Oregon’s new normal: Declining public school enrollment – Oregon Public Broadcasting – OPB

Report on Oregon’s Public School Enrollment Decline and Implications for Sustainable Development Goals

Introduction

A significant decline in public school enrollment in Oregon, particularly following the COVID-19 pandemic, presents a critical challenge to the state’s progress towards several United Nations Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). This report analyzes the trends, contributing factors, and consequences of this decline, with a specific focus on SDG 4 (Quality Education), SDG 8 (Decent Work and Economic Growth), SDG 10 (Reduced Inequalities), and SDG 16 (Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions).

Analysis of Enrollment Trends and the Impact on SDG 4: Quality Education

The core objective of SDG 4 is to ensure inclusive and equitable quality education for all. Recent data from Oregon indicates a concerning reversal of this goal, moving away from universal access to primary and secondary education.

Post-Pandemic Enrollment Statistics

• After a decade of steady growth, public school enrollment experienced a sharp decline beginning in 2020.
• 2020-2021 School Year: A decrease of 21,744 students.
• 2021-2022 School Year: A further decrease of nearly 8,000 students.

The “Unaccounted For” Student Population: A Failure to ‘Leave No One Behind’

A recent Brookings report highlights a critical issue that directly contravenes the principles of SDG 4. The findings reveal:

1. Approximately 12% of Oregon’s school-aged children are “unaccounted for,” meaning they are not registered in public or private school enrollment data.
2. Oregon has the highest percentage of such children among all states analyzed.
3. This gap is not fully explained by corresponding increases in private school enrollment, suggesting a significant number of children may be disengaged from formal education entirely.

Factors Contributing to Educational Disengagement

• Rise in Homeschooling: The number of families choosing to homeschool increased by 72% during the first two years of the pandemic.
• Student Dissatisfaction: Case studies, such as that of a student named Dale from the “Class of 2025” project, indicate a preference for practical life skills and trades over traditional schooling, pointing to a potential curriculum gap in achieving SDG 4’s target for relevant skills for employment.
• School Performance: Research suggests a correlation between higher enrollment declines and schools classified as “low-performing,” which could exacerbate educational inequalities, undermining SDG 10.

Socio-Economic Consequences and Broader SDG Linkages

The decline in school enrollment has cascading effects that threaten progress on multiple SDGs beyond education.

SDG 8: Decent Work and Economic Growth

Students leaving formal education for the workforce without completing secondary school may face challenges in securing decent work and achieving long-term economic stability. This trend could hinder the state’s progress towards sustainable economic growth and full and productive employment for all, as outlined in SDG 8.

SDG 10: Reduced Inequalities

The consequences of declining enrollment risk widening inequality gaps. Key impacts include:

• Reduced Funding: Lower student numbers can lead to decreased funding for school districts.
• School Closures: Reduced funding may force districts to close schools, disproportionately affecting the remaining students, who may come from more vulnerable communities.

Institutional Weaknesses and Challenges to SDG 16

Achieving the SDGs relies on effective, accountable, and transparent institutions (SDG 16). The current situation in Oregon reveals significant data and institutional deficiencies.

Data and Tracking Deficiencies

1. Lack of Centralized Data: Oregon does not centrally collect comprehensive data on students in private schools or homeschooling programs, making it impossible to accurately track the educational status of all children.
2. Inconsistent Data Sources: Researchers rely on a patchwork of census data, voluntary private school surveys, and public enrollment figures, leading to an incomplete and “murky” picture.
3. Migration Tracking: Post-2020 turbulence has made it difficult to determine how many families have left the state versus how many children are simply not enrolled in any school within Oregon.

These data gaps represent an institutional failure to monitor progress towards SDG 4 and ensure accountability for every child’s right to education. Without robust data systems, effective policy-making and targeted interventions are severely hampered.

Analysis of SDGs, Targets, and Indicators

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

• SDG 4: Quality Education: This is the primary goal addressed. The article’s core focus is on the decline in public school enrollment, the state’s goal of achieving 100% high school graduation, and the various factors affecting students’ participation in formal education, such as the COVID-19 pandemic and preferences for vocational training.
• SDG 8: Decent Work and Economic Growth: The article connects education to employment through the story of Dale, a student who left formal schooling to “learn life skills, trades, and do other important stuff that would get me somewhere in life.” This highlights the link between educational pathways and youth employment.
• SDG 10: Reduced Inequalities: The article touches upon this goal by citing research that suggests a “possible connection between schools classified as ‘low performing’ and higher enrollment declines.” This implies that inequalities in school quality and performance may be driving students away from the public school system, potentially exacerbating educational disparities.
• SDG 17: Partnerships for the Goals: This goal is relevant due to the article’s extensive discussion on the challenges of data collection and monitoring. The lack of a unified system to track students across public, private, and homeschool settings, and concerns over the future of the National Center for Education Statistics (NCES), point to a critical need for robust data systems to monitor progress towards educational goals.

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. The article directly relates to this target by discussing Oregon’s goal of “100% high school graduation” and the challenge posed by thousands of students leaving the public school system, with many becoming “unaccounted for.”
• Target 4.3: By 2030, ensure equal access for all women and men to affordable and quality technical, vocational and tertiary education. The student Dale’s decision to leave traditional school to pursue trades and practical skills reflects a demand for vocational education pathways, which is the focus of this target.
• Target 8.6: By 2020, substantially reduce the proportion of youth not in employment, education or training (NEET). The Brookings report finding that 12% of Oregon’s school-aged children are “unaccounted for” directly points to a significant population of youth who are at risk of being, or already are, outside of the formal education system.
• Target 17.18: By 2020, enhance capacity-building support… to increase significantly the availability of high-quality, timely and reliable data. The article’s emphasis on the “murky” picture of homeschool and private school data, the difficulty in tracking out-migration, and the reliance on national surveys highlights a systemic challenge in collecting the reliable data needed to make informed policy decisions, which is the essence of this target.

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 (Completion Rate): The article explicitly mentions Oregon’s goal to track “progress toward 100% high school graduation.” This graduation rate is a direct measure of the completion of secondary education. Furthermore, the statistics on declining enrollment (e.g., “21,744 fewer students”) serve as a crucial proxy indicator for participation and potential non-completion.
• Indicator for Target 8.6 (Proportion of youth not in education, employment, or training): The statistic that “12% of Oregon school-aged children ‘unaccounted for'” is a direct, quantifiable measure related to this indicator. It represents the portion of the youth population that is not enrolled in public or private schools and whose educational or employment status is unknown.
• Indicator for Target 17.18 (Availability of reliable data): The article implies the lack of a comprehensive indicator by describing the data situation. Specific data points mentioned as being difficult to track or consolidate serve as inverse indicators of progress. These include:
  • Statewide enrollment tracking for students in homeschool or private school.
  • Consistent private school enrollment data (the Private School Survey is voluntary and biennial).
  • Data on family out-migration (interrupted since 2020).

  The existence and integration of these data points would be a measure of progress toward this target.

4. Summary Table of SDGs, Targets, and Indicators

Source: opb.org