Statistics on Education Inequality

Statistics on Education Inequality

Most Americans can believe that education access has an element of equality to allow poor students to access educational resources. However, educational experts and researchers have different opinions about the divide in education in the country between the rich and the poor. As a result, the belief by American citizens is a myth as opposed to reality. All students should get access to qualified teachers, appropriate facilities, and relevant instructional material both at the school and at home. Such requirements are crucial as they enable the students to gain the knowledge that is deemed beneficial to them by the state. In addition, the resources allow students from poor backgrounds to compete for jobs and opportunities (Oakes, 2002). Students also need access to better education to participate in civic life as adults. Whenever students are denied access to such facilities, resources, and quality teachers, they are faced with harsh consequences, especially those from disadvantaged families. 

Most of the students in California lack the fundamental resources, teachers, and facilities they need to excel in the education that other majority of students enjoy. Schools bear the burden of this disparity with the highest rate of poverty. Such schools are disproportionately attended by those children still learning English and children of color. The environment in which these students are housed is filthy and deteriorated. The schools attended by the students often lack the fundamental facilities and resources needed for success. The fewest qualified instructors also characterize the schools; hence, the students' rate of achievement and college entry remains extremely low. The poor quality resources and insufficient supply of facilities impede the students as they strive to attain the standard of education set by the state. Since they cannot access job opportunities and entry into college, such students are faced with the danger of venturing into socially unpleasant behaviors such as crime.

The funding gap between the rich and poor students tends to increase despite the advances made during the Trump administration. On the other hand, the Obama administration excluded federal funds from the total school funding stating that the funds were meant to supplement the local funds since it used more resources to eliminate poverty instead of creating a level ground. A report produced during the Trump administration suggested that 25% of the wealthiest schools in the district spent $450 on a single child, more than the poorest 25% (Barshay, 2020). Therefore, instead of creating an improvement, it was quite evident during the Trump administration that the educational gap between the rich and poor students was increasing. According to Barshay, the Trump administration's annual report in 2019 suggested a slight increase in the gap between 2014-15 and 2015-16 to $473 per student. Therefore, the gap is not only between the rich and the poor but also between the ultra-rich and the rest.

A researcher from Pennsylvania State University revealed in 2020 how the wealthiest school district, making up only 1%, funds their students at a higher rate than everyone else and increases the spending rates for their schools. Such schools are mostly located in the white suburbs. The average spending by such schools also increased between 2000 and 2015 by 32% (Barshay, 2020). Disparities in funding are experienced despite the increased poverty rate in other schools. The number of high-poverty schools increased in 2011 by 60% to one in every five schools from one in every eight schools in 2000 (Barshay, 2020). The number of school-age students faced with poverty also increased between 2000 and 2012 by 40% to one in every five students (Barshay, 2020).

The actions taken by the states have either caused or failed to prevent the remarkable inequality among students. The first failure by the state governments is setting and enforcing the standards for equitable and adequate resource allocation and conditions that can prevent inequalities and disparities. Secondly, they have also failed in creating capacities for district schools to avail such facilities and resources. The states have also failed to collect and analyze the necessary data to understand the extent of the problems and the need for facilities and resources. Finally, the states have also failed to provide assistance and interventions to address disparities and inadequacies if they are experienced. Breaking down the data on inequality based on race reveals even striking results. For instance, between 2016 and 2017, a third of children of black origin lived in poverty compared to Whites and Asians at 11% and 10%, respectively (Barshay, 2020).

The coronavirus pandemic significantly impacted higher education in the United States. Over the duration, 90% of the institutions announced that they had shifted to online learning (Marsicano et al., 2020). However, the administration was still affected even when the infection rates were seen to have gone down. One of the reasons was based on how to resume in-person learning. Although the pandemic affected all the institutions of higher learning in the United States, studies suggest that the 2-year public and the 4-year private baccalaureate institutions were affected more (Marsicano et al., 2020). Higher education has entered into a critically uncertain zone over the past few months.

The figure showed the timeline of when institutions decided to go online due to the pandemic. The figure reveals that the kick-off was slow, but the decision to get to the online platform accelerated faster with time. As a result, the pandemic also caused a huge reduction in staff in these institutions.

Figure 2: Rate of reduction of staff by institutions

In the figure above, the first column represents the rate of part-time staff reduction, the second administration, the third full-time support staff, the non-tenure-track staff are in the fourth, and last, the tenure track staff. The decrease in staff is likely to cause further problems in the education sector due to reduced staff once in-person learning is resumed (Best et al., 2021). A recent study revealed a great skeptic in terms of the impacts of COVID-19 on the ability of students to become successful in the future. However, 34% of undergraduates and 11% of managers believe that despite the effects of the virus, students will graduate with skills that will propel them into the job market (Marsicano et al., 2020).

To conclude, it is clear that students require three fundamental aspects of education to prosper in their future endeavors. The three include facilities, resources, and qualified teachers. However, children from low-income families tend to be disadvantaged in accessing these vital resources. Such students also get the least funding from the state government. Nonetheless, the number of poor students is rising, while funding for the poor compared to the rich is very low. In addition, therefore, the coronavirus pandemic shifted from in-person learning mode to online learning. The pandemic also led to a reduction in the number of staff required by institutions. The situation is expected to aggravate the disparity despite poor students’ current plight. Therefore, state governments need to ensure that resources, facilities, and qualified teachers are available to needy students.

References

Barshay, J. (2020). A decade of research on the rich-poor divide in education Many studies show large and growing inequities. The Hechinger Report.

Best, A. L., Fletcher, F. E., Kadono, M., & Warren, R. C. (2021). Institutional distrust among African Americans and building trustworthiness in the COVID-19 response: implications for thical public health practice. Journal of health care for the poor and underserved, 32(1), 90.

Marsicano, C. R., Barnshaw, J., & Letukas, L. (2020). Crisis and change: How COVID‐19 xacerbated institutional inequality and how institutions are responding. New Directions for Institutional Research, 2020(187-188), 7-30.

Oakes, J. (2002). Education inadequacy, inequality, and failed state policy: A synthesis of expert reports prepared for Williams v. State of California.