Oregon legislators hear the ‘least worst options’ for possible state education agency cuts – Oregon Public Broadcasting – OPB

Report on Proposed Budget Reductions for Oregon’s Education System and Implications for Sustainable Development Goals

Executive Summary

Oregon’s education system is facing significant financial challenges due to the cessation of federal funding, declining student enrollment, and increasing operational costs. In response, the Oregon Legislature has directed the state’s three primary education agencies—the Department of Early Learning and Care (DELC), the Department of Education (ODE), and the Higher Education Coordinating Commission (HECC)—to prepare budget reduction scenarios of 2.5% and 5%. This report outlines the proposed cuts and analyzes their profound impact on the state’s commitment to achieving key Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), particularly SDG 4 (Quality Education), SDG 10 (Reduced Inequalities), and SDG 8 (Decent Work and Economic Growth).

Department of Early Learning and Care (DELC)

Proposed Reductions

• 2.5% Reduction: $30.1 million
• 5% Reduction: $60.1 million

Programmatic Impacts and SDG Implications

The DELC intends to protect core licensing functions to maintain the availability of child care. However, as over 90% of its budget is allocated to grant-in-aid programs, any reduction will directly impact services for children and families, undermining several SDGs.

1. Impact on Foundational Education (SDG 4): Cuts will affect crucial programs like Preschool Promise and Oregon Prenatal to Kindergarten. This reduction in early learning opportunities directly compromises the goal of ensuring inclusive and equitable quality education and promoting lifelong learning opportunities for all, starting from the earliest years.
2. Impact on Gender Equality and Poverty Reduction (SDG 5 & SDG 1): Reductions to the Employment Related Day Care (ERDC) subsidy will increase the financial burden on low-income families. This disproportionately affects working mothers, hindering progress on gender equality (SDG 5) and making it more difficult for families to escape poverty (SDG 1).
3. Impact on Health and Well-being (SDG 3): The loss of funding for wraparound services, including mental health support for parents, weakens the support systems essential for family well-being.
4. Impact on Reducing Inequalities (SDG 10): Officials anticipate that the cuts will lead to program and childcare center closures, particularly in rural areas, thereby exacerbating geographic and economic inequalities across the state.

Department of Education (ODE) – K-12 System

Proposed Reductions

• 2.5% Reduction: $144 million
• 5% Reduction: $739.2 million

Programmatic Impacts and SDG Implications

The ODE aims to shield core instructional funding, subsidized meals, and literacy grants. However, the proposed cuts target enhancement and support programs, which are critical for achieving equitable and high-quality educational outcomes.

1. Impact on Quality Education (SDG 4): The proposal includes cuts to STEM (science, technology, engineering, and math) grants and the “Every Day Matters” attendance campaign. Reducing investment in STEM and efforts to combat chronic absenteeism directly threatens the quality and effectiveness of the education system.
2. Impact on Reducing Inequalities (SDG 10): The most significant proposed reduction is the complete elimination of the Educator Advancement Council (EAC). The EAC is instrumental in funding “Grow-Your-Own” programs and other initiatives designed to diversify Oregon’s educator workforce. Its elimination would be a major setback for efforts to reduce systemic inequalities within the education system.
3. Impact on Decent Work and Economic Growth (SDG 8): Eliminating professional development opportunities via the EAC and reducing STEM program funding weakens the pipeline for a skilled and diverse future workforce, impacting long-term economic growth.

Higher Education Coordinating Commission (HECC)

Proposed Reductions

• 2.5% Reduction: $75.6 million
• 5% Reduction: $151.2 million

Programmatic Impacts and SDG Implications

While the HECC proposal protects need-based financial aid like the Oregon Opportunity Grant, the burden of the cuts is shifted directly onto public colleges and universities, threatening the accessibility and affordability of higher education.

1. Impact on Accessible and Equitable Education (SDG 4 & SDG 10): The proposed cuts would fall heavily on public institutions, leading to substantial tuition increases. Universities anticipate a minimum 6.9% tuition increase, while community colleges project increases of 10% or more. Furthermore, the Oregon Promise grant program, which supports community college attendance, would cease making new awards. These measures would create significant financial barriers for students from low-income backgrounds, directly undermining the goals of ensuring equal access to affordable tertiary education and reducing inequality.
2. Impact on Decent Work and Economic Growth (SDG 8): Reductions in institutional funding and cuts to workforce development initiatives, including support for Oregon Health and Science University and Oregon State University’s Extension Service, will likely result in job losses at educational institutions and will impede the state’s ability to train a skilled workforce for key economic sectors.

Conclusion

The budget reduction scenarios presented by Oregon’s education agencies paint a dire picture for the future of the state’s educational landscape. The proposed cuts threaten to reverse progress on multiple Sustainable Development Goals. By diminishing access to early learning, reducing the quality of K-12 education, and making higher education less affordable, these measures risk exacerbating a “humanitarian crisis” that will disproportionately affect Oregon’s most vulnerable populations. The decisions made in the coming months will be critical in determining the state’s capacity to provide inclusive, equitable, and quality education for all its residents.

Analysis of the Article in Relation to Sustainable Development Goals

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

• SDG 4: Quality Education – This is the primary SDG addressed, as the article focuses entirely on proposed budget cuts to Oregon’s education system, from early learning and K-12 to higher education.
• SDG 10: Reduced Inequalities – The article highlights how the cuts could disproportionately affect vulnerable populations, including students in rural areas, those from low-income backgrounds relying on financial aid, and efforts to diversify the educator workforce.
• SDG 1: No Poverty – The proposed cuts to financial aid programs and the subsequent rise in tuition fees could make higher education less accessible, hindering a key pathway out of poverty for many individuals and families.
• SDG 8: Decent Work and Economic Growth – The article mentions cuts to workforce and job training initiatives, STEM programs, and programs that support future educators, all of which are crucial for developing a skilled workforce and fostering economic growth.

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

SDG 4: Quality Education

• Target 4.2: By 2030, ensure that all girls and boys have access to quality early childhood development, care and pre-primary education so that they are ready for primary education.
  • The article directly addresses this target by discussing potential cuts to programs like “Preschool Promise and Oregon Prenatal to Kindergarten.” The DELC Deputy Director warns that these reductions “will have impacts to children” and could lead to “broader program closures, especially in rural areas.”
• Target 4.3: By 2030, ensure equal access for all women and men to affordable and quality technical, vocational and tertiary education, including university.
  • This target is central to the section on higher education. The article states that proposed cuts would fall “squarely on the shoulders of Oregon’s public colleges and universities,” leading to higher tuition. Specifically, universities “anticipate raising tuition with at least a 6.9% tuition increase” and community colleges anticipate increases of “10% or more.” Furthermore, the “Oregon Promise” grant program, which helps cover community college tuition, would not be “making any new awards in the coming academic year.”
• 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.
  • The article mentions that the Oregon Department of Education’s (ODE) proposal includes “cutting the second year of funding for Future Farmers of America and grants to support science, technology, engineering and math, or STEM programs.” Additionally, the Higher Education Coordinating Commission’s (HECC) proposed cuts impact “various workforce and job training initiatives.”
• Target 4.c: By 2030, substantially increase the supply of qualified teachers…
  • The article highlights a significant threat to this target with the proposal to “eliminate the state’s Educator Advancement Council, a professional development arm of ODE that funds Grow-Your-Own programs and other educator support programs.” The ODE director notes that if the program goes away, the state “won’t necessarily have the capacity or means” to achieve its goal to “diversify the educator workforce.”

SDG 10: Reduced Inequalities

• Target 10.3: Ensure equal opportunity and reduce inequalities of outcome…
  • The proposed budget cuts threaten to widen inequality. The article notes that childcare program closures are anticipated “especially in rural areas.” In higher education, cuts to need-based financial aid like the “Oregon Promise” and significant tuition increases would disproportionately impact students from lower-income backgrounds, reducing their opportunity to pursue higher education. The elimination of the Educator Advancement Council would also undermine efforts to “diversify the educator workforce,” impacting representation and equality within the education system itself.

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

Indicators for SDG 4 Targets

• Target 4.2 (Early Childhood Education):
  • Number of childcare program closures: The article explicitly states, “We do anticipate that reductions… will lead to broader program closures, especially in rural areas.” Tracking the number of closures would be a direct indicator of reduced access.
  • Funding levels for early learning programs: The article specifies the budget amounts at risk for the Department of Early Learning and Care ($30.1 million for a 2.5% cut, $60.1 million for a 5% cut), which directly impacts programs like Preschool Promise.
• Target 4.3 (Access to Tertiary Education):
  • Tuition rates at public universities and community colleges: The article provides specific potential increases: “at least a 6.9% tuition increase for resident students” at universities and “10% or more” at community colleges.
  • Number of students receiving financial aid: The potential halt of new awards for the “Oregon Promise” grant program provides a clear, measurable indicator of reduced financial support for students.
• Target 4.c (Supply of Qualified Teachers):
  • Existence and funding of the Educator Advancement Council: The proposal to “eliminate the state’s Educator Advancement Council” is a binary indicator. Its elimination would signify a major setback in state-supported professional development and teacher recruitment.

Indicators for SDG 10 Targets

• Target 10.3 (Equal Opportunity):
  • Geographic disparity in childcare availability: The article implies an indicator by noting that program closures are expected “especially in rural areas.” Measuring the change in the number of childcare slots in rural versus urban areas would quantify this growing inequality.
  • Socio-economic profile of higher education students: A decrease in enrollment from low-income students following tuition hikes and cuts to the “Oregon Promise” grant would indicate a reduction in equal opportunity.

4. Summary Table of SDGs, Targets, and Indicators

Source: opb.org