Davis ’27: Diversity in higher education is a state issue – The Brown Daily Herald

Report on Educational Equity in the United States Post-Affirmative Action

Aligning K-12 Education with Sustainable Development Goals 4 and 10

This report examines the state of educational equity in the United States following the Supreme Court’s ruling in Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard, which deemed race-based affirmative action unconstitutional. It argues that achieving diversity in higher education, a key component of Sustainable Development Goal 4 (Quality Education) and Sustainable Development Goal 10 (Reduced Inequalities), requires a strategic shift from federal admissions policies to state and local reform of K-12 educational funding.

The Impact of the Supreme Court Ruling on SDG 4 Targets

Immediate Challenges to Inclusive Higher Education

The June 2023 Supreme Court decision has resulted in significant declines in the admission of Black and Hispanic students to selective universities. This outcome directly challenges the targets of SDG 4, which aims to ensure inclusive and equitable quality education and promote lifelong learning opportunities for all, including equal access to tertiary education.

Identifying the Core Issue: Foundational Inequality

The debate following the ruling has often overlooked the fundamental cause of disparities in higher education: profound inequality in the K-12 public education system. This foundational issue is the primary barrier to achieving SDG 4 and SDG 10. The reliance on affirmative action was a remedial measure, not a solution to the systemic inequities that begin in primary and secondary schooling.

Analysis of K-12 Funding Disparities: A Barrier to SDG 10

The Role of State Governance in Educational Outcomes

Under the 10th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, education is primarily a state and local responsibility. This decentralized system has led to severe inconsistencies in educational quality and funding across the nation, undermining the goal of reducing inequality.

Key Findings on Educational Funding Gaps

• Regional Disparities: States in the Northeast generally provide the highest levels of education funding, while states in the South and Southwest provide the lowest. This regional gap directly impacts educational resources and student performance.
• Intra-State Disparities: Significant funding gaps exist between the wealthiest and poorest school districts within the same state. This perpetuates cycles of poverty and limits opportunities, in direct opposition to SDG 10.
• Racial Disparities: Analysis shows a strong correlation between race and school funding. African American students are 3.5 times more likely than white students to attend schools in “chronically underfunded” districts. Studies confirm that schools with higher percentages of students of color receive significantly fewer resources.

Consequences for Higher Education and Sustainable Development

These funding disparities directly correlate with poor academic outcomes and underrepresentation in higher education. For instance, students from the South, where 56% of the Black American population resides, are significantly underrepresented at selective universities. This demonstrates a systemic failure to provide the equitable, quality foundational education necessary for all citizens to reach their full potential, a core tenet of SDG 4.

A Call to Action: Strengthening Institutions for Equitable Education (SDG 16)

Shifting Focus to State and Local Accountability

To build a sustainable and equitable educational system, advocacy must be redirected toward state governors, legislatures, and municipal leaders. These are the actors responsible for creating and reforming school funding mechanisms. This approach aligns with SDG 16 (Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions), which calls for effective, accountable, and inclusive institutions at all levels.

Recommendations for Policy Reform

1. Advocate for Equitable State Funding Models: Focus on reforming state-level funding formulas to ensure resources are distributed equitably, closing the gap between high- and low-wealth districts.
2. Promote Targeted Resource Allocation: Ensure that funding is effectively targeted to chronically underfunded districts that serve a high percentage of minority and low-income students, directly addressing the targets of SDG 10.
3. Enhance Institutional Accountability: Hold state and local governments accountable for providing a ubiquitous, high-quality public education for every child, as this is a prerequisite for achieving national and global development goals.

Conclusion: Achieving SDG 4 and 10 Through Foundational Reform

The goal of a diverse and reflective American university system cannot be achieved through admissions policies alone. Lasting and meaningful progress requires addressing the root causes of inequality within the K-12 public education system. By focusing on equitable state and local funding, the United States can build a system that aligns with the principles of the Constitution and fulfills its commitment to the Sustainable Development Goals, ensuring every student has the opportunity to succeed.

Analysis of Sustainable Development Goals in the Article

1. Which SDGs are addressed or connected to the issues highlighted in the article?

• SDG 4: Quality Education

  The article’s central argument revolves around the need to fix inequality in K-12 education. It posits that disparities in public school funding are the root cause of the lack of diversity in higher education. The call to “reform of our public education system” to ensure “ubiquitous public education, regardless of one’s positionality” directly aligns with the goal of providing inclusive and equitable quality education for all.

• SDG 10: Reduced Inequalities

  The article is fundamentally about inequality, focusing on racial and regional disparities. It discusses the “sharp declines in the number of Black and Hispanic students admitted” to selective universities, the fact that “African American students are 3.5 times more likely than white students to be in ‘chronically underfunded’ districts,” and the underrepresentation of students from the South. The entire piece is a call to address these systemic inequalities to create a more just society, which is the core mission of SDG 10.

2. What specific targets under those SDGs can be identified based on the article’s content?

• Target 4.1: Ensure that all girls and boys complete free, equitable and quality primary and secondary education.

  The article advocates for fixing the “inequality in K-12 education” by addressing funding disparities at the state and local levels. It highlights that states like Oklahoma and Arkansas are “performing significantly below the national average in key measures like reading and mathematics,” indicating a lack of quality and equitable education. The goal is to improve these foundational educational systems to produce better and more equal outcomes.

• Target 4.5: Eliminate gender disparities in education and ensure equal access to all levels of education… for the vulnerable.

  While the article does not focus on gender, it heavily emphasizes racial and regional disparities, which fall under the category of “vulnerable” groups in this target. The text points out that “African American students are 3.5 times more likely than white students to be in ‘chronically underfunded’ districts” and that schools with more students of color have “significantly fewer resources.” The argument is that ensuring equal access to well-funded K-12 education is necessary to achieve diversity in higher education.

• Target 10.2: Empower and promote the social, economic and political inclusion of all, irrespective of… race, ethnicity, origin… or other status.

  The article addresses the social exclusion of certain racial and regional groups from higher education. It notes the underrepresentation of students from the South, where a majority of the Black American population lives, at selective institutions like Brown University. The ultimate aim described is to achieve a “diverse and reflective American university system,” which is a clear goal of social inclusion.

• Target 10.3: Ensure equal opportunity and reduce inequalities of outcome.

  The article directly tackles inequalities of outcome, such as the “sharp declines in the number of Black and Hispanic students admitted” to universities. It argues that the current system of school funding, with its vast “intra-state disparities,” denies equal opportunity. The proposed solution—fixing funding at the local and state level—is a policy action aimed at reducing these inequalities of outcome.

3. Are there any indicators mentioned or implied in the article that can be used to measure progress towards the identified targets?

• University Admission and Enrollment Demographics: The article uses this as a key indicator of inequality. It cites the “sharp declines in the number of Black and Hispanic students admitted” post-affirmative action and the specific statistic that students from the South “only account for 17% of enrollment here at Brown” despite making up nearly 40% of the U.S. population. These metrics can measure progress towards inclusion (Target 10.2) and equal outcomes (Target 10.3).
• Disparities in School Funding: Funding is presented as a primary indicator of educational inequality. The article refers to reports on “chronically underfunded” districts, “gaps between their wealthiest and poorest school districts,” and regional differences in education funding. The specific statistic that “African American students are 3.5 times more likely than white students to be in ‘chronically underfunded’ districts” serves as a direct, measurable indicator for Target 4.5.
• Educational Performance Data: The article mentions that “performance results on the National Assessment of Educational Progress vary widely across states” and that some states are “performing significantly below the national average in key measures like reading and mathematics.” This data serves as an indicator of the quality and equity of education being provided, relevant to Target 4.1.
• Resource Allocation in Schools: An implied indicator is the distribution of tangible resources. The article cites a study finding that schools with “higher percentages of students of color had significantly fewer resources than their white counterparts.” Measuring the allocation of teachers, technology, and facilities would be a way to track progress toward equitable education (Target 4.5).

4. Table of SDGs, Targets, and Indicators

Source: browndailyherald.com