Class Inequality, Education, and Equal Opportunity in America

Introduction

Inequalities will always exist in society regardless of the form of government upon which that society is built. Nevertheless, it is incumbent upon any democratic society for the government to provide equal educational opportunities and to create jobs for its citizens. It is the duty of government to encourage people to become involved in the educational system and to provide students with the resources and tools necessary to facilitate a better society. A robust educational system prepares a nation's citizens with the academic training and skills needed to enter the job market. This does not ensure that an individual with an education will become wealthy; however, a person with an education has more doors open to them than a person without one.

Conflict theory focuses on the ever-changing nature of society. The theory advocates challenging the status quo, encourages social change, and holds that rich and powerful people force social order on the poor and weak. The clash between the rich and the poor, the educated and the uneducated, and the empowered and the disenfranchised can easily be framed through this lens.

The Money Gap

Bluestone (2001) holds that changes in the distribution of wages and salaries are the main reason for the rise in wealth inequality since 1973. Although racial and gender discrimination still exist to varying degrees across the nation, the primary influence on this wealth gap is education. The author notes that in 1963 the average annual income of those with four or more years of college was slightly over twice the annual earnings of those who had not graduated from high school. By 1987 this ratio had increased to almost three to one, and it has continued to rise.

Over the last quarter of the twentieth century, the average real wage of a male high school dropout fell by over 18 percent, the real wage of male high school graduates fell by 13 percent, males with college degrees held their own, while those with a master's degree or higher saw their inflation-adjusted income rise by 9 percent. Only 7 percent of workers have two or more years of schooling beyond a bachelor's degree, while 75 percent have not completed college and half have no more than a high school diploma (Bluestone, 2001). These figures underscore the economic significance of education in our society.

A number of factors have contributed to this trend in American wage earnings: skill-based technological change, deindustrialization, industry deregulation, decline in unions, lean production, winner-take-all labor markets, free trade, transnational capital mobility, immigration, and a persistent trade deficit. These factors contribute to a growth of market forces and a decline of institutional constraints on competition, thus increasing the wealth and power of the status quo.

Each of these factors contributes to the growing inequality, largely linked to disparities in education, experience, and effort. This unequal distribution of wealth is a manifestation of the distribution of formal education in the workforce, which is steadily increasing. In plain terms, the real standard of living for a majority of Americans is declining.

It is noteworthy that other capitalist countries do not have as wide a gap between the haves and the have-nots. Bluestone (2001) discusses three possible methods to redistribute wealth: education and training, immigration reform, and direct tax and transfer policy. The rationale for emphasizing education and training is self-evident given the data above. The idea behind immigration reform is to limit the number of unskilled and undereducated workers in the country in order to increase demand for their services and consequently raise salaries. Direct tax and transfer policies would increase the tax rate on the wealthiest in order to provide services for the most needy, thus closing the gap. There are positives and negatives to all of these solutions. Other possibilities include raising the minimum wage, reducing restrictions on labor unions in order to empower workers, implementing policies that maintain the nation's manufacturing base, and insisting upon fair-trade language in trade agreements.

Poverty and Educational Inequality

Bowles and Gintis (1976) assert that since the mid-nineteenth century the objectives of educational reformers have been to establish equality of opportunity and maintain social control: "Schooling has been at once something done for the poor and something done to the poor." The authors contend that the tension between social justice and social control is manifested in the educational system. Their argument is that the elite perpetuate, in the name of equality of opportunity, an arrangement that consistently yields disproportionate advantages to themselves while thwarting the aspirations and needs of working people.

In support of this claim, the authors note the correlation between socioeconomic status and educational attainment. Research shows that among students with identical IQ test scores at ages six and eight, those with rich, well-educated, high-status parents could expect a much higher level of schooling than those with less-favored origins. A child whose parents were in the top fifth of the income bracket received approximately twice the educational resources in dollars as a child whose parents were in the bottom fifth (Bowles & Gintis, 1976).

In his book Savage Inequalities (1991), Jonathan Kozol examines the difference between schools in East St. Louis and upstate New York. The author notes that unequal access to curriculum and a disparity in facilities create an inequity in educational opportunity. The schools in East St. Louis reflect the social conditions brought about by abject poverty: decaying buildings, low graduation rates, and the prospect of generational poverty. By contrast, the schools in upstate New York reflected the possibilities created by affluence — modern facilities, greater access to a variety of curricula, and the prospect of admission to elite higher education institutions.

Conclusion

The disparity between the haves and the have-nots is a grave concern in our society. As of 2010, the top one percent of households owned 35.4 percent of all privately held wealth, while the top 20 percent owned 89 percent — leaving only 11 percent for the bottom 80 percent of American households (Wolff, 2012). This data signals the erosion of the middle class. Whether this issue will be resolved through education reform or other political means remains to be determined. However, as Young forecast in 1958, this growing inequality of income distribution will only breed social discontent and conflict (Bluestone, 2001).