Report on the Dismantling of the U.S. Department of Education and its Implications for Sustainable Development Goals

Executive and Judicial Actions

A recent Supreme Court ruling has authorized the executive branch to proceed with the dismantling of the U.S. Department of Education. This action follows a series of administrative steps aimed at eliminating the agency.

• A presidential mandate was issued to the appointed Secretary of Education to eliminate the department.
• An initial reduction in force cut the department’s staff by 50% without a prior analysis of the impact on statutory functions.
• The administration indefinitely froze $7 billion in education funding previously appropriated by Congress, challenging the constitutionality of the Impoundment Control Act of 1974.
• The Supreme Court decision, delivered via a shadow docket ruling, permitted these actions to continue, raising concerns about legal precedent and the separation of powers.

Impact on SDG 4: Quality Education

The dismantling of the Department of Education directly threatens the achievement of SDG 4, which aims to ensure inclusive and equitable quality education for all. The department was foundational to this goal in the United States.

1. Core Mission Alignment with SDG 4: The department was established by federal statute in 1979 to “ensure access to equal educational opportunity for every individual.”
2. Financial Support for Education: It was responsible for administering over $100 billion annually for K-12 education and over $120 billion a year in federal student aid to more than 13 million students.
3. Services for Vulnerable Students: The agency administered the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), providing essential services to over 7 million students.

The recent actions have immediate and severe consequences for achieving SDG 4 targets:

• The freezing of $7 billion in funds jeopardizes after-school programs, summer programs, smaller class sizes, and services for students learning English.
• The abrupt termination of staff has led to the destruction of institutional knowledge and the cessation of ongoing projects vital for educational support.
• The future of federal financial aid and specialized support for students with disabilities is now uncertain, undermining access to both primary, secondary, and higher education.

Setbacks for SDG 10 (Reduced Inequalities) and SDG 1 (No Poverty)

The department’s functions were critical for advancing SDG 10 by reducing inequalities in educational access and, by extension, supporting SDG 1 by providing pathways out of poverty.

• The department was explicitly tasked with ensuring equal access to education for poor, disabled, and disadvantaged students.
• The frozen funds were specifically earmarked for programs that support these vulnerable populations.
• State officials, such as Alabama’s Superintendent of Education, have reported that the funding block will disproportionately harm students in high-poverty school districts, exacerbating existing inequalities.
• By dismantling the primary federal body for educational equity, these actions risk reversing progress on reducing systemic inequalities.

Broader Implications for Other Sustainable Development Goals

The consequences extend beyond education, affecting several other SDGs.

• SDG 3 (Good Health and Well-being): The impounded funds were designated for in-school mental health support, the loss of which negatively impacts student well-being.
• SDG 8 (Decent Work and Economic Growth): The elimination of after-school and summer programs creates significant childcare challenges for working parents, potentially impacting their employment and economic stability.
• SDG 2 (Zero Hunger): A related administrative action, the ordered incineration of 500 tons of USAID food aid, demonstrates a disregard for humanitarian goals that aligns with the dismantling of social support structures, directly contradicting SDG 2.

Erosion of SDG 16: Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions

The process of dismantling the Department of Education raises significant concerns regarding SDG 16, which emphasizes the need for effective, accountable, and inclusive institutions at all levels.

• Violation of Statutory Process: The administration did not follow the legally mandated process for altering the department, which requires a 90-day notice to Congress with factual justification.
• Undermining Separation of Powers: The dissenting Supreme Court opinion by Justice Sotomayor stated the decision was “indefensible” because it “hands the Executive the power to repeal statutes by firing all those necessary to carry them out,” thereby diminishing the legislative authority of Congress.
• Weakening the Rule of Law: The dissent argued that the executive branch publicly announced its intent to break the law and that the judiciary’s role is to “check that lawlessness, not expedite it.” The majority decision is seen as conferring upon the executive the power to discard laws, undermining the constitutional “Take Care Clause” and the principle of the rule of law.

1. SDGs Addressed in the Article

The article discusses issues that are directly and indirectly connected to several Sustainable Development Goals. The primary focus is on education, but the implications of the actions described touch upon inequality, governance, hunger, and employment.

• SDG 4: Quality Education – This is the most central SDG, as the article’s main topic is the dismantling of the U.S. Department of Education, the freezing of education funds, and the impact on various educational programs.
• SDG 10: Reduced Inequalities – The article highlights that the department’s role is to ensure “equal educational opportunity” and that the funding cuts disproportionately harm vulnerable students, including those in “poor, high-poverty school districts.”
• SDG 16: Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions – A significant portion of the article is dedicated to the legality of the executive actions, the “blow to separation of powers,” the circumvention of congressional mandates, and the role of the judiciary, all of which relate to the strength and accountability of public institutions.
• SDG 2: Zero Hunger – A specific example is provided about the destruction of food aid, which directly contradicts the goal of ending hunger.
• SDG 8: Decent Work and Economic Growth – The article mentions mass layoffs of federal employees, which relates to the goal of ensuring stable employment.

2. Specific Targets Identified

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.
   • Relevance: The article mentions the department funds “kindergarten through 12th grades with over $100 billion annually.” The freezing of funds and dismantling of the department directly threaten the support structure for primary and secondary education.
2. Target 4.3: By 2030, ensure equal access for all women and men to affordable and quality technical, vocational and tertiary education, including university.
   • Relevance: The department is described as running the “federal student financial aid system, which has awarded over $120 billion a year in student aid” and administering “grants for students seeking college degrees or higher education.” These functions are critical for achieving this target.
3. 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.
   • Relevance: The article explicitly states the department’s mission includes “ensuring equal access to education for poor, disabled and disadvantaged students” and administering the “Individuals with Disabilities Education Act with special education services for more than 7 million students.” The funding cuts are said to “hurt students with the greatest need.”
4. Target 4.a: Build and upgrade education facilities that are child, disability and gender sensitive and provide safe, non-violent, inclusive and effective learning environments for all.
   • Relevance: The impounded funds were earmarked for programs that contribute to effective learning environments, such as “in-school mental health support” and “smaller class sizes for elementary schools.”

SDG 10: Reduced Inequalities

1. Target 10.2: By 2030, empower and promote the social, economic and political inclusion of all, irrespective of… disability… or economic or other status.
   • Relevance: The department’s statutory purpose is to ensure “access to equal educational opportunity for every individual,” especially for “poor, disabled and disadvantaged students.” Undermining the department directly threatens this goal of inclusion.
2. Target 10.3: Ensure equal opportunity and reduce inequalities of outcome…
   • Relevance: The article quotes Alabama’s Superintendent stating that the “loss of funding for those rural, poor, high-poverty school districts” makes it harder to educate poor children, thereby increasing inequalities of outcome.

SDG 16: Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions

1. Target 16.6: Develop effective, accountable and transparent institutions at all levels.
   • Relevance: The article details how the administration acted without providing “factual support and explanations,” conducted no “actual analysis” before firing staff, and froze funds without providing a reason. This points to a breakdown of accountable and transparent institutional processes.
2. Target 16.7: Ensure responsive, inclusive, participatory and representative decision-making at all levels.
   • Relevance: The article describes the administration’s actions as a violation of the separation of powers, ignoring that Congress “expressly prohibited” the abolishment of entities without following “statutorily-mandated steps.” This represents a move away from representative decision-making toward unilateral executive power.

SDG 2: Zero Hunger

1. Target 2.1: By 2030, end hunger and ensure access by all people, in particular the poor and people in vulnerable situations… to safe, nutritious and sufficient food all year round.
   • Relevance: The article provides a direct, negative example related to this target by mentioning the order to incinerate “500 tons of U.S. Agency for International Development food… rather than letting it be distributed to feed people in need.”

SDG 8: Decent Work and Economic Growth

1. Target 8.5: By 2030, achieve full and productive employment and decent work for all…
   • Relevance: The article describes actions that directly undermine employment, including “immediate layoffs,” a reduction in force that “cut the department’s staff in half,” and a court ruling that allowed the administration to “fire tens of thousands of federal workers.”

3. Indicators Mentioned or Implied

The article provides several quantitative and qualitative data points that can serve as indicators to measure progress (or regression) toward the identified targets.

• Indicator for SDG 4:
  • Government expenditure on education: Mentioned as “$100 billion annually” for K-12, “$120 billion a year in student aid,” and a specific freeze of “$7 billion.” Changes in these amounts are a direct indicator.
  • Number of beneficiaries of educational programs: The article states that federal student aid reaches “over 13 million students” and special education services support “more than 7 million students.” A reduction in these numbers would indicate negative progress.
  • Availability of specific educational services: The article lists “after-school and summer programs,” “adult literacy classes,” and “in-school mental health support” as being threatened by funding freezes. The presence or absence of these services is a key indicator.
• Indicator for SDG 10:
  • Resource allocation to vulnerable communities: The article implies this indicator by highlighting the impact of funding loss on “rural, poor, high-poverty school districts.” Tracking funding distribution to such districts would be a relevant measure.
• Indicator for SDG 16:
  • Adherence to statutory and constitutional processes: The article’s focus on the administration not following “statutorily-mandated steps,” ignoring congressional prohibitions, and acting in a way that threatens the “separation of powers” serves as a qualitative indicator of institutional integrity.
• Indicator for SDG 2:
  • Amount of food waste: The specific mention of “500 tons of… food… ordered to be incinerated” is a direct, quantifiable indicator of food loss and waste that could have been used for humanitarian purposes.
• Indicator for SDG 8:
  • Number of job losses in the public sector: The article provides figures such as the department’s staff being “cut… in half” and the potential firing of “tens of thousands of federal workers,” which are direct indicators of employment changes.

4. Summary Table of SDGs, Targets, and Indicators

Source: salon.com