Left-leaning news magazine acknowledges ‘something disastrous’ within public-education system – Read Lion

Report on Declining Public Education Standards and Implications for Sustainable Development Goals

An analysis of current trends in public education reveals a significant decline in academic performance, posing a direct challenge to the achievement of the United Nations’ Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), particularly SDG 4 (Quality Education). This decline, which predates the 2020 pandemic, has been accelerated by recent events and is characterized by systemic issues in resource allocation, institutional management, and educational standards.

Analysis of Academic Performance and its Impact on SDG 4 (Quality Education)

Evidence of Educational Regression

Recent data indicates a widespread regression in student learning outcomes, which undermines SDG Target 4.1, aiming to ensure all children complete free, equitable, and quality primary and secondary education. Key findings include:

• A Stanford University study found that students are, on average, half a grade level behind pre-pandemic levels in both mathematics and reading.
• National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) scores show that fewer than 40% of 4th, 8th, and 12th-grade students have achieved proficiency in reading and math.

Widening Disparities and the Challenge to SDG 10 (Reduced Inequalities)

The overall decline in academic performance is accompanied by a “fanning effect,” signifying a widening disparity between high-performing and low-performing students. This trend directly contravenes the principles of SDG 4, which calls for inclusive and equitable education, and SDG 10, which aims to reduce inequality within and among countries. The growing gap suggests that educational systems are failing to provide equal opportunities for all students, particularly the most vulnerable.

Institutional Response and Resource Allocation: A Challenge to SDG 16 (Strong Institutions)

Misallocation of COVID-19 Relief Funding

The institutional response to the educational crisis, particularly the management of financial resources, raises concerns about the effectiveness and transparency of public institutions, a core component of SDG 16. Despite a historic federal investment of nearly $190 billion in aid for public schools, the funds were often not directed toward addressing learning loss. An examination of district-level spending, such as in Montclair, New Jersey, reveals a pattern of misallocation:

1. Non-Instructional Expenses: A significant portion of aid was used for purchasing Chromebooks, building upgrades like HVAC renovations, and professional services, including “culturally responsive training.”
2. Limited Academic Intervention: Relatively little of the federal aid was spent on direct instructional support, such as high-intensity tutoring or extended school programs, which are critical for academic recovery.

This inefficient use of resources highlights a failure of SDG Target 16.6, which calls for the development of effective, accountable, and transparent institutions at all levels.

Staffing and Budgetary Mismanagement

Further evidence of institutional weakness is found in staffing trends and fiscal management. While overall public-school employment is at an all-time high, growth has been concentrated in ancillary and administrative roles rather than in teaching positions. This trend, coupled with reports of severe budget shortfalls and mismanagement, such as districts discovering millions in unpaid bills, indicates a systemic failure to prioritize and effectively manage resources for the core mission of education.

Contributing Factors to Educational Decline

Shifting Pedagogical Standards and Equity Concerns

A potential contributing factor is the “Declining Standards Hypothesis,” which points to a softening of academic expectations. This includes:

• The lowering of proficiency standards by several states.
• The elimination of accelerated classes in some districts in an effort to promote equity.
• The implementation of “grading for equity” policies that make it easier for students to pass with minimal content mastery.

While these policies are often intended to address inequalities (SDG 10), their implementation has raised concerns that they may compromise the delivery of a quality education (SDG 4) by lowering academic rigor for all students.

Expanded School Mandates

Public schools are increasingly expected to provide services beyond their core educational mandate, including healthcare and therapeutic support, which aligns with SDG 3 (Good Health and Well-being). However, this “mission creep” has led to a diffusion of focus and resources. As schools take on roles traditionally held by families and other social institutions, their capacity to deliver on the primary objective of quality academic instruction is diminished.

Conclusion: A Setback for Sustainable Development

The current state of public education reflects a systemic failure to prioritize and achieve core learning objectives. The combination of declining academic standards, widening performance gaps, and inefficient institutional management represents a significant setback for the United States in achieving SDG 4 (Quality Education). This failure has cascading negative implications for other goals, including SDG 10 (Reduced Inequalities) and the long-term prospects for SDG 8 (Decent Work and Economic Growth). A renewed focus on effective instruction, equitable standards, and accountable institutional management is imperative to reverse these trends.

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 entire article is centered on the declining quality of public education. It discusses falling academic performance, ineffective learning outcomes, and systemic failures within the school system, which are core concerns of SDG 4.

   • SDG 10: Reduced Inequalities

     The article highlights a “widening disparity between the scores of high-performing and low-performing students,” referred to as a “‘fanning’ effect.” This directly addresses the goal of reducing inequalities in educational outcomes. The discussion on eliminating accelerated classes in the name of equity also relates to this goal.

   • SDG 5: Gender Equality

     A specific gender-based disparity is mentioned as an example of uneven educational regression. The article notes that one explanation for declining scores “cannot account for why girls have again fallen so far behind boys in math,” connecting the issue to gender equality in education.

   • SDG 16: Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions

     The article details significant institutional failures, including financial mismanagement and a lack of accountability. The Montclair district’s budget crisis, with “$12 million in unpaid bills,” and the inefficient use of nearly “$190 billion in aid to public schools” point to a failure to build “effective, accountable and transparent institutions.”

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

   • 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.

     The article directly addresses the failure to achieve effective learning outcomes, citing National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) scores that show “fewer than 40% of 12th graders, 8th graders and 4th graders attaining proficiency in reading and math.”

   • Target 4.5: By 2030, eliminate gender disparities in education and ensure equal access to all levels of education…

     This target is relevant due to the specific mention of girls falling behind boys in math scores, indicating a failure to eliminate gender disparities in learning outcomes. The “fanning effect” between high and low performers also points to a failure in ensuring equal access to quality education for all.

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

     The article’s discussion of the “widening disparity” in student scores directly relates to reducing inequalities of outcome. Furthermore, the debate over policies like removing accelerated classes and “grading for equity” touches upon the challenge of ensuring equal opportunity without lowering overall standards.

   • Target 16.6: Develop effective, accountable and transparent institutions at all levels.

     The article provides a clear case study of this target’s failure. The Montclair school district’s superintendent announced they were “running out of cash” and had “$12 million in unpaid bills.” This, combined with the nationwide trend of using temporary federal aid to create “permanent roles,” demonstrates a lack of effective and accountable financial management in public educational institutions.

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

   • Indicator for Target 4.1: Proficiency levels in core subjects.

     The article explicitly uses this indicator by citing the latest NAEP scores, which show that “fewer than 40%” of students are proficient in reading and math. It also references a Stanford University study finding that “students are about a half a grade level behind their pre-pandemic counterparts in both math and reading.”

   • Indicator for Targets 4.5 and 10.3: Disparity in academic performance across different student groups.

     The article implies this indicator by describing the “‘fanning’ effect – a widening disparity between the scores of high-performing and low-performing students.” It also provides a specific gender disparity indicator: the performance gap between girls and boys in mathematics.

   • Indicator for Target 16.6: Efficiency and transparency in public spending.

     The article implies this indicator by detailing how a significant portion of the “$190 billion in aid” was spent on non-instructional items like “Chromebooks,” “building upgrades,” and “ancillary roles” rather than on direct educational recovery like tutoring. The discovery of “$12 million in unpaid bills” serves as a direct indicator of financial mismanagement and lack of institutional accountability.

Summary of SDGs, Targets, and Indicators

Source: readlion.com