Texas Holds the Keys to Higher Ed Reform – RealClearEducation

Reforming Higher Education to Align with Sustainable Development Goals

Recent initiatives in the United States are seeking to reform the higher education sector by addressing institutional policies and their alignment with key development objectives. A coalition of policy leaders has proposed significant changes, with legislative action in states like Texas providing a case study in implementing new frameworks for university governance and educational focus. These reforms are being debated in the context of their potential impact on achieving several Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), particularly those related to education, economic growth, equality, and institutional strength.

A Multi-Stakeholder Call for Institutional Reform

Policy Recommendations and Federal Funding

A group of higher education reform advocates, led by the Manhattan Institute, has put forth a proposal for a new contract between the federal government and universities. This initiative represents a multi-stakeholder partnership aimed at influencing policy, reflecting the principles of SDG 17 (Partnerships for the Goals).

• The proposal calls for the withdrawal of all federal funding, including grants, payments, and student loans, from universities that do not implement specified reforms.
• This approach leverages financial mechanisms to encourage institutional alignment with national policy objectives, such as the elimination of Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) programs and race-based criteria in admissions and hiring.

Critiques of Existing University Frameworks

The impetus for these reforms stems from a critique that current university environments hinder core educational missions. The debate centers on the most effective strategies for achieving SDG 4 (Quality Education) and SDG 10 (Reduced Inequalities). Reform proponents argue that certain prevalent campus practices are counterproductive to these goals.

• Concerns have been raised that identity politics and DEI initiatives create division and detract from open inquiry and learning.
• Reformers contend that these frameworks are an obstacle to providing an education that equips students with skills for the global marketplace, thereby impacting objectives related to SDG 8 (Decent Work and Economic Growth).

Case Study: Legislative Action in Texas and its Impact on SDGs

Enhancing Quality Education (SDG 4) and Economic Growth (SDG 8)

Texas has enacted legislation designed to refocus higher education on academic and economic outcomes. The reforms prioritize performance-based metrics and the development of skills relevant to the global economy, directly targeting the aims of SDG 4 and SDG 8.

• The state has championed reforms built around performance-based outcomes to ensure a return on investment for students.
• A review of university curricula was initiated after identifying numerous courses perceived as unrelated to essential graduation skills, such as over 400 courses at the University of Texas at Austin with “gender” in the title.
• The stated goal is to ensure every course of study prepares graduates to prosper in the global economy.

Restructuring Approaches to Reduced Inequalities (SDG 10)

Texas has implemented a significant policy shift regarding how its public universities address equality. Senate Bill 17 represents a move away from established DEI frameworks toward a model centered on individual merit, which proponents argue is a more effective path to achieving equitable outcomes under SDG 10.

• The legislation mandated the closure of all DEI offices on state university campuses.
• It outlawed mandatory DEI training and the use of DEI statements in hiring processes.
• An executive order from the governor reinforced that merit must be the sole criterion for university hiring and student admissions.

Strengthening Institutional Governance and Accountability (SDG 16)

A core component of the Texas reforms involves restructuring university governance to enhance oversight and accountability, aligning with the objective of building effective and strong institutions as outlined in SDG 16 (Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions).

1. Legislative Oversight: Senate Bill 17 includes a legislative monitoring component. University presidents are required to report to lawmakers on their progress in eliminating DEI programs, ensuring compliance beyond superficial name changes. Failure to comply can result in the loss of state funding.
2. Accreditation Reform: New legislation allows universities to select alternative, non-ideological accreditors and explicitly states that no accrediting agency can compel a university to violate Texas law.
3. Board of Regents Empowerment: Senate Bill 37 enhances the authority of governor-appointed regents, giving them direct responsibility for hiring university leadership and overseeing the general education curriculum, thereby reducing the administrative influence of faculty councils and senates.

Outcomes and Future Outlook

Monitoring Compliance and Institutional Response

The implementation of these reforms has been subject to vigilant oversight. Following legislative hearings where university leaders were questioned about compliance, hundreds of DEI-related jobs were eliminated across Texas campuses. Ongoing reports and hearings are required to ensure public universities do not revert to previous practices. While some predicted a faculty exodus in response to the new laws, state officials report that this has not occurred and that job applications remain high.

Ensuring Future Alignment with Development Goals

The reforms in Texas reflect a commitment to creating an educational environment focused on academic achievement and workforce preparedness. By passing comprehensive laws, monitoring compliance, reforming accreditation, and empowering governing boards, state leaders aim to ensure that higher education institutions are aligned with strategic objectives for student success and economic contribution, supporting the broader ambitions of SDG 4 and SDG 8.

Analysis of Sustainable Development Goals in the Article

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

1. SDG 4: Quality Education
   • The entire article is centered on higher education reform. It discusses the quality of university education, access to it, and the skills students acquire. The debate over DEI, curriculum content, and merit-based admissions directly relates to defining and achieving “quality education.”
2. SDG 10: Reduced Inequalities
   • The article addresses inequality by arguing against policies like DEI and “divisive racial quotas.” It promotes legislation (Senate Bill 17) aimed at eliminating what it considers discriminatory practices in hiring and admissions, advocating for a merit-based system as the means to ensure equal opportunity.
3. SDG 5: Gender Equality
   • The article touches upon gender by criticizing policies that divide people by “gender identity” and questioning the value of university courses with “gender” in the title. The push for merit-only criteria in hiring and admissions is presented as a gender-neutral approach to equality.
4. SDG 16: Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions
   • The article discusses the governance of universities, which are key public institutions. It describes reforms (Senate Bill 37) designed to make these institutions more accountable and transparent by strengthening the oversight role of politically appointed regents and monitoring compliance with state law, which relates to building effective and accountable 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: Ensure equal access for all… to quality… tertiary education. The article addresses this by advocating for merit as the sole criterion for student admissions and faculty hiring, arguing this is the path to true equal access and quality, as opposed to DEI-based approaches.
   • Target 4.4: Substantially increase the number of youth and adults who have relevant skills… for employment. This is referenced in the article’s focus on “performance-based outcomes,” ensuring a “solid return on their investment” for students, and preparing graduates to “prosper wherever they want to work in the global economy.” It criticizes courses “rarely related to skills needed to graduate.”
2. Under SDG 10 (Reduced Inequalities):
   • Target 10.3: Ensure equal opportunity and reduce inequalities of outcome, including by eliminating discriminatory laws, policies and practices. The article directly discusses this by detailing the passage of anti-DEI legislation (Senate Bill 17) in Texas, which it frames as a measure to eliminate discriminatory practices and ensure equal opportunity based on merit.
3. Under SDG 16 (Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions):
   • Target 16.6: Develop effective, accountable and transparent institutions at all levels. The article highlights this through the description of legislative oversight, where university presidents are summoned to report on their compliance with anti-DEI laws, and the requirement for “on-going reports and hearings” to ensure universities do not backslide.
   • Target 16.7: Ensure responsive, inclusive, participatory and representative decision-making at all levels. The article discusses a shift in university governance by eliminating “the intrusion of faculty councils and senates” and returning direct responsibility for hiring and curriculum to governor-appointed boards of regents, arguing this makes the institutions more responsive to taxpayers and the state.

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 specific indicators:

1. Indicators for Eliminating DEI Policies (Target 10.3):
   • The number of DEI offices closed on university campuses.
   • The number of DEI-related jobs eliminated. The article explicitly states, “hundreds of DEI jobs were eliminated on Texas campuses.”
   • The removal of mandatory DEI training programs.
   • The elimination of requirements for DEI statements in job applications.
2. Indicators for Curriculum Reform (Target 4.4):
   • The number of courses with specific keywords, such as “gender.” The article cites as a negative indicator that “the University of Texas at Austin had over 400 courses with the term ‘gender’ in the course title.” A reduction would be seen as progress from the article’s perspective.
   • The focus on “performance-based outcomes” and “return on investment” for students implies indicators such as graduate employment rates and salary levels.
3. Indicators for Institutional Accountability (Target 16.6):
   • The frequency and outcomes of legislative hearings where university leaders must report on compliance. The article mentions, “every university president was summoned to the Capitol to update lawmakers on their progress.”
   • The establishment of a “legislative monitoring” and “vigilant oversight structure” within legislation.
4. Indicators for Institutional Health and Attractiveness (Target 4.3):
   • The volume of job applications for faculty positions. The article counters predictions of an exodus by stating that “job applications on every campus are voluminous,” using this as an indicator that the reforms are not harming the universities’ ability to attract talent.

4. Table of SDGs, Targets, and Indicators

Source: realcleareducation.com