Rolling Back Education Access for Undocumented Students – EdSurge

Report on the Repeal of the Texas Dream Act and its Implications for Sustainable Development Goals

Executive Summary

A recent policy reversal in Texas has eliminated in-state tuition eligibility for undocumented students, a right established two decades prior. This report analyzes the repeal of the Texas Dream Act through the lens of the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). The decision directly contravenes key objectives related to education, equality, economic growth, and justice, posing a significant setback to sustainable development efforts within the state and setting a potential precedent for similar actions nationwide. The repeal disproportionately affects vulnerable populations, undermines institutional stability, and threatens long-term economic prosperity.

Background of the Policy Reversal

In 2001, Texas became the first U.S. state to enact legislation, commonly known as the Texas Dream Act, allowing undocumented students who met certain criteria to pay in-state tuition rates at public universities. In June, following a complaint from the U.S. Department of Justice, the Texas Attorney General’s office agreed to a consent judgment, effectively ending the policy. This reversal was executed rapidly, without legislative debate or public consultation, leading to widespread confusion and legal challenges from civil rights organizations aiming to prevent its implementation.

Impact on Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs)

The termination of the in-state tuition policy has profound and negative consequences for the achievement of several SDGs.

SDG 4: Quality Education

The policy reversal is a direct assault on SDG 4, which aims to ensure inclusive and equitable quality education for all.

• Target 4.3 (Equal Access to Affordable Technical, Vocational and Tertiary Education): By making higher education prohibitively expensive for undocumented students, the repeal creates a significant barrier to university access, undermining the principle of equal opportunity.
• Impact on Lifelong Learning: Students who have progressed through the K-12 public school system are now faced with the termination of their educational pathway, discouraging motivation and long-term personal and professional development. Educators report difficulty in motivating students who see their future educational opportunities being eliminated.

SDG 10: Reduced Inequalities

The decision exacerbates existing disparities and directly contradicts SDG 10, which calls for reducing inequality within and among countries.

1. Target 10.2 (Promote Universal Social and Economic Inclusion): The policy explicitly targets a marginalized group based on immigration status, deepening their social and economic exclusion.
2. Target 10.3 (Ensure Equal Opportunity): It systematically dismantles a mechanism that provided a pathway to equal opportunity, reinforcing cycles of poverty and disadvantage for immigrant youth.
3. SDG 5 (Gender Equality): With data indicating that undocumented women are more represented on college campuses than their male counterparts, the repeal disproportionately impacts women, hindering progress toward gender equality and the empowerment of women and girls.

SDG 8: Decent Work and Economic Growth

The repeal threatens the state’s economic health and undermines SDG 8, which promotes inclusive and sustainable economic growth and productive employment.

• Economic Contribution: Dream Act recipients are reported to contribute $5.4 billion annually in state and local taxes. Excluding them from higher education removes skilled individuals from the future workforce and reduces this significant tax revenue stream.
• Workforce Development: Denying educational opportunities will result in a less skilled workforce, negatively impacting the state’s long-term economic competitiveness and productivity.
• Financial Impact on Institutions: The anticipated decline in enrollment from these students will lead to financial losses for Texas colleges and universities, potentially affecting overall institutional stability and tuition costs for all students.

SDG 16: Peace, Justice, and Strong Institutions

The manner of the policy’s repeal and its chaotic implementation undermine the principles of SDG 16, which focuses on effective, accountable, and inclusive institutions.

• Access to Justice and Due Process: The policy was repealed suddenly and without input from affected communities, students, or educational institutions, raising concerns about the lack of a democratic and consultative process.
• Institutional Chaos: The state has provided minimal guidance to universities, leading to inconsistent and chaotic implementation. Reports indicate that some institutions are misclassifying students, including those with DACA status who should not be affected, and demanding sensitive documents on short notice. This lack of clear, lawful guidance erodes trust in public institutions.
• Creation of an Unsafe Environment: The policy reversal contributes to a climate of fear and uncertainty for immigrant youth, jeopardizing their safety and well-being.

Stakeholder Perspectives and Responses

Advocacy and Legal Challenges

A coalition of legal and civil rights groups, including the ACLU of Texas and the National Immigration Law Center, has filed a motion to intervene, arguing that the repeal was undemocratic and harmful. These organizations are working to provide legal guidance and track inconsistent university policies to protect students’ rights.

Educator and Student Concerns

Educators express deep concern over the demoralizing effect on students who have been invested in by the public school system. The personal testimonies of affected students highlight the devastating impact of the repeal.

• One student, a senior in psychology, described feeling that her hope had “vanished” just one semester from graduation.
• Another, a microbiology graduate, now sees his dream of pursuing a Ph.D. as uncertain, adding to a list of obstacles facing immigrant youth.

Conclusion and National Implications

The repeal of the Texas Dream Act represents a significant regression in educational access and social equity, directly undermining the core tenets of the Sustainable Development Goals. By restricting access to education (SDG 4), increasing inequality (SDG 10), harming economic potential (SDG 8), and fostering institutional chaos (SDG 16), the decision has far-reaching negative consequences. Advocacy groups warn that this action in Texas is being positioned as a model for other states, posing a nationwide threat to inclusive education and the broader 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 core issue of the article is the repeal of the Texas Dream Act, which directly impacts the access of undocumented students to affordable higher education. This relates to ensuring inclusive and equitable quality education for all.
2. SDG 10: Reduced Inequalities
   • The article highlights how the policy change creates and exacerbates inequality based on immigration status. It discusses the exclusion of a specific group (undocumented youth) from opportunities available to others, which is a central theme of SDG 10.
3. SDG 5: Gender Equality
   • The article specifically notes that the repeal of in-state tuition is of “particular concern to women” because “undocumented women are more represented on college campuses than their male counterparts.” This connects the issue of educational access directly to gender-specific impacts.
4. SDG 8: Decent Work and Economic Growth
   • The article discusses the economic consequences of the policy change, mentioning that denying education will “hurt Texas by making its workforce less skilled.” It also quantifies the economic contribution of these students, linking education to economic productivity and growth.
5. SDG 16: Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions
   • The article details the legal challenges, the “undemocratic” nature of the repeal process (“without input from students, community members and colleges”), and the subsequent failure of institutions to implement the change effectively, leading to “chaos.” This relates to the need for just, accountable, and inclusive institutions.

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

1. Under SDG 4 (Quality Education):
   • Target 4.3: “By 2030, ensure equal access for all women and men to affordable and quality technical, vocational and tertiary education, including university.” The article’s focus on revoking access to affordable in-state tuition for university students directly contravenes this target.
2. Under SDG 10 (Reduced Inequalities):
   • Target 10.2: “By 2030, empower and promote the social, economic and political inclusion of all, irrespective of… origin… or other status.” The policy specifically targets students based on their immigration status, leading to their social and economic exclusion from higher education.
   • Target 10.3: “Ensure equal opportunity and reduce inequalities of outcome, including by eliminating discriminatory laws, policies and practices…” The repeal of the Texas Dream Act is presented as a discriminatory policy that eliminates equal opportunity for a specific group.
3. Under SDG 5 (Gender Equality):
   • Target 5.c: “Adopt and strengthen sound policies and enforceable legislation for the promotion of gender equality and the empowerment of all women and girls at all levels.” The repeal is a policy change that, as the article notes, disproportionately harms undocumented women, undermining their empowerment through education.
4. Under SDG 8 (Decent Work and Economic Growth):
   • Target 8.2: “Achieve higher levels of economic productivity through… upgrading…” The article argues that preventing students from getting a higher education will result in a “less skilled” workforce, hindering economic productivity.
   • Target 8.6: “By 2020, substantially reduce the proportion of youth not in employment, education or training.” The policy directly increases the financial barriers to education for immigrant youth, likely increasing the proportion of this group not in education or training.
5. Under SDG 16 (Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions):
   • Target 16.6: “Develop effective, accountable and transparent institutions at all levels.” The article describes the aftermath of the repeal as “chaos,” with “virtually no guidance to universities” and “inconsistent university policies,” indicating a failure of institutional effectiveness and transparency.
   • Target 16.7: “Ensure responsive, inclusive, participatory and representative decision-making at all levels.” The article states the policy was “repealed suddenly and without input from students, community members and colleges,” which is the opposite of inclusive and participatory decision-making.

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

1. For SDG 4 & 10:
   • Enrollment Data: The article mentions that Dream Act recipients represent “1.5 percent of Texas college students.” Tracking this percentage over time would serve as an indicator of access.
   • Policy Status: The existence of in-state tuition laws is an indicator. The article notes that “23 other states and the District of Columbia” have such laws, providing a basis for comparison.
2. For SDG 5:
   • Gender-Disaggregated Data: The statement that “undocumented women are more represented on college campuses” implies that tracking enrollment rates by gender within this student population is a key indicator of the policy’s impact on women.
3. For SDG 8:
   • Economic Contribution: The article provides a specific figure: “These students contribute $5.4 billion annually in state and local taxes.” This can be used as an indicator of the economic impact of educating this population.
   • Workforce Skill Level: The argument that the repeal will lead to a “less skilled” workforce implies that the number of college-educated individuals entering the workforce from this demographic is a relevant indicator.
4. For SDG 16:
   • Institutional Consistency: The article describes “inconsistent university policies and misclassifications of students.” An indicator of progress would be the establishment of clear, uniform guidance and a reduction in such inconsistencies.
   • Stakeholder Participation: The fact that the repeal happened “without input from students, community members and colleges” serves as a negative indicator. Future policy-making processes could be measured by the level of stakeholder consultation.

4. Table of SDGs, Targets, and Indicators

Source: edsurge.com