With Capstone Projects, Master’s Students at The Broad Center Put Yale Education to Work – Yale School of Management

Report on Educational Leadership Initiatives and Their Alignment with Sustainable Development Goals

Executive Summary

This report analyzes two capstone projects undertaken by master’s students that address critical challenges within the education sector. The first project focuses on enhancing educational quality for youth in juvenile detention, directly contributing to Sustainable Development Goals concerning quality education, reduced inequalities, and justice. The second project investigates student safety within schools, aligning with SDGs for quality education and peaceful institutions. Both initiatives demonstrate a commitment to data-driven, student-centered improvements that have the potential for scalable impact, thereby advancing the global sustainability agenda.

Project Analysis in Relation to Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs)

Project 1: Enhancing Educational Frameworks in Juvenile Justice Systems

A project led by Megan Williams of the Washington, D.C. Office of the State Superintendent of Education addresses educational programming within juvenile detention facilities.

• Objective: To develop a robust framework for strengthening program monitoring and consistency.
• Methodology: The framework integrates subgrantee self-assessments with comprehensive reviews, positioning monitoring as a mechanism for continuous improvement.
• Intended Outcomes: The primary goals are to improve overall program quality, increase GED attainment rates, and reduce recidivism among vulnerable youth populations.
• Status: The framework is scheduled for a pilot implementation in the upcoming year, with potential for broader application across other grant programs.

SDG Alignment

1. SDG 4: Quality Education: This project directly supports Target 4.5 by aiming to eliminate educational disparities for a vulnerable group. By focusing on improved outcomes like GED attainment, it also aligns with Target 4.6, which seeks to ensure all youth achieve literacy and numeracy.
2. SDG 10: Reduced Inequalities: The initiative works to reduce inequalities by providing access to quality education for incarcerated youth, a marginalized population often excluded from such opportunities.
3. SDG 16: Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions: By seeking to reduce recidivism through education, the project contributes to Target 16.3, which promotes the rule of law and equal access to justice. It represents an effort to make justice institutions more effective and rehabilitative.

Project 2: Assessing Student Perceptions of Safety in Educational Institutions

Erin Nusnbaum, Director of Policy Management at Fulton County Schools, conducted a project to investigate the discrepancy between significant school safety investments and students’ persistent low perceptions of safety.

• Objective: To understand the student perspective on school safety beyond quantitative survey data.
• Methodology: The project utilized a qualitative approach, conducting focus groups with over 200 students across 24 different schools.
• Key Findings: The research revealed that existing surveys failed to capture the full student experience. Specific concerns, such as bathroom safety and the need for greater teacher support, were identified as critical factors influencing students’ sense of security.
• Impact: The findings have initiated district-level discussions on improving student engagement and ensuring student perspectives are central to policy-making.

SDG Alignment

1. SDG 4: Quality Education: The project is directly aligned with Target 4.a, which calls for building and upgrading education facilities to provide safe, non-violent, inclusive, and effective learning environments for all. A student’s perception of safety is fundamental to achieving such an environment.
2. SDG 16: Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions: This work contributes to Target 16.1 (significantly reduce all forms of violence) by proactively identifying areas of concern within schools to prevent conflict and foster a culture of safety and peace. It strengthens the school as an institution by making it more responsive to the needs of its community.

Conclusion: The Role of Educational Leadership in Advancing SDGs

As guided by faculty lead Shana Young, these capstone projects exemplify how targeted leadership initiatives within the education sector can drive meaningful progress toward the Sustainable Development Goals.

• The projects demonstrate a strategic application of research and data to address systemic issues affecting vulnerable student populations.
• By focusing on quality education, equity, and safety, the work has a direct and measurable impact on the well-being of students, teachers, and their communities.
• The potential for these frameworks and findings to be scaled highlights the significant collective impact that educational leaders can have on achieving a more sustainable and equitable future.

Analysis of SDGs, Targets, and Indicators

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

   The issues discussed in the article are primarily connected to two Sustainable Development Goals:

   • SDG 4: Quality Education: This is the most prominent goal, as both projects described in the article focus on improving educational environments and outcomes. Megan Williams’ work aims to enhance educational programs for a vulnerable population, while Erin Nusnbaum’s project investigates student safety, a critical component of a quality learning environment.
   • SDG 16: Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions: This goal is relevant through Megan Williams’ focus on improving education within juvenile detention facilities. Her efforts to reduce recidivism and create robust monitoring frameworks contribute to building more effective and just institutions.

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

   Based on the article, the following specific targets can be identified:

   • 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.
     • Explanation: Megan Williams’ project directly supports this target by focusing on improving student outcomes like “GED attainment” for youth in detention, which is an equivalent to completing secondary education.
   • 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.
     • Explanation: The article explicitly mentions that Williams’ work is for “vulnerable populations,” specifically students in juvenile detention facilities, aiming to improve their access to quality education.
   • 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.
     • Explanation: Erin Nusnbaum’s investigation into the “gap between school safety investments and students’ perceptions of safety” directly addresses the need for safe and inclusive learning environments. Her findings on “bathroom safety and teacher support” highlight specific areas for improvement.
   • Target 16.3: Promote the rule of law at the national and international levels and ensure equal access to justice for all.
     • Explanation: By working to improve education and reduce recidivism for youth in the justice system, Williams’ project contributes to their successful reintegration into society, which is a component of ensuring access to justice and opportunities.
   • Target 16.6: Develop effective, accountable and transparent institutions at all levels.
     • Explanation: Williams developed a “robust framework that combines subgrantee self-assessments with comprehensive reviews” to strengthen “program monitoring and consistency.” This is a direct effort to build more effective and accountable institutional processes within the education system for juvenile facilities.

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

   Yes, the article mentions or implies several indicators that can be used to measure progress:

   • GED Attainment Rate: Explicitly mentioned as a desired student outcome in Williams’ project. This is a direct indicator for measuring progress towards Target 4.1.
   • Recidivism Rate: Mentioned as another key outcome Williams’ framework aims to improve (“reduced recidivism”). This serves as an indicator for the effectiveness of educational programs in juvenile justice (Target 16.3).
   • Student Perception of Safety: Nusnbaum’s work is centered on this. The “low rankings” of safety in the “district’s annual survey” is a specific indicator. Progress could be measured by an increase in these rankings over time (Target 4.a).
   • Qualitative Feedback from Students: Nusnbaum’s use of “focus groups with more than 200 students” implies the use of qualitative data as an indicator. The specific concerns raised, such as “bathroom safety,” can be tracked to see if interventions are addressing them (Target 4.a).
   • Program Quality Assessments: The framework developed by Williams, which includes “subgrantee self-assessments with comprehensive reviews,” creates a system for measuring and monitoring program quality, serving as an indicator of institutional effectiveness (Target 16.6).

Summary of Findings

Source: som.yale.edu