EDUCATIONAL INEQUALITY: AN EXPLANATION AND A SOLUTION
By
Bethany Nichols and Teresa Radomski
Truman State University
Approximately 2,500 words
Abstract
This paper examines the educational inequality that exists in the United States of America today. It offers possible reasons for the current inequality including funding, school environment and curricula. It evaluates high school completion rates and looks at efforts to correct the inequalities at the national, state and local levels of government as well as in the private sector. Finally some discussion is given on the impacts of allowing educational inequality to continue on the national level.
In an election year, you hear all about it. It is a topic that is constantly in the news. How should it be funded? Whose responsibility is it? How do we handle immigration in relation to it? All of these questions and many more surround a topic central in the hearts and minds of countless Americans: education. The problems in the United States education system are very real. Internationally, we rank at the bottom in educational attainment until the college-level. Central to this ranking is the fact that the current system of education seems designed to serve those with wealth and status more than the average child.
Why does educational inequality exist? What can be done to stop it? Both are very important questions. Clearly, education is an important part of a democratic society- an informed electorate leads to improvements in the overall well-being of the country. But inequalities in funding and curriculum are leading to very unequal numbers in educational attainment, with those who would most benefit from a good education receiving the least. This paper explores the problems inherent in the American educational system, as well as what is being done at the state, district and local levels of government to correct this problem. In addition, the part that a private individual can play in solving the inequalities in education will also be examined.
INEQUALITIES IN FUNDING
The most obvious reason for schools being unequal is that of funding. Schools are funded by state and federal governments, but the inequalities come in at the local level where property taxes determine the amount of funding given to a school. In this way, property values, which are closely related to income, determine the amount of money a school receives. The greater the property values, the more money the school receives, and thus a wealthy area has a well-funded institution and poor areas have crumbling structures staffed by underpaid teachers. Property tax funding creates a cycle of either success or failure for the school district. Greater funding allows for nicer campuses, better-paid teachers, more computers, better-equipped science labs, and nicer athletic facilities, all of which are elements of a good school district. The reputation of the school district in turn draws more people to the area, driving up property values and thus property taxes, resulting in the school district having better funding.
In low-income areas, property values are low, the school buildings are in decay, classes are overcrowded, and the district can barely pay its bills. The teachers are underpaid and overworked. The school district in general is failing. Those who have the money to move on to a better school district do so, and those who need the education the most are stuck in a school which is spiraling downward.
The apparent solution to this problem is to equalize funding for schools. However, there is much opposition to this. As Dayton (1995) explains it, the lawmakers who determine education funding tend to come from the economically advantaged areas and they and their families benefit the most from the inequalities in education, so they are not under great pressure from their peers to change the system. School funding advocates have garnered judicial support, but the courtroom wins have not been translated into legislation.
All states, in their constitutions, make funding a public school the responsibility of the state (Dayton 1995). This is in contrast to the popular opinion that education funding is a local concern. No state government has made school funding a top priority, as most states have difficulties funding the programs already in place and those few politicians who support tax raises tend to find their political careers shortened, despite research which reports that half of voters said they would reelect a candidate who raised taxes for educational purposes (Sack 2003).
SCHOOL ENVIRONMENT AND CURRICULA
Educational inequalities begin at a very early age. Poor children are at a disadvantage from the earliest years when they are unable to attend preschool because their parents cannot afford tuition. Even in public schools, poor children often drop out early because of fees associated with many programs. Research has also highlighted family and living conditions, relations with peers and teachers, behavior problems and substance abuse problems as other reasons for dropping out. Instead of attending school, many find it more suitable to go to work (Eitzen and Baca Zinn 2004). When you don’t have enough to eat or money to heat your house in winter, the extra money contributed from a child working seems like the better option. Beyond these basic needs, affluent children have access to technology, cultural experiences, summer camps and enrichment programs which only push them farther ahead. Some attend private schools, which tend to have good to excellent academic programs. These schools also have the ability to select students in such a way as to create an educational environment more conducive to learning than a more heterogeneous public school classroom (Eitzen and Baca Zinn 2004).
Curricula discriminate against poorer children. The curriculum in most schools assumes a working knowledge of English, which clearly puts non-native speakers at a disadvantage (Eitzen and Zinn 2004). The schools attended by poor immigrants are not always in a district that can afford comprehensive English as a Second Language programs, and the students do not progress with their affluent counterparts. Disadvantaged children find the curricula to have no relevance to their lives - textbook knowledge seems useless to those who have a daily struggle to survive. Textbooks show the stereotypical white middle-class child playing in a middle-class world, not a racial minority playing on an inner-city street. Schoolwork is not accessible to these children. Curricula ignore what might be called the issues of the poor: “race relations, poverty, and the distribution of community power” (Eitzen and Baca Zinn 2004: 482).
Another problem is the system known as “tracking,” wherein students are separated based on their “perceived intellectual ability and performance” (Eitzen and Baca Zinn 2004:483). The benefits of tracking include teachers being able to tailor their curricula to the needs of the students and the slower students not impeding the progress of the faster students. However, there are a number of disadvantages to the system as Eitzen and Baca Zinn (2004) point out: students in lower tracks are taught in a less-accelerated curriculum, increasing the gap between them and the faster track students; students in fast tracks develop feelings of superiority while those in slower tracks develop feelings of inferiority; many forces (including resources, labeling, and faculty) combine to create a high probability that those students will fail; the tracking system mirrors the stratification system with the affluent students on top and the poor students on the bottom; and research does not support the claim that it has any educational value.
THE THEORIES
Most theory in this area applies not to education but to knowledge. Specific theory pertaining particularly to stratification in education is sparse. If one applies the basics of functional and conflict theories, the theoretical framework can be laid.
A functional theory would state that education is unequal because it is functional for them to be that way. It is functional for some students to receive better educations than others because if every student received the best (or worst) education, competition would be great and there would not be enough people to properly fill various positions in society. Also, such a theory would suggest that the inequalities give people something to strive for, that people will try harder to achieve the best education possible.
A conflict theory would state that the inequalities in education are due to the conflict between the proletariat and bourgeoisie. This type of theory would claim that the proletariat class maintains a higher standard of education for the wealthy to keep the wealthy on top, while keeping the education of the masses lower as a way of preventing them from rising any higher and posing a threat to their power.
HIGH SCHOOL COMPLETION RATES
Completion rates are significantly different by race, which does not show differences in socioeconomic stratification as much as racial stratification. However,
minorities tend to fall in lower socioeconomic strata, and so the dropout rates for blacks and Hispanics are consistent with those from lower income backgrounds. The National Center for Educational Statistics (2005) demonstrates a marked decline for all races and for both males and females since 1970; white and African-American rates have been cut in half in the last 35 years, while Hispanics have not had as much success, the dropout rate falling from 35.2% in 1970 to only 23.5 in 2003. The overall dropout rate in 1970 was 15.0% and in 2003 was 9.9%.
1998 data from Hispanic Times Magazine show that the black high school completion rate was 81.4%, while that of Hispanics was 62.8%, that of Asians and Pacific Islanders was 94.2% and whites was 90.2%. In that year, girls were more likely to have completed high school, as were younger adults past the usual high school completion age (18-24 years old, compared to older adults). This shows that high school completion rates are on the rise over long periods of time. Those in the Northeast and Midwest were more likely than their counterparts in the South and West to have completed high school. The National Center for Education Statistics shows that in 2003, the numbers had improved slightly for all groups, a promising sign.
Though the signs may be promising, there is still far more work to be done. In the current political and economic environment of the United States, those with Bachelors degrees from colleges and universities are even finding it hard to stay afloat in the job market. Statistics released in October place unemployment rates at 5.0% (Bureau of Labor 2005). This may be a relatively low number but results also show an increase in the consumer price index (CPI) of 1.2% which is closely tied to inflation. At this same time, the increase in hourly wages was only 0.8% (Bureau of Labor 2005). This gap between the CPI and the wage rate promises that the gap in incomes will only continue. Most assuredly, the raise in income was not likely given to those working with only a high school diploma or less.
SHORTENING THE GAP: THE FEDERAL LEVEL
The immediate future may look bleak, but some work is being done to eliminate the gap in income and education. With the controversial “No Child Left Behind Act” of 2002, the federal government sought to increase accountability at the local level (whitehouse.gov 2002). The increased testing mandated by the act will show deficiencies with greater ease. It will catch the problems early and eliminate them quickly with remedial assistance. The act also makes it easier for all school districts in the country to apply for federal money set aside for education. The act also “targets resources to existing programs that serve poor students (whitehouse.gov 2002).”
This is all in theory though. In reality, little financial assistance from the federal government has been provided to implement the increased testing. The question arises that with more of the districts’ budgets allocated for testing supplies and materials, what will be cut? While the federal government has the best of intentions, it seems that even more must be done. Above all else, it is extremely important to note that the federal government has acknowledged the existence of the gap in education with socioeconomic status, race, and ethnicity as some of the primary causes. Not only this, but at the federal level, measures are finally being taken to eliminate the gap. With the pressure being applied from the federal government, the issue of educational equality is catapulted from the back burner in some states to an issue in the forefront of everyone’s mind, especially those with political designs.
SHORTENING THE GAP: THE STATE AND LOCAL LEVELS
At a state level, even more is being done to correct the gap in education. In Missouri, for example, Governor Matt Blunt announced in November a new, “Our Students First” initiative aimed at ensuring that most of the money brought in by school districts goes directly to improving the classroom environment. (Jackson 2005) According to a press release dated November 4, 2005, the bill aims at ensuring that at least $0.65 for every dollar goes towards “teacher salaries, textbooks, classroom supplies and technology resources, Special Education instruction, arts, music, drama, band, and athletics.” (Jackson 2005)
This is typical of the efforts underway in many states. It is to be noted however, that the above example is only a plan being promoted by the governor. Such plans to increase or reallocate educational spending require approval of the legislative bodies of the individual state. It is here where the message and goal of the original proposal is often significantly distorted with additions and subtractions being made according to the political agendas of individual legislators.
At the state level, amidst all the political pressure to equalize education, there is also a growing trend in many states, including Missouri, to increase graduation requirements making it even harder for some to earn a diploma. The financial and other efforts being made at the state level of government directly impact the functioning of education at the local levels of government as individual districts struggle to keep up with legislation and anticipate requirement changes.
At district levels, in the past decade there has been a movement to develop “At Risk” programs and alternative schools to help those who might not otherwise succeed achieve a diploma. This program seeks to address issues that may cause the child to fall behind in education at some point during their lives. In Missouri, programs are in place to provide assistance at birth for children with a “diagnosed physical or mental condition associated with developmental disabilities or has a high probability of resulting in a developmental delay or disability (Department of Elementary and Secondary Education 2005).” These conditions can include low birth weights, certain genetic conditions, and signs of autism as well as many other conditions (D.E.S.E. 2005). Other qualifications may include socioeconomic status, participation in the foster care program, history of substance abuse problems either by the student or the parents, and high absenteeism. Individual districts have a lot of leeway in determining which students will be termed “at risk” and which will not. Students who are designated “at risk” have the opportunity for special preschool classes at local public schools, special tutoring or counseling in deficient areas, and in some cases, relaxed standards for graduation.
SHORTENING THE GAP: INDEPEDNET PROGRAMS
Most private sector programs aimed at eliminating the education gap attempt to find and fund more teachers for low income school districts. Teach for America is one such program. In this program, people volunteer two years of their lives to teach in low income school districts. Of the participants in the program, most have only four year degrees and limited instruction in teaching methods and the developmental needs of children. Some debate exists surrounding the quality of education received by students taught by educators sometimes termed “under-certified.” In many cases, it seems that a motivated but untrained teacher might be better than no teacher at all.
Other programs, specifically at the local district level, often include free after school tutoring or enrichment programs. These programs can provide students that are falling behind with needed remedial help without interfering with normal classroom work. Enrichment programs can provide students with a safe place to stay after school and potentially spark the interest in learning and dedication required to succeed throughout school.
CONCLUSION
The problems presented by the educational gap in the United States are great. Inequality in education is an important issue that needs to addressed and righted. Programs are currently in place and more are being developed at every level of government in an attempt to shrink the gap in education. Even considering all this, there is still much to be done. Individuals can volunteer through programs such as Teach for America and local after school programs to end this deficiency in America’s education system. The future of tomorrow truly depends on the students of today and if nothing is done now to start eliminating inequities, they will only be perpetuated in the near future. The gap cannot be allowed to continue. Many battles have been won for educational equality, but the war is not over. The legacy left for the children of tomorrow depends on how we help the children of today. Ensuring equality in education now through such means as supporting educational funding initiatives and programs that develop teachers ensures a hope for the future for tomorrow.