Letter: Future students deserve quality education too – Jackson County Pilot

Report on Proposed School Levy and Alignment with Sustainable Development Goals

Introduction

A cohort of retired educators from the local school district has publicly endorsed a proposed school levy. With a collective experience spanning several hundred years, these stakeholders advocate for the levy as a critical long-term investment. Their position, articulated from the dual perspective of former educators and current taxpayers, emphasizes that the financial commitment is essential for upholding the standards of quality education that contribute to community-wide prosperity and sustainability.

Alignment with SDG 4: Quality Education

The primary argument for the levy is its direct contribution to achieving Sustainable Development Goal 4, which aims to ensure inclusive and equitable quality education for all. The retired educators assert that financial resources are a prerequisite for maintaining educational excellence.

• Equitable Opportunities: The endorsement stresses the need to provide upcoming students with the same high-quality educational opportunities afforded to previous generations, directly addressing SDG Target 4.1 concerning free, equitable, and quality primary and secondary education.
• Resource Allocation: The call for the levy acknowledges the reality that quality education is resource-intensive and cannot be sustained without adequate community investment, a foundational requirement for achieving all targets within SDG 4.

Alignment with SDG 8: Decent Work and Economic Growth

The statement explicitly links the school district’s educational standards to the local economy, highlighting a direct correlation with Sustainable Development Goal 8, which promotes sustained, inclusive, and sustainable economic growth and decent work for all.

• Workforce Development: The educators posit that the community’s demonstrated commitment to education has cultivated a stable, well-educated workforce. This skilled labor pool is a critical asset for attracting and retaining the area’s industrial base, aligning with SDG Target 8.2 to achieve higher levels of economic productivity.
• Sustainable Economic Foundation: By investing in education, the community reinforces the foundation for long-term economic stability and growth, as a skilled populace is essential for a resilient and productive economy.

Broader SDG Implications

The proposed levy also supports interconnected Sustainable Development Goals, including SDG 10 (Reduced Inequalities) and SDG 11 (Sustainable Cities and Communities). By ensuring consistent educational quality, the district can help mitigate inequalities in learning outcomes. Furthermore, a strong public education system is a cornerstone of a sustainable and attractive community, fostering social cohesion and long-term resilience.

Stakeholder Endorsement

The following retired educators, with extensive careers in the district, have endorsed this position:

1. Lynne Anderson, Physical Education, 1973-76, 1985-2009
2. Shirley Anderson, Counselor, 1991-2024
3. Jim Brennan, English, 1974-2006
4. Steve Condon, Math and Science, 1981-2015
5. Jayne Kazemba, Elementary, 1979-2017
6. Gary Natterstad, Math, 1967-1999
7. Sue Pribyl, Elementary, 1973-2007
8. Jeff Voss, Ag Education, 1988-2020
9. Steve Weflen, Math, 1975-2007
10. Daniel Winterfeld, Science, 1987-2019

Analysis of SDGs, Targets, and Indicators

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

The article primarily addresses issues related to two Sustainable Development Goals:

• SDG 4: Quality Education

  This is the central theme of the article. The retired teachers advocate for the passage of a school levy to ensure continued “quality education” for students. They emphasize that “education costs money and quality education is rarely done on the cheap,” directly linking financial investment to educational outcomes.

• SDG 8: Decent Work and Economic Growth

  The article connects the quality of education to local economic health. The authors argue that the community’s “industrial base” is supported by its “demonstrated commitment to educational excellence and the stable, well-educated workforce that entails.” This establishes a clear link between investing in schools and fostering a productive local economy.

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

Based on the article’s arguments, the following specific 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 letter’s plea for funding is to maintain the quality of education for “the upcoming students,” ensuring they receive an education comparable to that of past generations within the school district.
   • Target 4.a: Build and upgrade education facilities that are child, disability and gender sensitive and provide safe, non-violent, inclusive and effective learning environments for all. While not explicitly mentioning facilities, a school levy is a primary mechanism for funding the maintenance and upgrading of school infrastructure, which is essential for a quality learning environment.
   • Target 4.c: By 2030, substantially increase the supply of qualified teachers. The letter is written by retired teachers with “hundreds of years of total teaching experience.” The need for a levy implies that financial resources are necessary to attract, retain, and support qualified teachers to continue this legacy of experienced instruction.

2. SDG 8: Decent Work and Economic Growth

   • Target 8.2: Achieve higher levels of economic productivity through diversification, technological upgrading and innovation. The article posits that a “well-educated workforce” is a direct result of quality education and is a key factor in sustaining the local “industrial base,” which is fundamental to economic productivity.
   • Target 8.6: By 2020, substantially reduce the proportion of youth not in employment, education or training. By advocating for a quality education, the authors are implicitly promoting the means by which students are prepared for future employment or higher education, thereby reducing the likelihood of them becoming disengaged from work or training after graduation.

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

The article does not contain quantitative data but implies several qualitative indicators for measuring progress:

• Indicators for SDG 4 (Quality Education)

  • Passage of the proposed levy: The vote itself is a direct indicator of the community’s financial commitment to education. A “yes vote” would be a positive indicator of progress towards securing resources for quality education.
  • Retention of qualified teachers: The letter highlights the long careers of numerous retired teachers (e.g., “Gary Natterstad, math, 1967-1999,” “Shirley Anderson, counselor, 1991-2024”). The ability of the district to continue attracting and retaining teachers for long careers would serve as an indicator of a well-funded and supportive educational system, relevant to Target 4.c.

• Indicators for SDG 8 (Decent Work and Economic Growth)

  • Existence of a stable, well-educated workforce: The authors present this as a current outcome of the district’s past commitment to education. The continued stability and skill level of the local workforce would be an indicator of the long-term success of the educational investment.
  • Strength of the local industrial base: The article links the local industry’s presence to the quality of the school system. The health and growth of this industrial base can be seen as an indirect indicator of the education system’s success in producing capable workers.

4. Create a table with three columns titled ‘SDGs, Targets and Indicators” to present the findings from analyzing the article.

Source: jacksoncountypilot.com