Educational policy is one of the public policies. Theodore J. Lowi’s ‘techniques of control’ which encompasses a four-type public policy typology helps in the understanding of these types of policies. The four types in the typology include distributive, protective regulatory, competitive regulatory and redistributive policies. Educational policies would fall under the competitive regulatory category since they involve state-level protection of particular sectors. The policies, thus, requires a high-level negotiation among all the state stakeholders allied to the education sector. Ury and Fisher (1983) provides a multipronged four-principle negotiation framework that can help reduce friction between the losers and winners after the policy implementation. These include separating people and issues, which involves analysis of the problem including parties and perceptions; focusing on the interests rather than the positions of the involved parties; generation of the options; and, using the objective criteria to solve the problems and issues. Successfully conducting this process draws from the relationship between saliency and conflict. As Darling-Hammond rightly puts it, “It is clear that ordinary schools can succeed in extraordinary ways when they refocus their work on the need of students rather than on the demands of the bureaucracy” (From Lecture Media). Such an endeavour requires a set of effective policy instruments. However, McDonell and Elmore (1987) notes that “officials lack knowledge about the relative effectiveness of alternative instruments in addressing different types of problems” (p. 135). As such, they provide four categories of instruments namely mandates, inducements, capacity-building and system-changing (p. 137). On the overall, a successful education policy is a culmination of policy instruments and conceptual frameworks that defined every step of the policy implementation process.