Redmond school board reestablishes equity policy – bendbulletin.com

Report on Redmond School District’s Re-establishment of Educational Equity Policy

Introduction: Aligning Local Education with Global Goals

The Redmond School Board has voted to re-establish its educational equity policy, a decision that directly aligns with the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), particularly SDG 4 (Quality Education) and SDG 10 (Reduced Inequalities). The policy was approved by a narrow 3-2 margin following significant public and board-level discussion. The reinstated policy reinforces the district’s commitment to providing equitable access and support, ensuring that student identity is not a determinant of academic success, a core principle of SDG Target 4.5, which aims to eliminate disparities in education for vulnerable groups.

Policy Measures and Contribution to Sustainable Development Goals

The re-established policy outlines several key commitments that advance specific SDG targets. These measures are designed to create a more inclusive and effective educational environment.

• Commitment to Educational Equity: The policy’s primary goal is to achieve educational equity, directly supporting SDG 4 (Quality Education) by ensuring inclusive and equitable education for all.
• Data Disaggregation: The pledge to disaggregate student data is a critical tool for monitoring progress towards SDG 4, Target 4.5, and SDG 10 (Reduced Inequalities). This allows the district to identify and address specific disparities among student populations.
• Access to High-Quality Curriculum: Ensuring universal access to high-quality curriculum and support systems is fundamental to achieving the overall mission of SDG 4.
• Representative Workforce: The goal for the district’s workforce to reflect the student body supports SDG 10 (Reduced Inequalities) and SDG 5 (Gender Equality) by promoting inclusive employment and providing diverse role models for students.

Board Deliberations: Perspectives on Achieving SDG 4

The board’s 3-2 vote reflected differing perspectives on the best approach to achieving equitable outcomes for students. The debate highlighted the complexities of implementing policies aimed at fulfilling the mandate of SDG 4.

1. Arguments in Favor:
   • Board Member Amanda Page described the policy as a “proven, evidence-based approach” to guarantee every student a fair opportunity, framing it as a strategic implementation of SDG 4 principles.
   • Board Member Ashley Proctor emphasized the need to educate the community on the meaning of equity within the district, viewing it as an opportunity to build consensus around inclusive education goals.
   • Board Member Liz Goodrich used an analogy of providing students with different types of support, which mirrors the equity-focused approach of SDG 4 and SDG 10.
2. Arguments Against:
   • Board Member Michael Summers expressed concern that the policy could categorize students, potentially hindering their individual development.
   • Board Member Keri Lopez cited the policy’s potential for creating community division, a challenge to achieving SDG 16 (Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions) at a local level. She also raised concerns about its necessity and potential fiscal impact.

Public and Stakeholder Response

Public commentary reflected a divided community perspective on the policy’s implementation. These discussions are integral to the inclusive decision-making processes encouraged by SDG 16.

• Concerns: Some community members expressed apprehension about political agendas, gender ideology, and the state’s low test scores, questioning if the policy was the most effective path to achieving quality education (SDG 4).
• Support: Other speakers, such as Pauline Shearer, advocated for the policy by highlighting its importance for ensuring accessibility for people with disabilities and non-native English speakers, a direct reflection of the inclusivity mandated by SDG 4, Target 4.5.

Conclusion: A Local Commitment to Global Education Standards

The Redmond School Board’s decision to re-establish its equity policy represents a significant local action toward achieving the global objectives outlined in the Sustainable Development Goals. While facing community division, the policy’s framework is structured to advance SDG 4 (Quality Education) and SDG 10 (Reduced Inequalities). Superintendent Charan Cline’s assessment that the district faces minimal risk to federal funding suggests that the primary challenges are related to local implementation and community consensus, rather than external financial pressures. The policy’s success will depend on the district’s ability to translate its principles into measurable improvements in equitable outcomes for all students.

Analysis of SDGs, Targets, and Indicators in the Article

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

   The article on the Redmond School Board’s equity policy directly connects to several Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) that focus on education, equality, and institutional practices.

   • SDG 4: Quality Education

     This is the most prominent SDG, as the entire article revolves around an “educational equity policy.” The policy’s stated goal is to ensure the district is “committed to providing access and support for students” and that “student identities do not predict their success in school,” which is the core of quality and equitable education.

   • SDG 10: Reduced Inequalities

     The policy’s fundamental principle is to reduce inequalities in educational outcomes. By committing to “disaggregate student data” and ensuring support for all students regardless of their identity, the district is actively working to address and mitigate disparities among different student groups, which aligns directly with the goal of reducing inequalities.

   • SDG 5: Gender Equality

     While not the sole focus, gender is an implicit part of the equity discussion. The article mentions community “worries about gender ideology in schools,” indicating that gender identity is a key consideration within the broader equity policy. The policy’s aim to ensure success is not predicted by identity includes gender, thus connecting to SDG 5.

   • SDG 16: Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions

     The article details the functioning of a local governing body, the Redmond School Board. It describes a public decision-making process, including public commentary, board discussion, and a formal vote. This process, and the establishment of a formal policy to guide the institution, relates to building effective, accountable, and inclusive institutions.

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

   The article’s details point to several specific SDG targets.

   • Under SDG 4 (Quality Education):

     • 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 policy’s goal to “improve student outcomes” and provide every student “a fair opportunity to succeed” directly supports this target. The community’s concern about “low test scores in math and reading” also highlights the focus on learning outcomes.
     • 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 mentions a community member’s work to ensure access for “people with disabilities or whose first language is not English,” which aligns perfectly with this target’s focus on vulnerable groups.
     • 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. The policy’s commitment to providing “access and support for students” and ensuring they have what they need to succeed contributes to creating an inclusive and effective learning environment.

   • Under SDG 10 (Reduced Inequalities):

     • Target 10.2: By 2030, empower and promote the social, economic and political inclusion of all, irrespective of age, sex, disability, race, ethnicity, origin, religion or economic or other status. The policy’s core idea that “student identities do not predict their success” is a direct effort to promote the inclusion of all students, regardless of their background.
     • Target 10.3: Ensure equal opportunity and reduce inequalities of outcome, including by eliminating discriminatory policies and practices. The re-establishment of the equity policy is a direct action to promote equal opportunity and reduce inequalities of outcome within the school district.

   • Under SDG 16 (Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions):

     • Target 16.7: Ensure responsive, inclusive, participatory and representative decision-making at all levels. The article describes the school board meeting, which included “fiery public comment and discussion both in favor and against,” demonstrating a participatory, if divisive, decision-making process at the local level.

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 explicitly and implicitly mentions several indicators that can be used to measure progress.

   • Disaggregated Student Data

     The article explicitly states that the policy “pledges to disaggregate student data when making district decisions.” This is a direct indicator that can be used to measure inequalities of outcome (Target 10.3) and track progress in learning outcomes for various student groups, including by gender and disability status (Targets 4.1 and 4.5).

   • Workforce Demographics

     The policy includes a commitment to “ensure the district workforce reflects the student body.” The ratio of workforce diversity to student body diversity can be used as an indicator to measure the district’s progress toward creating an inclusive environment (Target 4.a) and promoting inclusion (Target 10.2).

   • Standardized Test Scores

     Community members’ concerns about “Oregon’s low test scores in math and reading” imply that these scores are a key metric for educational success. These scores serve as a direct indicator for measuring “relevant and effective learning outcomes” as described in Target 4.1.

   • Access to Curriculum and Support

     The policy’s commitment to “ensure all students have access to high quality curriculum and support” suggests that tracking the rates of access to these resources would be an indicator. This could measure progress towards ensuring equal access for vulnerable groups (Target 4.5) and creating effective learning environments (Target 4.a).

4. Create a table with three columns titled ‘SDGs, Targets and Indicators” to present the findings from analyzing the article. In this table, list the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), their corresponding targets, and the specific indicators identified in the article.

   SDGs	Targets	Indicators
   SDG 4: Quality Education	4.1: Ensure equitable and quality education for effective learning outcomes. 4.5: Eliminate disparities and ensure equal access for the vulnerable. 4.a: Build and upgrade inclusive and effective learning environments.	– Standardized test scores in math and reading. – Disaggregated student data on performance and success. – Data on student access to high-quality curriculum and support services.
   SDG 10: Reduced Inequalities	10.2: Empower and promote the social inclusion of all. 10.3: Ensure equal opportunity and reduce inequalities of outcome.	– Disaggregated student data to identify and address inequalities of outcome. – Ratio of workforce diversity compared to student body diversity.
   SDG 16: Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions	16.7: Ensure responsive, inclusive, and participatory decision-making.	– The existence and implementation of a formal equity policy. – Documented public comment and board discussion in the decision-making process.

Source: bendbulletin.com