McDaniel: When did ‘liberty and justice for all’ become ‘woke’? – Wyoming Tribune Eagle

Analysis of U.S. Curriculum Development in the Context of Sustainable Development Goals

Executive Summary

This report examines the initiative by the U.S. Department of Education to contract with external organizations, namely Turning Point USA and the Heritage Foundation, for the development of a new curriculum. The stated objective is to foster patriotism among students. This development is analyzed through the framework of the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), with a particular focus on SDG 4 (Quality Education), SDG 10 (Reduced Inequalities), SDG 16 (Peace, Justice, and Strong Institutions), and SDG 17 (Partnerships for the Goals).

Implications for SDG 4: Quality Education

The initiative directly relates to SDG 4, which aims to ensure inclusive and equitable quality education and promote lifelong learning opportunities for all. Specifically, Target 4.7 calls for education that promotes sustainable development, global citizenship, and an appreciation of cultural diversity.

• Global Citizenship vs. National Focus: A curriculum centered on a single nation’s “patriotic” narrative may conflict with the SDG 4.7 goal of fostering global citizenship and an understanding of interconnected global challenges.
• Inclusivity and Equity: To achieve quality education, curricula must be inclusive and reflect diverse perspectives. The selection of partners with specific ideological positions raises questions about whether the resulting educational materials will be equitable and representative of the nation’s diverse population.
• Promotion of Peace and Non-Violence: Education for sustainable development includes promoting a culture of peace. The content and tone of a “patriotic” curriculum must be carefully evaluated to ensure it aligns with this principle rather than fostering exclusionary or nationalist sentiments.

Impact on SDG 10 and SDG 16

The development of educational content has profound implications for social cohesion, justice, and equality, which are central to SDG 10 (Reduced Inequalities) and SDG 16 (Peace, Justice, and Strong Institutions).

1. SDG 16: Peace, Justice, and Strong Institutions: Education is a cornerstone for building peaceful and inclusive societies. A curriculum’s approach to history, civics, and social studies can either support or undermine the development of inclusive institutions by shaping the values of future citizens. A non-inclusive curriculum could weaken social cohesion.
2. SDG 10: Reduced Inequalities: Educational materials play a critical role in either challenging or reinforcing societal inequalities. A curriculum that does not adequately represent the histories, contributions, and perspectives of all demographic groups may perpetuate marginalization and inequality.

Assessment of SDG 17: Partnerships for the Goals

SDG 17 emphasizes the importance of multi-stakeholder partnerships to achieve sustainable development. The contract between the Department of Education and the selected organizations can be viewed as such a partnership.

• Partner Alignment with SDG Values: Effective partnerships for sustainable development require a shared commitment to the underlying principles of the SDGs, including human rights, equality, and inclusivity. The compatibility of the chosen partners’ organizational missions with these universal values is a key consideration for this initiative’s contribution to the global goals.
• Transparency and Stakeholder Engagement: The process of forming public-private partnerships for critical functions like education should be transparent and involve a broad range of stakeholders to ensure outcomes that serve the entire community and align with the objectives of building strong, inclusive institutions (SDG 16).

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 directly discusses the development of a school curriculum by the U.S. Department of Education. This falls squarely under the purview of ensuring inclusive and equitable quality education. The focus on a “patriotic” curriculum raises questions about the nature and quality of the education being promoted.

SDG 16: Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions

• The article touches on the actions of a government institution (the U.S. Department of Education) and its partnership with “far-right organizations.” The comparison of the rhetoric to that of Joseph Goebbels explicitly links the issue to concerns about peace, justice, and the potential for indoctrination, which undermines the principles of just and inclusive societies.

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

1. Target 4.7: Education for sustainable development and global citizenship

   • The article’s central theme is the content of education. Target 4.7 aims to ensure learners acquire knowledge and skills for “promotion of a culture of peace and non-violence, global citizenship and appreciation of cultural diversity.” The development of a “patriotic” curriculum, described as an effort to “indoctrinate children,” stands in direct opposition to the principles of this target.

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

   • The article critiques the action of the U.S. Department of Education contracting with specific ideological organizations. This raises questions about the accountability and transparency of the institution in its mandate to provide quality, unbiased education for all.

3. Target 16.7: Ensure responsive, inclusive, participatory and representative decision-making at all levels

   • The decision to contract with “far-right organizations” for curriculum development implies a non-inclusive and non-representative decision-making process. It suggests that a narrow, partisan viewpoint is being prioritized over a broader, more inclusive approach to education that would involve a wider range of stakeholders.

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

1. Implied Indicator for Target 4.7

   • While no official indicator is numerically cited, the article’s content directly relates to Indicator 4.7.1: “Extent to which (i) global citizenship education and (ii) education for sustainable development are mainstreamed in (a) national education policies; (b) curricula…” The article implies a negative measurement for this indicator, suggesting that national education policy and curriculum are being steered away from global citizenship and towards nationalist indoctrination. The existence of the contract and the stated goal of the curriculum serve as the evidence.

2. Implied Indicators for Targets 16.6 and 16.7

   • The article does not provide quantitative data. However, it implies qualitative indicators for institutional accountability and inclusive decision-making. The choice of partners (contracting with “far-right organizations”) and the stated purpose of the curriculum (“Children will be taught to love America”) can be used as qualitative measures to assess whether the institution’s actions are inclusive, representative, and accountable to the broader public good versus a narrow political agenda.

4. Summary Table of SDGs, Targets, and Indicators

Source: wyomingnews.com