Report on U.S. Department of Education Reductions and Implications for Sustainable Development Goals

Executive Summary

Recent significant funding and workforce reductions within the U.S. Department of Education present a substantial challenge to the nation’s progress toward several key United Nations Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). The mass layoffs, including over a thousand employees, and broader policy shifts threaten to undermine advancements in quality education (SDG 4), reduce inequalities (SDG 10), and weaken institutional integrity (SDG 16). This report analyzes the multifaceted impacts of these actions through the lens of the SDG framework, drawing on testimony from affected personnel.

Direct Threats to SDG 4: Quality Education

The core mission of providing inclusive and equitable quality education is directly imperiled by the department’s downsizing. The repercussions affect multiple targets within SDG 4.

Jeopardizing Foundational and Higher Education (Targets 4.1, 4.3, 4.c)

• Reduced Teacher Supply: Funding cuts are anticipated to decrease the number of available teachers, directly contradicting SDG Target 4.c, which calls for a substantial increase in the supply of qualified teachers.
• Barriers to Higher Education: The layoffs have specifically targeted federal student aid workers, leading to expected delays in processing financial aid. This creates significant barriers to accessing tertiary education, undermining SDG Target 4.3 (equal access to affordable and quality technical, vocational and tertiary education).
• Targeting of Institutions: Actions against universities, including the loss of federal funding and threats to accreditation, compromise the quality and stability of higher education.

Erosion of Evidence-Based Policy (Target 4.1)

A critical function of the department, data collection and analysis, has been severely hampered. This compromises the ability to make informed decisions necessary for achieving quality education.

• Loss of Data Collection Capacity: The layoff of data collectors, such as Jason Cottrell, who worked for nearly a decade on data governance, eliminates the capacity to assess the effectiveness of educational programs.
• Inability to Improve Outcomes: Without complete and accurate data, it becomes impossible to identify and implement effective changes, such as new reading programs to improve test scores, a fundamental component of ensuring quality education as outlined in SDG 4.

Exacerbating Inequalities in Contravention of SDG 10 and SDG 5

The departmental cuts risk widening societal divides by dismantling mechanisms designed to ensure equal opportunity, a direct setback for SDG 10 (Reduced Inequalities) and SDG 5 (Gender Equality).

Dismantling Civil Rights and Equity Frameworks (Targets 10.2, 10.3, 5.1)

The reduction in force disproportionately affects offices charged with upholding equality and investigating discrimination.

1. Weakening the Office of Civil Rights: The potential closure of a majority of the twelve regional offices for the Office of Civil Rights severely curtails the government’s ability to investigate discrimination in schools, undermining SDG Target 10.3 (ensure equal opportunity and reduce inequalities of outcome).
2. Targeting Equity Initiatives: The active dismantling of diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) practices at higher education institutions obstructs progress toward eliminating discrimination and ensuring inclusive environments for all, including women and minority groups, as called for in SDG 10 and SDG 5.

Undermining Education as an Equalizer

As stated by former employee Jason Cottrell, “Education is the great equalizer for society.” Politicizing and defunding the systems that support it directly threatens to increase inequality, moving the nation away from the goals of SDG 10.

Erosion of Institutional Integrity and Long-Term Growth (SDG 16 & SDG 8)

The actions against the Department of Education represent a degradation of institutional capacity, which has long-term consequences for justice, governance, and economic prosperity.

Compromising Institutional Effectiveness and Accountability (Target 16.6)

The move to dismantle a key federal agency and the manner of the layoffs challenge the principles of effective and accountable institutions.

• Institutional Destabilization: The “reduction in force” impacting nearly half the agency’s staff and the ongoing legal battles create a state of limbo and institutional instability, contrary to the aim of SDG 16 to build effective institutions.
• Lack of Transparency and Responsiveness: The loss of data collection capacity makes it more difficult for the department to act efficiently and respond to public concerns, undermining SDG Target 16.6 (develop effective, accountable and transparent institutions).

Negative Implications for Economic Growth (SDG 8)

A weakened education system has direct, long-term consequences for the nation’s economic health and its ability to achieve SDG 8 (Decent Work and Economic Growth).

• Workforce Development: A decline in educational quality and access will inevitably impact the skills and preparedness of the future workforce.
• Loss of Research Funding: Cutting billions in federal grants for research at major universities stifles innovation, a key driver of sustainable economic growth.

Analysis of Sustainable Development Goals in the Article

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

The article discusses issues related to funding cuts and layoffs at the Department of Education, which directly and indirectly connect to several Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). The primary goals identified are:

• SDG 4: Quality Education: This is the most central SDG, as the article’s entire focus is on the negative impacts on the education system, including the reduction of teachers, challenges in higher education, and the inability to make evidence-based improvements.
• SDG 8: Decent Work and Economic Growth: The article explicitly details the mass layoffs of government employees, which relates to job security and stable employment.
• SDG 10: Reduced Inequalities: The text highlights threats to the Office of Civil Rights and diversity initiatives, which are crucial for ensuring equal access to education for all, and mentions that “Education is the great equalizer for society.”
• SDG 16: Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions: The article describes the “dismantling” of a key government institution, undermining its capacity to function effectively, transparently, and responsively, which is a core theme of SDG 16.

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

Based on the issues discussed, several specific SDG targets can be identified:

1. SDG 4: Quality Education

   • Target 4.1: By 2030, ensure that all girls and boys complete free, equitable and quality primary and secondary education. The article notes the department provides “about 13.6% of funding for K-12 public schools,” and cuts threaten the quality of this education.
   • 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 mentions “delays in getting answers about their federal student aid status” and universities losing “federal funding and grants,” which directly impacts access to and quality of higher education.
   • Target 4.5: By 2030, eliminate gender disparities in education and ensure equal access to all levels of education. The targeting of the Office of Civil Rights, which “investigates discrimination in schools,” and the push to “dismantle diversity, equity, and inclusion practices” directly threaten this target.
   • Target 4.c: By 2030, substantially increase the supply of qualified teachers. The article directly contradicts this goal, stating that with “funding being cut, it’s going to reduce the number of teachers.”

2. SDG 8: Decent Work and Economic Growth

   • Target 8.5: By 2030, achieve full and productive employment and decent work for all. The article details the direct impact on this target by reporting that “more than 1,300 employees who were being laid off from the department.”

3. SDG 10: Reduced Inequalities

   • Target 10.2: By 2030, empower and promote the social, economic and political inclusion of all. The article points to a regression from this target by describing how the cuts “particularly target… the Office of Civil Rights—the arm of the department that investigates discrimination in schools” and dismantle “diversity, equity, and inclusion practices.”
   • Target 10.3: Ensure equal opportunity and reduce inequalities of outcome. The weakening of the Office of Civil Rights and attacks on DEI initiatives undermine the very mechanisms designed to ensure equal opportunity in education.

4. SDG 16: Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions

   • Target 16.6: Develop effective, accountable and transparent institutions at all levels. The article describes the “dismantling of the Education Department” and highlights how the “lack of data collection will make it more difficult for the Department to act efficiently,” thereby weakening the institution’s effectiveness and accountability.
   • Target 16.7: Ensure responsive, inclusive, participatory and representative decision-making at all levels. The concern that the government is becoming politicized and not “reflective of the American people” speaks to this target. The inability to collect data also prevents responsive, evidence-based decision-making.

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

The article mentions or implies several quantitative and qualitative indicators that can measure progress (or regression) concerning the identified targets:

1. For SDG 4: Quality Education

   • Number of teachers: The article explicitly states that funding cuts will “reduce the number of teachers.” This is a direct indicator for Target 4.c.
   • Amount of federal funding for education: The text mentions the department provides “13.6% of funding for K-12 public schools” and that universities are “losing federal funding and grants amounting to billions of dollars.” This is a clear financial indicator.
   • Processing time for financial aid: The warning about “delays in getting answers about their federal student aid status” serves as an indicator of access to higher education (Target 4.3).
   • Availability of data for evidence-based policy: The concern that “the data isn’t complete” and the inability to “improve these test scores by implementing this new reading program” is an indicator of education quality management.

2. For SDG 8: Decent Work and Economic Growth

   • Number of employees laid off: The article provides a specific figure: “more than 1,300 employees who were being laid off,” which is a direct indicator for Target 8.5.

3. For SDG 10: Reduced Inequalities

   • Number of functioning civil rights offices: The report that the Office of Civil Rights “could lose seven of its twelve regional offices” is a concrete indicator of the institutional capacity to fight discrimination (Target 10.2).
   • Existence of Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) policies: The demand to “dismantle diversity, equity, and inclusion practices” makes the status of these policies an indicator of commitment to reducing inequality.

4. For SDG 16: Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions

   • Staffing levels of government institutions: The fact that the cuts “impacted nearly half the agency’s staff” is a direct indicator of institutional capacity (Target 16.6).
   • Institutional ability to collect data: The statement, “If we’re not collecting data… we’re not able to go in and say, ‘Okay, we can improve…’” implies that the completeness of data collection is an indicator of an effective and responsive institution.

4. Summary Table of SDGs, Targets, and Indicators

Source: time.com