Social Class and Education in the United States - Essay Example

Social and Education in the United s Thesis ment Factors such as rising income gap, inequitable public education funding, escalating education cost and low savings propensity of Americans make it relatively more difficult for the low and middle classes to go to good schools. Introduction With the rapid changes in today's society, education has become increasingly important. This is because knowledge acquired and skills honed through education are the key to having well-paying jobs. Companies now require people with good skills, as signaled by tertiary or at least secondary education, to fill up relevant positions in the organization. However, education is becoming elusive for more and more people each year, especially for the working class. But then again, people classified as working class are not the only ones who encounter such difficulty. Even the middle class, at times including those in the upper echelon, have a hard time sending their kids to good schools that provide high quality education. This paper discusses the factors that bring about this condition of education in the United States (US). In this paper, I intend to argue that rising income disparity and unbalanced funding system for schools are the primary reasons why it becomes harder for people who are not in the upper class of society to attend good schools. Apart from these, I assert that surging cost in relation to schooling and Americans' mounting consumption rather than saving up for future investment such as education are also major factors that exacerbate the state of US education. Since elementary and secondary schooling are mandated by law, college education is emphasized in the discussion. In the tertiary level, problems in education become more evident as students and families are more exposed to higher spending and more options. Income Gap In terms of income equality, the US ranks only 92nd is the world income distribution ("Wikipedia"). In the US, although income inequality rose more slowly during much of the 90's, those with higher incomes continue to pull away, thus, widening the income gap. People with higher incomes are said to be concentrated in California and New York City. With higher earnings, people working in these states are more likely to get to good schools and perform well. To illustrate this point, it is deemed that roughly 44% of the student population at Stanford University is comprised of people from California. Such may be somehow explained by the fact that those with higher incomes have greater allocation for education. Furthermore, due to the higher cost of living in these states, these people are probably more driven to land higher paying jobs to sustain their lifestyle. They seek better education since there are greater opportunities available in the labor market for highly educated individuals. Moreover, it is seen that those in the upper class have greater chances of pursuing higher level of education. As at 2000, the percentage of families who are able to send their children to school with respect to their annual income is summarized as follows: Annual Income Bracket Percentage of People who are able to send their Children to College $62,629-$96,040 26.7% $35,902-$62,628 12.2% Below-$35,901 8.6% ("Seattle Post Intelligencer") In the table above, it is seen that participation rates in college vary depending on total family income. People belonging to the upper income bracket are more likely to send their kids to schools. As we move down the income range, there are lesser families who can afford to send their children to school. This trend is due to the fact that people with lower earnings would initially have to address their basic necessities such as food, shelter and clothing. These bare essentials would have to be answered first prior to the cost of further schooling. If their disposable income is already depleted with their spending food, rent and clothes, then the children's schooling are at times foregone. Often, college education, despite the future benefits to be derived for investing in such, is not prioritized especially when households could barely make ends meet. Given the data on disparity in income and ability to go to college, the correlation between these two factors is apparent. As the country ranked only 92nd in terms of income equality, it is positioned only in the 14th place in the aspect of education. On the other hand, European countries which topped the income equality list such as Norway, Denmark and Finland also ranked highly on the most educated list ("Nationmaster"). Perhaps, this is because citizens of these countries have equal access to education given the negligible differences in the distribution of wealth and allotment for education. This may also be due to their governments' support to education such that public institutions ensure that everyone, regardless of income level, is granted equal opportunity to go to college. With this, education is deemed as an equalizing factor that facilitates leveling of wealth. Inequitable Funding for Education Funding for Elementary and Secondary Education One of the most debatable issues in education is the funding system. Note that the US educational system is funded by both the federal government and state or local governments. Although funding is partly financed by the federal government, majority comes from state and local governments as well as school districts. Based on the report of the National Center for Education in 2005, around 8.5% of the public school system fund is supplied by the federal government on the average. The remaining portion is shared between state and local governments with 48.7% and 42.8%, respectively ("Wikipedia"). In this regard, the funding and condition of school system in localities is primarily determined by school district or local government. Funding from the local government is sourced out from local property taxes. Given this funding program, wealthy communities are able to provide greater funds for each student. Since they are able to generate higher revenues from local taxes, the communities have relatively higher allocation for education as compared to the not-so well off communities. With this, the inequity in funding is evident. For the affluent communities, the educational system is inclined to be more amply funded on a per student basis. On the other hand, less affluent communities generally allocate fewer funds per student ("Wikipedia"). Given the same number of enrollees in a public school, funding for each child would depend on the community they belong to. According to statistical information derived from the "No Child Left Behind Act," there is a link between money spent per child and academic success ("Wikipedia"). In line with this, students from rich communities are able to benefit from more effective educational system as they enjoy higher quality education. Apart from this, they are also able to afford spending much more on private sources such as books, software, tutoring and education-related travel that help enhance the quality of education. On the contrary, their less affluent counterparts would have to contend with lower quality education. Due to the lower revenues generated from local property tax collection, the education quality as well as the future of students in less affluent communities are sacrificed. Due to the prevailing inequity in education funding, many government officials also demand for the immediate action of federal and state governments. With this scenario in mind, more and more states call for the increased funding for education in lower income area. For instance, courts in some states have already ordered for augmented funding. Others have undertaken legislations in order to somehow equalize the funding. As Representative Mark B. Cohen of Philadelphia asserts, the more dependent people are on local property taxes for funding public education, the greater the inequality of resources for education. To address this issue, the federal and state governments are urged to take up a greater percentage of the funding pie so as to level out education funding ("Wikipedia"). In line with this notion, some have also argued for revising the education funding system. This is because current funding system is not related to overall student performance or to the performance of specific disadvantaged groups such as the minorities or urban students. Rather, it is tied with the local governments' revenue from local property tax collection. As such, it is deemed that the basis for education funding is not a good index of equity (Hanushek). If the government truly committed to its aim that no child should be left behind, then what is considered as an appropriate basis would be to allocate funding in a way that money is well spent for improving student performance across the country. College/University Level Funding The same scenario is experienced at the college level, albeit the story is more complicated. Funding at the college level is said to be an issue given the complexity of how college students could obtain sufficient financing. It should be highlighted that up to 70% of students pursuing college do not have the adequate financial resources to cover college tuition. As such, most people rely on scholarships coming from universities and student loans, which are often confusing for most to avail of. The confusion stems from the fact that student loan funding is split in half. This means that 50% is directly managed by the Department of Education through the Federal Direct Student Loan Program. The remaining half is managed by commercial institutions including banks, credit unions and other financial entities such as Sallie Mae under the Federal Family Education Loan Program. ("Wikipedia") Note that some schools recognize only the former loan type while others accept only the latter loan program. However, other schools accept both and a few schools will not accept either. In the case when students' have availed of funding that is not compatible with what is accepted in the university or college that they desire to go to, then they would have to look for alternative means for college financing or directly utilize personal savings. Given the tuition cost and complexity of obtaining student assistance, candidates for college entry would have to settle with enrolling in schools which their families' income could afford. Reduction in Funding The lack of funding for education is aggravated by the fact that allocation for student aid is said to be shrinking. In view of the dwindling state funding, tuition rates at public schools increased by over 14% from 2002 to 2004. This budget cut particularly for education may ultimately adversely affect the students. As the budget of the states for education fluctuates, students are burdened with higher tuition cost (Ruppert). This may lead to lower participation rates specifically in the college level because low-income students may have to forego their dreams of going to college. This substantially affects their future since lack of tertiary education diminishes their earnings potential. Rising Tuition Cost As mentioned, students across the US are able to go to college through student loans and other financial aid opportunities provided by the federal government. These help cover the cost of college. However, the reduction in state funding is accompanied by college cost crisis. The dramatically increasing cost of going to college has affected students and families throughout the country. As going to college is becoming more vital for securing one's future, this is deemed to becoming less affordable for low and middle class ("The College Cost Crisis"). The rapidly increasing cost of going to college is indeed a reality as evidenced by the study conducted by the College Board. Based on findings, there was insignificant growth in college prices during the 1970's. However, at the onset of the 80's, the cost of tuition and other related fees jumped such that overall cost escalated to as much as three times faster than the average family income. This trend continued through the 90's. In the past ten years, average tuition and fees at both public and private colleges and universities increased by 38%. It can be concluded that such uptick is attributable to inflation. Then again, according to College Board and Census Bureau, the cost of a public four-year college education has gone up by about 202% in the past two decades while consumer price index has increased by only 80% ("The College Cost Crisis"). This implies that tuition increases persist in spite of the prevailing economic condition or magnitude of state funding. The figures exhibit that tuition and fees continue to rise regardless of whether the economy is in a downturn or boom. These increases in tuition and fees significantly affects the low-income students who are considered to be relatively more sensitive to the instability in price as their ability to finance a college education is a major factor in their decisions relating to where or whether to go to college (Ruppert). Such trend is somehow leading the students and families out of the college market. Aside from this, these students are also forced to "trade down" their post-secondary educational choices or settle for more affordable education program because the options which may have been previously affordable are no longer within their budget range ("The College Cost Crisis"). The excessive increase in tuition and other school fees is mainly ascribed to the inefficient spending of many academic institutions which have not given much attention in confronting basic issues with regard to rationalizing their costs and problematic internal financial structure. Many people recognize this lack of financial discipline so they openly protest against such practices on major campuses in the US ("The College Cost Crisis"). It is imperative that the crisis pertaining to meteoric college cost increases be addressed immediately. Since gaps in the participation rates between low, middle and upper class is expected to grow wider as the tuition levels rise (Ruppert). Low Savings Another factor which hinders a vast majority of students across income levels from pursuing post-secondary education is the low savings propensity of American families. As per the report of Christian Science Monitor, the average savings rate of American households have already fallen below zero and credit-card debt had shoot up to 12% of income as at 2000. This illustrates the fact that the American culture greatly hinges on consumption rather than savings. In the US, people in a way are more focused on the short-term rather than the long-term. Instead of saving up for the children's education, families are more concerned with buying material comforts such as cars and houses. People fail to take into account that post-secondary education should be an investment to be prioritized over luxury goods because college education helps secure children's future. As such, Americans should not only rely on the aid coming from the government. Instead, people should find means to guarantee that their children would enjoy high-quality education even if this means sacrificing short-term comfort. Vicious Cycle With the problems regarding access to college, we see the vicious cycle of the "poor getting poorer" while the "rich get richer." As observed, college education is often associated with better employment access. College graduates are deemed to command higher market value in the labor market as compared to high school graduates. As such, they generally have better earnings. Furthermore, since employers place a premium on higher education, they often prefer hiring college graduates over high school graduates as a college degree signals better skill level. In this regard, unemployment rate for workers who only have high school diploma is about 50% higher than holders of associate's degree and 200% higher than those who have bachelor's degree (Ruppert). Similarly, substantial earning differences are also seen based on their level of education. Earnings tend to increase with each step up the education ladder. This results in the widening of the gap in income of high school graduates and those who have pursued further education. According to studies, income inequality has widened substantially in the last twenty years. This becomes apparent with the reduction in real wages of less-educated workers. Meanwhile, those with baccalaureate degree earn about 40% more over a lifetime compared to those who obtained secondary education. This translates to about $900,000 earnings difference (Creighton & Hudson). To summarize, those who are able to afford to go to college, i.e. those in the upper class, are somehow guaranteed with higher future earnings by virtue of their educational attainment. On the other hand, those who could barely have enough money to go to college, the low and middle classes, are highly likely to get stuck with lower wages due to the lack of college education. Conclusion In view of the above discussion, it can be seen that students in the US are confronted with numerous barriers in gaining entry to college. This has adverse implications for the outlook on higher education in the country. With the hindrances enumerated, students and families continue to lose the opportunity for college education in light of the fact that the labor market is placing an increasing value on post-secondary education. Decline in the participation rate in college may lead to disaster specifically for low and moderate income families. If we truly care about the future of the children and the country's in general, it is the time for us to ponder about taking collective initiatives to make sure that college education becomes attainable. On the government's front, it can address this crisis by providing opportunities for low and middle income families to go to good schools. This can be done by reviewing the prevailing education funding and aid programs such that more people may be able to benefit from elementary to post-secondary education. Aside from this, the government should also monitor the tuition and fees charged by academic institutions to keep them within reasonable levels and still within budget range of potential college students. For American students and families, it would matter substantially if improving savings propensity is taken seriously. In addition to depending on federal assistance, American households may endeavor to set aside more money for the children's college education. People should strive to efficiently program their finances not only to address short-term needs but also to ensure long-term security of the future generation. Works Cited Christian Science Monitor. 10 May 2006 "The College Cost Crisis." United States House of Representatives. 4 September 2003. 12 May 2006 Creighton, Sean and Lisa Hudson. "Participation Trends and Patterns in Adult Education: 1991 to 1999." National Center for Education Statistics. 2002. Hanushek, Eric A. "Who could be against adequate school funding" National Review. 9 February 2006. Nationmaster. 10 May 2006 Ruppert, Sandra S. "Closing the College Participation Gap." Education Commission of the States. October 2003. Seattle Post Intelligencer. 10 May 2006 Wikipedia. 12 May 2006 Read More