
In “Why Policy Analysis and Ethics are Incompatible,” Amy (1984) contests the standard arguments against the integration of policy analysis and ethics, finding that the current technocratic style of policy analysis and the shunning of ideological considerations in American politics prevent substantive ethical inquiry from being included in the analysis process.
The systematic exclusion of ethical inquiry in the policy process seems to extend to the case of Ramapo, where the Hasidic leaders on the school board are pursuing their own culturally based agenda, without consideration for the many public school students affected by their inequitable policies. Here, however, rather than rather than ideological considerations being ignored, the religious ideologies of these leaders are driving their policymaking.
The community leaders see nothing wrong with their decisions to cut resources from public schools to benefit their own community needs, reallocating public school resources and space for religious activities. Resources have been cut to the point where it has become impossible for public school students to graduate from high school in less than four years, thus substantially reducing their access to quality college education. When faced with pushback, the school board leaders say their critics are anti-Semites, leaving little space for substantive discourse or problem solving.
Wolf (1980) finds that the “fundamental ethical assumptions that underlies policy analysis, is taken for granted by the institutions that sponsor the analyses, and accepted (usually without examination) by the people who perform them” (2). For the most part, bureaucratic structures given policymakers significant ethical leeway, assuming they are making efficient and ethical choices.
But this assumption also has its limits: In New York, school boards can direct State funds to pay for special-needs children to attend nonpublic schools. In Ramapo, he school board has granted so many special needs requests to Orthodox children – based on the argument that school appropriateness includes a familiar, culturally sheltered environment – that the New York State Department of Education has formally notified the district that it is violating the law.
Here, we have found the moment when policy and ethical considerations collide: The Orthodox controlled school board has made policy decisions based on their own values, shunting equitable policymaking in the pursuit of their own ideological agenda. Here, rather than ideological considerations not being included in policy analysis, an agenda based on values has driven the policymaking process.
Resources:
Amy, Douglas J., “Why Policy Analysis and Ethics are Incompatible,” Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 3(4), 1984.
Mead, Lawrence M., “The Interaction Problem in Policy Analysis,” Policy Sciences, 16(1), 1983.
Shulock, Nancy, “The Paradox of Policy Analysis: If It Is Not Used, Why Do We Produce So Much of It?” Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 18(2), 1999.
Wallace-Wells, Benjamin. “Them and Them,” New York. April 29, 2013.
Wolf, Charles Jr., Ethics and Policy Analysis, RAND Corporation, 1980.
Throughout the semester, the role of ethics and moral values in policymaking has been a center-point of discussion. As we have discussed, the Rational Actor Model suggests that policymaking is made without plurialistc conflict, and seeks the most effective solutions without ethical considerations.
Other models suggest less clear-cut rationales behind policy decision-making. For example: Forester (1984) argues that individual agendas complicate decision-making; Sabatier (1999) argues that “deep core beliefs” and “policy values” at least partially dictate policy analysis and action.
A recent New York magazine article, “Them and Them,” about the political takeover and subsequent policy changes in a public school district in Ramapo, NY, seems to corroborate the various models suggesting that individual agendas and policy values play a role in dictating how policies are evaluated.
In Ramapo, the sizeable Hasidic community, which for the most part does not enroll its children in public schools, has succeeded in gaining control of the school local board. Now in control, they are steadily cutting funding and programs, and diverting resources to support yeshiva-based education programs for their own children, leaving children who rely on the public school system without the necessary resources to excel, or even graduate.
The implementation of policies that divert public resources from the general population to a special interest group seems inarguable unethical, but Hasidic community leaders argue that residents can vote with their feet: “You don’t like it?…. Find another place to live,” one leader said.
In “Why Policy Analysis and Ethics are Incompatible,” Amy (1984) contests the standard arguments against the integration of policy analysis and ethics, finding that the current technocratic style of policy analysis and the shunning of ideological considerations in American politics prevent substantive ethical inquiry from being included in the analysis process.
The systematic exclusion of ethical inquiry in the policy process seems to extend to the case of Ramapo, where the Hasidic leaders on the school board are pursuing their own culturally based agenda, without consideration for the many public school students affected by their inequitable policies. Here, however, rather than rather than ideological considerations being ignored, the religious ideologies of these leaders are driving their policymaking.
The community leaders see nothing wrong with their decisions to cut resources from public schools to benefit their own community needs, reallocating public school resources and space for religious activities. Resources have been cut to the point where it has become impossible for public school students to graduate from high school in less than four years, thus substantially reducing their access to quality college education. When faced with pushback, the school board leaders say their critics are anti-Semites, leaving little space for substantive discourse or problem solving.
Wolf (1980) finds that the “fundamental ethical assumptions that underlies policy analysis, is taken for granted by the institutions that sponsor the analyses, and accepted (usually without examination) by the people who perform them” (2). For the most part, bureaucratic structures given policymakers significant ethical leeway, assuming they are making efficient and ethical choices.
But this assumption also has its limits: In New York, school boards can direct State funds to pay for special-needs children to attend nonpublic schools. In Ramapo, he school board has granted so many special needs requests to Orthodox children – based on the argument that school appropriateness includes a familiar, culturally sheltered environment – that the New York State Department of Education has formally notified the district that it is violating the law.
Here, we have found the moment when policy and ethical considerations collide: The Orthodox controlled school board has made policy decisions based on their own values, shunting equitable policymaking in the pursuit of their own ideological agenda. Here, rather than ideological considerations not being included in policy analysis, an agenda based on values has driven the policymaking process.
Resources:
Amy, Douglas J., “Why Policy Analysis and Ethics are Incompatible,” Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 3(4), 1984.
Mead, Lawrence M., “The Interaction Problem in Policy Analysis,” Policy Sciences, 16(1), 1983.
Shulock, Nancy, “The Paradox of Policy Analysis: If It Is Not Used, Why Do We Produce So Much of It?” Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 18(2), 1999.
Wallace-Wells, Benjamin. “Them and Them,” New York. April 29, 2013.
Wolf, Charles Jr., Ethics and Policy Analysis, RAND Corporation, 1980.
RSS Feed