Report on Educational Attainment and its Impact on Sustainable Development in Philadelphia

Executive Summary

This report analyzes the state of educational attainment in Philadelphia and its direct correlation with key socioeconomic indicators, framed within the context of the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). While the city demonstrates overall progress in education, significant disparities exist at the neighborhood level, impacting progress towards SDG 4 (Quality Education), SDG 1 (No Poverty), SDG 8 (Decent Work and Economic Growth), and SDG 10 (Reduced Inequalities). Through a comparative analysis of the West Kensington and East Oak Lane neighborhoods, this report highlights how educational outcomes are intrinsically linked to community prosperity and the creation of Sustainable Cities and Communities (SDG 11).

City-Wide Educational Landscape and Alignment with SDG 4

Philadelphia has shown positive trends in educational achievement, a critical component of SDG 4, which aims to ensure inclusive and equitable quality education for all. Recent data indicates a significant increase in residents holding bachelor’s or associate degrees, rising from 25.2% to 36% over the last decade. Concurrently, public high school graduation rates have improved from 66% to 78%, marking progress toward Target 4.1 of ensuring all youths complete free, equitable, and quality primary and secondary education.

Policy Interventions: Pennsylvania’s Act 158

To further bolster graduation rates and workforce readiness, Pennsylvania’s Act 158 (2018) established multiple pathways to a diploma. This policy directly supports SDG 4 by providing flexible and alternative learning routes to accommodate diverse student needs and prepare them for postsecondary opportunities and careers. The five pathways for the class of 2023 were distributed as follows:

1. Pathway 1 (Keystone Proficiency): 36% of students
2. Pathway 2 (Keystone Composite Score): 19% of students
3. Pathway 3 (Career and Technical Education): 9% of students
4. Pathway 4 (Alternative Assessment): 8% of students
5. Pathway 5 (Evidence-Based): 27% of students

The Socioeconomic Impact of Education: Progress on SDG 1 and SDG 8

Educational attainment is a powerful driver for achieving SDG 1 (No Poverty) and SDG 8 (Decent Work and Economic Growth). In Philadelphia, a clear income disparity exists based on education levels. Residents with a bachelor’s degree earn an average annual income of $64,205, which is over double the $29,000 earned by those with less than a high school diploma. This gap underscores how quality education can lift individuals and families out of poverty and stimulate economic growth through a more skilled and productive workforce.

Conversely, a lack of education presents significant barriers to labor force participation. Individuals with disabilities and limited English proficiency face additional challenges, hindering progress on SDG 10 (Reduced Inequalities). Approximately 70% of Philadelphians with a disability and 48% with limited English proficiency are not in the labor force, highlighting the need for more inclusive support systems.

Neighborhood Case Studies: A Lens on SDG 10 and SDG 11

The contrast between West Kensington and East Oak Lane illustrates the deep-seated inequalities within Philadelphia and the challenge of building uniformly Sustainable Cities and Communities (SDG 11).

West Kensington: Challenges in Achieving Sustainable Development

West Kensington faces significant hurdles in meeting several SDGs. The neighborhood’s demographic profile reveals critical areas for intervention:

• Education (SDG 4): 28% of residents lack a high school diploma, more than double the city’s average of 13%.
• Poverty (SDG 1): 31% of the population lives below the poverty line, compared to the citywide rate of 22%.
• Economic Growth (SDG 8): Only 36% of residents without a high school diploma are in the labor force.
• Inequality (SDG 10): The neighborhood has a high concentration of vulnerable populations, with 23% of residents reporting a disability and 24% having limited English proficiency.

Despite these challenges, West Kensington has seen a remarkable 66% decrease in the share of residents without a high school diploma over the past decade, indicating that targeted efforts can yield substantial progress toward SDG 4.

East Oak Lane: A Model of Educational and Economic Stability

East Oak Lane more closely reflects a community advancing toward its sustainable development targets. Its profile demonstrates the positive cycle created by higher educational attainment:

• Education (SDG 4): 90% of residents have a high school diploma or higher, and 30% hold at least a bachelor’s degree, aligning with city averages.
• Poverty (SDG 1): The poverty rate is significantly lower than the city average, at 16%.
• Economic Growth (SDG 8): Labor force participation is strong, with 74% of residents holding a bachelor’s degree or higher being employed.
• Community (SDG 11): Data suggests children in East Oak Lane have greater economic mobility and lower projected incarceration rates, contributing to a more stable and sustainable community.

Initiatives like the city’s “community schools” program, which aims to meet community-specific needs and connect families to resources, are vital for replicating the successes of East Oak Lane in other neighborhoods, thereby fostering inclusive urban development as envisioned by SDG 11.

Conclusion: Education as the Cornerstone of Sustainable Urban Futures

The analysis confirms that educational attainment is a foundational element for achieving a broad range of Sustainable Development Goals in Philadelphia. Disparities in educational outcomes between neighborhoods directly translate into inequalities in income, employment, and overall well-being, hindering the city’s progress toward becoming a truly sustainable and equitable urban center.

To advance the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development, strategic investments and targeted policies must focus on closing these educational gaps. Bolstering education is not merely an academic exercise; it is a critical strategy for reducing poverty (SDG 1), promoting decent work (SDG 8), reducing inequalities (SDG 10), and building resilient and prosperous communities (SDG 11) for future generations.

Analysis of Sustainable Development Goals in the Article

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

• SDG 1: No Poverty

  The article directly connects educational attainment to poverty levels. It states, “Philadelphians with college degrees generally have higher earnings than those without degrees; they are also more likely to be in the labor force and less likely to live in poverty.” It provides specific data, noting that in West Kensington, “heads of household without a diploma make up 43% of households living below the poverty level.” The comparison between West Kensington (31% poverty) and East Oak Lane (16% poverty) further highlights this link.

• SDG 4: Quality Education

  This is the central theme of the article. It extensively discusses various facets of education in Philadelphia, from high school graduation rates rising “from 66% to 78%” to the increase in residents holding a bachelor’s or associate degree. The article details Pennsylvania’s Act 158, which created five distinct “pathways” to a diploma, including career, technical, and college-level options, directly addressing the goal of providing inclusive and equitable quality education and lifelong learning opportunities.

• SDG 8: Decent Work and Economic Growth

  The article establishes a strong link between education, employment, and income. It highlights that higher education leads to better economic outcomes, stating that Philadelphians with a bachelor’s degree had an average annual income of “$64,205—about 2.2 times the income of residents with less than a high school diploma.” It also discusses labor force participation, noting it is much higher for those with degrees and that targeted educational interventions “could increase labor force participation.”

• SDG 10: Reduced Inequalities

  The article focuses on the disparities between different neighborhoods (West Kensington and East Oak Lane) and demographic groups. It points out that West Kensington has “more than twice as many residents without a high school diploma” as the city overall. It also highlights inequalities faced by specific groups, stating, “Residents with a disability and those with limited English proficiency often face additional barriers to employment,” and provides data showing their lower labor force participation rates.

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

1. Target 1.2: By 2030, reduce at least by half the proportion of men, women and children of all ages living in poverty in all its dimensions according to national definitions.

   The article’s analysis of poverty rates in Philadelphia, West Kensington, and East Oak Lane directly relates to this target. It discusses the “share of residents living below the poverty level” and links it to educational attainment, implying that improving education is a strategy to reduce poverty.

2. Target 4.1: By 2030, ensure that all girls and boys complete free, equitable and quality primary and secondary education leading to relevant and effective learning outcomes.

   This target is addressed through the discussion of rising high school graduation rates in Philadelphia (from 66% to 78%) and the analysis of residents who have or have not completed high school. The mention of Keystone Exams, which “assess students’ proficiency,” also relates to measuring effective learning outcomes.

3. Target 4.3: By 2030, ensure equal access for all women and men to affordable and quality technical, vocational and tertiary education, including university.

   The article’s focus on the increase in residents with a “bachelor’s or associate degree” connects to tertiary education. Furthermore, Pennsylvania’s Act 158, with its pathways for “career and technical education” and “college-level coursework and pre-apprenticeship training,” directly aligns with providing access to technical and vocational education.

4. Target 4.4: By 2030, substantially increase the number of youth and adults who have relevant skills, including technical and vocational skills, for employment, decent jobs and entrepreneurship.

   This target is central to the article’s argument. The implementation of Act 158 is an explicit effort to evaluate “students’ readiness for career and postsecondary opportunities.” The article emphasizes that education is key to expanding “employment opportunities” and shaping the “workforce of tomorrow.”

5. Target 8.5: By 2030, achieve full and productive employment and decent work for all women and men, including for young people and persons with disabilities, and equal pay for work of equal value.

   The article connects education directly to labor force participation and income. It specifically addresses the employment challenges for persons with disabilities, noting that “About 70% of Philadelphians over age 16 who reported having a disability said they were not in the labor force,” which aligns with the target’s focus on inclusion.

6. Target 8.6: By 2030, substantially reduce the proportion of youth not in employment, education or training (NEET).

   The article’s focus on improving high school graduation rates, providing multiple educational pathways, and linking education to workforce readiness for young people directly addresses the goal of reducing the number of youth who are not in education or employment. The data on labor force participation by age group and educational level supports this connection.

7. Target 10.2: By 2030, empower and promote the social, economic and political inclusion of all, irrespective of age, sex, disability, race, colour, ethnicity, origin, religion or economic or other status.

   The comparative analysis of West Kensington and East Oak Lane highlights socio-economic disparities between communities. The article explicitly points out the inclusion challenges for “residents with a disability and those with limited English proficiency,” citing their lower labor force participation rates (70% and 48% not in the labor force, respectively), which directly relates to promoting economic inclusion for all.

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

• Proportion of population below the poverty line: The article provides this data for Philadelphia (22%), West Kensington (31%), and East Oak Lane (16%).
• High school graduation/completion rate: The article mentions the city’s public high school graduation rate has risen from 66% to 78%. It also provides the percentage of residents (age 25+) without a high school diploma for the city and specific neighborhoods.
• Educational attainment rate: The article provides the percentage of residents with a bachelor’s or associate degree for Philadelphia (36%) and analyzes this data for the two neighborhoods.
• Participation rate in vocational/technical education: The article specifies the percentage of students from the class of 2023 who completed pathways focused on career and technical education (9%) and pre-apprenticeship training (8%).
• Labor force participation rate: This indicator is used extensively and is disaggregated by neighborhood, educational level, disability status, and English proficiency. For example, “In West Kensington, 59% of residents with a high school diploma or equivalent reported being in the labor force, compared with 36% of those without a diploma.”
• Average income by educational attainment: The article provides a clear indicator by stating the average annual income for Philadelphians with a bachelor’s degree ($64,205) versus those with less than a high school diploma ($29,000).
• Proportion of population with a disability: The article provides this data for Philadelphia (17%) and West Kensington (23%) and links it to employment barriers.
• Proportion of population with limited English proficiency: This is provided for Philadelphia (11.3%), West Kensington (24%), and East Oak Lane (6%) as another indicator of inequality and barriers to employment.

4. Table of SDGs, Targets, and Indicators

Source: pew.org