Texas education chief met with Turning Point USA to discuss group’s expansion in high schools – The Texas Tribune

Report on Proposed Educational Partnership in Texas and its Implications for Sustainable Development Goals

Executive Summary

A recent meeting between Texas Education Commissioner Mike Morath and a representative from the conservative youth organization Turning Point USA (TPUSA) has raised significant questions regarding the state’s commitment to several key United Nations Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). The proposal to establish TPUSA chapters in all Texas high schools, backed by substantial political and financial support, warrants analysis through the lens of SDG 4 (Quality Education), SDG 16 (Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions), SDG 5 (Gender Equality), and SDG 10 (Reduced Inequalities).

Background of the Proposed Initiative

On November 3, Texas Education Commissioner Mike Morath met with Turning Point USA Senior Director Josh Thifault to discuss a potential partnership. This development was followed by a pledge of $1 million in campaign funds from Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick to support the initiative.

• Objective: To establish chapters of TPUSA, known as “Club America,” in all Texas high schools, mirroring initiatives in Florida and Oklahoma.
• Organizational Mission: TPUSA promotes “American exceptionalism” and “constitutional rights,” aiming to engage students in political discourse and voter registration.
• Context: The proposal follows a surge in interest in the organization after the killing of its founder, Charlie Kirk, and a subsequent investigation by the Texas Education Agency (TEA) into teachers’ remarks on the matter.

Analysis of Alignment with Sustainable Development Goals

SDG 4: Quality Education

The proposal directly impacts the state’s ability to provide inclusive and equitable quality education for all, a cornerstone of SDG 4. Specifically, it raises concerns regarding Target 4.7, which calls for education that promotes a culture of peace, non-violence, global citizenship, and appreciation of cultural diversity.

1. Politicization of Educational Environments: The introduction of a politically partisan organization into the public school system risks undermining the goal of providing neutral and balanced education. This could compromise the development of critical thinking skills in favor of ideological recruitment.
2. Threats to Inclusivity: TPUSA has faced criticism for rhetoric considered hostile towards LGBTQ+ Americans, women, and people of color. Sanctioning such an organization within schools is contrary to the SDG 4 objective of ensuring safe, non-violent, inclusive, and effective learning environments for all students.
3. Precedent and Enforcement: Officials in other states have threatened punitive action, such as revoking school accreditation, against institutions that resist establishing TPUSA chapters. This approach contradicts the collaborative spirit required to achieve quality education outcomes.

SDG 16: Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions

The actions of the Texas Education Agency and its leadership are central to achieving SDG 16, which emphasizes the need for effective, accountable, and inclusive institutions. The recent events challenge the perceived impartiality and integrity of the state’s primary educational body.

• Institutional Accountability (Target 16.6): The Commissioner’s meeting with a specific political organization, followed by the TEA’s investigation into educators’ speech, has led to accusations of political bias. Critics, including the Texas American Federation of Teachers, argue that these actions compromise the apolitical mandate of the Commissioner’s office and erode public trust in the institution.
• Protection of Fundamental Freedoms (Target 16.10): The investigation into hundreds of teachers for their personal comments has been characterized by legal experts and advocacy groups as an attack on the fundamental freedom of speech. This creates a chilling effect that could stifle open discourse, which is essential for a just and peaceful society.

SDG 5 & SDG 10: Gender Equality and Reduced Inequalities

The initiative has broader social implications that conflict with the aims of SDG 5 (Gender Equality) and SDG 10 (Reduced Inequalities). These goals seek to empower marginalized groups and promote social inclusion for all, irrespective of gender, race, or other status.

• Undermining Equality: The founder of TPUSA was widely criticized for comments deemed hateful toward women and minority groups. Promoting an organization associated with such views in a school setting directly opposes the work of fostering respect, gender equality, and non-discrimination.
• Exacerbating Social Divisions: By formally introducing a polarizing political entity into schools, the state risks deepening social inequalities. This could lead to the marginalization of students from diverse backgrounds and create a hostile environment that is antithetical to the principles of inclusion and equity central to the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development.

Analysis of Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) in the Article

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

1. SDG 4: Quality Education

   • The article’s central theme is public education in Texas. It discusses a potential partnership between the Texas Education Agency and Turning Point USA to establish politically affiliated clubs in high schools. This directly relates to the content, environment, and quality of education provided to approximately 5.5 million students.

2. SDG 10: Reduced Inequalities

   • The article mentions that the founder of Turning Point USA, Charlie Kirk, made comments “found hateful toward LGBTQ+ Americans, women and people of color.” Introducing an organization associated with such views into schools raises concerns about fostering an inclusive environment and could potentially increase inequalities and discrimination against these groups within the educational system.

3. SDG 16: Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions

   • This goal is relevant through the discussion of the Texas Education Agency’s (TEA) actions and accountability. The meeting between the commissioner and a political organization, the subsequent investigation into teachers’ free speech, and criticism from groups like the Texas American Federation of Teachers all touch upon the effectiveness, accountability, and inclusivity of public institutions. The protection of fundamental freedoms, such as free speech for educators, is a core element of this goal.

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

   • This target aims to ensure learners acquire knowledge and skills for promoting human rights, gender equality, and a culture of peace. The proposal to establish Turning Point USA chapters, which promote a specific political viewpoint and have been associated with controversial statements, directly impacts the type of civic education and values being promoted in schools. The debate over whether this partnership fosters “meaningful conversations about the foundations of a free society” or creates a divisive environment is central to this target.

2. Target 10.2: Promote universal social, economic and political inclusion

   • This target focuses on empowering and promoting the inclusion of all, irrespective of sex, race, ethnicity, or other status. The article’s reference to Turning Point USA’s founder’s comments being perceived as hateful towards women, LGBTQ+ individuals, and people of color suggests that the organization’s presence in schools could undermine the goal of creating an inclusive environment for all students.

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

   • The article questions the actions of the Texas Education Commissioner, a public official. The meeting with a political group, the lack of clarity on a formal agreement (“It is unclear if Morath formally agreed to a partnership”), and the agency’s vague response to inquiries highlight issues of transparency and accountability in a key public institution.

4. Target 16.10: Ensure public access to information and protect fundamental freedoms

   • This target is directly addressed by the controversy over the TEA’s investigation into “hundreds of complaints concerning teachers accused of making inappropriate remarks about Kirk’s killing.” Teacher advocacy groups criticized this as “an attack on educators’ right to free speech,” which is a fundamental freedom this target aims to protect.

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: The extent to which national education policies and curricula promote citizenship education and human rights.

   • The potential partnership to establish “Club America chapters in high schools across Texas” is a policy-level decision. The number of such chapters established and the content they promote would serve as a measure of how specific political ideologies are being integrated into the educational environment, which can be assessed against the principles of inclusive citizenship education.

2. Implied Indicator for Target 10.2: Proportion of the population who have personally felt discriminated against or harassed.

   • The article notes that on college campuses, Turning Point USA’s activities have “stirred tension as faculty members say they have faced harassment from conservatives.” This implies that a measurable indicator of the organization’s impact in high schools would be the number of reported incidents of harassment or discrimination experienced by students and teachers, particularly those from marginalized groups.

3. Implied Indicator for Target 16.10: Number of verified cases of threats or attacks against individuals for exercising fundamental freedoms.

   • The TEA’s investigation into “hundreds of complaints” against teachers for their remarks can be seen as an indicator. The number of teachers investigated, disciplined, or who face professional repercussions for expressing their views on political or social matters serves as a direct measure of the state of free speech protections for educators.

SDGs, Targets, and Indicators Analysis

Source: texastribune.org