The reformation of the system of public education is one of the central issues which are being developed by the Obama Administration at the present moment. Criticizing the No Child Left Behind (NCLB) Act for its burden of accountability that was put on educators, compelling them to meet the standardized targets.
Obama’s proposal for the education reform under consideration presupposes increasing the federal aid to schools by 16 % in the next year (Altman, 2010, Education reform: Obama’s bipartisan issue?). The identification of low-performing schools is to be left to the local level for enabling them to compete for grant money. The main competing interests which are related to the issue include the Department of Education, National Education Association, and American Federation of Teachers. The opponents to Obama’s Administration Department of Education are the National Education Association and the American Federation of Teachers who criticize the President’s proposal for its inconsistency and limitation of teachers’ rights. As it was cited in Altman (2010), Randi Weingarten, the President of the American Federation of Teachers noted “the plan puts 100 % of responsibility on teachers and gives them 0 % of authority” (Education reform: Obama’s bipartisan issue?).
Disregarding the tension between the competing actors and the dissonance among the policymaking bodies, the contributions of all actors can be valuable for improving the formulations of the policies and increasing their effectiveness. Collaboration of all the actors is an effective strategy that can help enhance governance because it allows viewing the issue from various perspectives and taking into account the interests of various groups. On the other hand, collaboration should not be regarded as a universal cure and a means for avoiding conflicts (Imperial, 2005, p. 311).
Reference List
Altman, A. (2010). Education reform: Obama’s bipartisan issue? Time. Web.
Imperial, M. T. (2005). Using collaboration as a governance strategy: Lessons from six watershed management programs. Administration and Society, 37(3), 281–320.