Abstract
The controversial and ambiguous character of the issue forces those setting desegregation policy to interpret and simplify it. Adopting a symbolic interactionist approach, this research explores the comments and assumptions of two opposing blocs of policymakers during the early stages of setting new desegregation policy in a midwestern U.S. metropolitan area. The groups disagreed on the intent, educational effects, and means of implementation of desegregation. One group reconceptualized it in terms of expanded choice, whereas the other couched it within the history of desegregation. The study's case design augments research on educational elites while suggesting new directions for research on policy formation.