State-Engineered Educational Discrimination Exposed by Iran Regime’s Own Data – irannewsupdate.com

Analysis of Educational Disparities in Iran in Relation to Sustainable Development Goals

Executive Summary: Systemic Challenges to Educational Equity

A report from the state-affiliated newspaper Farhikhtegan details a system of state-engineered educational discrimination in Iran. The findings reveal a structural framework that privileges elite and politically connected institutions, creating significant barriers to achieving key Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), particularly SDG 4 (Quality Education) and SDG 10 (Reduced Inequalities). The data indicates that access to quality education is determined by wealth, political affiliation, and geography, rather than being an inclusive right for all.

Violation of SDG 4: Quality Education

The Iranian educational system demonstrates a significant failure to ensure “inclusive and equitable quality education and promote lifelong learning opportunities for all” as mandated by SDG 4. The disparities are evident in academic outcomes and resource allocation.

• Disproportionate Exam Results: Among the top 30 students in the 2025 national entrance exam, 23 were from elite NODET (Sampad) schools, four from private schools, and only three from public schools.
• Performance Gaps: National learning performance, benchmarked against an international average score of 500 in mathematics, shows public school students consistently falling below this standard.
• Underfunding of Public Sector: Public schools suffer from overcrowded classrooms, a lack of qualified teachers, and outdated materials, fundamentally undermining the goal of providing quality education for the majority.

Exacerbation of SDG 10: Reduced Inequalities

The educational structure actively contributes to social and economic stratification, directly contradicting the aims of SDG 10 to reduce inequality within and among countries. A clear hierarchy exists within the school system, which perpetuates privilege for a select group.

1. Elite and Private Institutions: These schools receive superior funding and resources, catering to affluent families and guaranteeing superior academic outcomes.
2. Politically Affiliated Schools: Institutions such as Shahed schools, linked to war veterans and security forces, demonstrate higher performance, indicating a channeling of resources toward groups loyal to the state.
3. Public Schools: The majority of students are confined to a deteriorating public system, limiting their opportunities for higher education and social mobility.

Provincial Disparities and the Impact on SDG 1 and SDG 4

The report highlights extreme educational poverty in marginalized provinces, which intersects with SDG 1 (No Poverty) by trapping communities in a cycle of disadvantage. The failure to provide basic education in these regions represents a severe violation of SDG 4.

• Sistan and Baluchestan: 63% of students in this province fail to achieve the basic learning threshold.
• Khuzestan: Nearly 50% of students fall below the minimum learning standard.

These statistics reflect decades of discriminatory resource allocation that has left peripheral communities, often populated by ethnic minorities, without access to foundational educational opportunities.

Systemic Failures and Institutional Barriers to SDG 16

The crisis is not a pedagogical failure but a result of deliberate policy, pointing to a lack of “effective, accountable and inclusive institutions” as outlined in SDG 16 (Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions). The system is designed to reproduce privilege rather than serve the public good.

• Deliberate Policy: The expansion of elite and non-profit schools at the expense of the public system is a two-decade-long strategy.
• Lack of Inclusivity: The educational framework systematically excludes the majority of children from quality schooling based on their socio-economic background.
• Reproduction of Privilege: The state has constructed a mechanism that ensures the children of the ruling class and its affiliates maintain their advantaged position, undermining principles of justice and equal opportunity.

Conclusion: A State-Designed Obstacle to Sustainable Development

The evidence presented in the Farhikhtegan report confirms that Iran’s educational system is structured to deepen the divide between a privileged elite and the general population. This state-engineered discrimination is fundamentally incompatible with the global agenda for sustainable development. By failing to uphold the principles of SDG 4 and SDG 10, and by fostering exclusive rather than inclusive institutions (SDG 16), these policies actively hinder the nation’s progress and perpetuate cycles of inequality and poverty for millions of students.

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

SDG 4: Quality Education

• The article’s central theme is the failure to provide equitable and quality education for all. It describes a system of “state-engineered educational discrimination” where public schools are underfunded and deteriorating, directly contradicting the goal of inclusive and quality education.

SDG 10: Reduced Inequalities

• The article explicitly details how the educational system in Iran creates and reinforces inequality. It highlights a “deliberate political strategy that reproduces privilege for a small ruling class” by creating disparities based on wealth, political affiliation, and geography. This directly addresses the core mission of SDG 10 to reduce inequality within and among countries.

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

SDG 4: Quality Education

1. 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 demonstrates a failure to meet this target by showing that education is not equitable or of high quality for the majority. It states that the system abandons “millions of students in public schools and marginalized provinces,” leading to poor learning outcomes where students are “fundamentally unprepared for national exams and higher education.”
2. Target 4.5: By 2030, eliminate gender disparities in education and ensure equal access to all levels of education and vocational training for the vulnerable, including persons with disabilities, indigenous peoples and children in vulnerable situations.
   • The article identifies several vulnerable groups being denied equal access. These include children from “ordinary families,” those in “public schools,” and those living in “marginalized provinces” like Sistan and Baluchestan and Khuzestan, which are “heavily populated by marginalized ethnic communities.” The system ensures unequal access by design, privileging the wealthy and politically connected.

SDG 10: Reduced Inequalities

1. Target 10.3: Ensure equal opportunity and reduce inequalities of outcome, including by eliminating discriminatory laws, policies and practices.
   • The article argues that the educational disparity is not accidental but the result of “two decades of deliberate policies that underfund public education” and “discriminatory allocation of resources.” This directly points to the existence of discriminatory policies that create vast inequalities of outcome, as seen in the national exam results where only three of the top thirty students came from public schools.

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

• Indicator for Target 4.1 (Measuring Learning Outcomes): The article provides direct quantitative data that can be used as an indicator. It mentions that “in Sistan and Baluchestan, sixty-three percent of students fail to reach the basic learning threshold, while in Khuzestan nearly half fall below the minimum standard.” It also refers to “international mathematics benchmarks that take a score of five hundred as the global average,” noting that students in public schools “consistently fall below this standard.”
• Indicator for Target 4.5 (Measuring Equal Access): The article implies the use of parity indices by highlighting the extreme disparity in outcomes between different groups. The data showing that among the top thirty exam performers, “twenty-three came from NODET (Sampad) elite schools, four from expensive non-profit private schools, and only three from public schools” serves as a powerful indicator of unequal access and opportunity.

Indicator for SDG 10 Target

• Indicator for Target 10.3 (Measuring Discriminatory Policies): The article provides qualitative evidence of discriminatory policies. The description of a system that “underfund[s] public education, expand[s] elite and non-profit schools for those who can pay, and reserve[s] the highest-quality instruction and facilities for a narrow segment of the population” serves as a direct indicator of policies and practices that institutionalize inequality.

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

Source: irannewsupdate.com