Privilege and Disadvantage in U.S. Education

Abstract

A discussion of privilege, disadvantage, and inequality in schools will always be a complicated endeavor. Although the United States has a publicly funded education system, children who attend the public schools do not always get an equal education. Students who come from a higher socioeconomic background tend to be privileged in the system, as are white children. In contrast, students with low socioeconomic status tend to be at a disadvantage. Understanding how privilege and disadvantage operate in school is a complex topic that involves exploring class and race in relation to the allocation of school resources and the achievement gap between whites and nonwhites.

Overview

Think of a set of nesting cups: Maybe a blue cup fits inside a yellow cup, which fits inside a red cup, and all three fit into a final fourth cup. Now consider the concepts of privilege, disadvantage, and inequality in schools. These concepts are nested much like those cups. At the individual level, students may be privileged because they have a high socioeconomic status or a particular race/ethnic background. Others may be disadvantaged because they do not. But whether either group of students succeeds in school is not based only on these individual factors but on how each individual interacts with the school system. School organizational systems and belief structures may serve to support or hamper individual achievement. The environment of the school, which can also be privileged or disadvantaged, is one factor that impacts whether students who begin with a range of advantages and disadvantages will graduate having attained an education of equal quality.

But schools are also nested. They fit within a larger community that is defined by neighborhood and county boundaries. The people who live in the community may be privileged or disadvantaged in a variety of ways. The choices the community members make from their respective positions impact how resources are allocated to the school. These resources include school funding as well as values, attitudes, and beliefs that influence school organizational systems and structures. Resources can be applied equally to all schools, or they can be parceled out in ways that enhance existing disparities. Finally, communities, schools, and individuals are nested within a sociopolitical context that includes a long history of individuals and the US government striving to establish the basis for equality and to extend that equality to greater numbers of people. This context must also be taken into account when trying to understand school inequalities within the spectrum of the larger US society.

If this all sounds complex, it is. A discussion of privilege, disadvantage, and inequality in schools will always be a complicated endeavor.

Privilege, Disadvantage, & Inequality. To extrapolate these concepts and understand how they work in relation to one another, one might begin with some basic definitions. Inequality in relation to privilege and disadvantage refers to two main categories of problems. The first relates to resource allocation, and the second relates to disparities in achievement among different groups of students. Privilege in relation to disadvantage refers to something that someone or something (e.g., a school) has that gives them greater opportunities within the educational context. In relation to inequality, privilege often refers to how some students or schools have access to greater resources and conditions that leads them to higher levels of achievement. Disadvantage is privilege's opposite. Although there may be a variety of privileges that one may have, in the context of US inequality in education, to talk about privilege and disadvantage is to talk about class and race.

Socioeconomic Status. There is little doubt in the educational world about the relative impact of class on student success. A parent's high socioeconomic status, measured by income and level of education, is significantly associated with higher levels of educational achievement (Buchanan, 2006; Fram, Miller-Cribbs, & Van Horn, 2007; Johnson, McGue, & Iacono, 2007; Strenze, 2007). Wealthy and educated parents contribute to their children's achievement by augmenting their children's schooling in many ways. They provide educational materials such as books and computers in the home. They provide cultural enrichment in the form of travel or visits to museums and performances. They may pay for extra tutoring or after school classes, and they funnel money into the schools through organizations such as the PTA. To be born into a middle or upper class family in the United States means not only to enjoy the benefit of attending a high quality school in a safer and healthier neighborhood (Squires & Kubrin, 2005), but also all of the extra advantages that parents can buy.

Race. An extra privilege is to be white. Race is not always as good a predictor of academic achievement as socioeconomic status. Despite more than fifty years having passed since desegregation, inequalities in outcomes between whites and nonwhites persist (Battle & Pastrana, 2007; Buchanan, 2006; Noguera, & Wing, 2006). Partly, this can be explained by referring to the disadvantages of not being rich. For in this country, minorities tend to be concentrated in the lower classes (Squires & Kubrin, 2005). However, in instances where class should not be an issue, there are still reported discrepancies between white and black student achievement, an indication that white privilege continues to impact educational outcomes (Noguera & Wing, 2006).

Further Insights

School Funding. How do privilege and disadvantage manifest themselves in the day to day operations of schools? One way is through school funding. It has already been made clear that when parents have more money their children experience greater educational success. Schools also benefit from the higher incomes of their students' parents, for schools in wealthier communities tend to have more money. Having more money means being able to afford better facilities, pay teachers more, and provide students with more classroom materials. This leads almost inevitably to higher student achievement and school prestige. Schools in poorer districts sometimes struggle just to provide the basics.

Of course, a reasonable question to ask is why schools in a publicly-funded system differ in the amount of money they have to spend on their students? Shouldn't all schools have the same resources? The answer lies in the way schools raise funds. In most districts, school funding comes primarily from property tax revenues. Therefore, schools in wealthier communities that have more expensive houses and more businesses have a higher tax base on which to draw funds. Rural areas with few people and poor urban areas with lower property values do not have this privilege.

Of course, states try to adjust for these inequalities in funding. Theoretically, schools in poor and rich districts are supposed to receive comparable funding. This is because according to the law, states have a responsibility to ensure that education funding is both equitable and adequate. In other words, the distribution of educational goods and services throughout the state must be fair, and the availability of resources must be sufficient to ensure that all students can reach a certain level of performance. To achieve equity and adequacy, states attempt to make up the funding shortfalls in poorer districts. They do this by establishing funding formulas that take into account a variety of factors such as the size of the district, the number of students with special needs, the number of students living in poverty, and so on. However, in reality, funding formulas, because they result from political processes in which many constituents vie for a small piece of pie, are not always perfect in eliminating funding disparities. Furthermore, even when the formula is fair, states do not always have the money to fully fund their goals (Goodwind, Weiner, Pristoop, & Roza, 2006; Podgursky, Smith, & Springer, 2008). Thus, inequalities in funding leave some schools at a disadvantage.

While inequities in school funding are well-reported, especially in election years, the privileges and disadvantages associated with race are less discernible.

White Privilege. White privilege is rooted in the foundation of US history. The US Constitution was written in a way that accorded slaves the right to be recognized as three-fifths of a whole person, for population purposes in allocating congressional seats. Though slavery ended with the Civil War and that wording was removed, inequality was not. A segregated society kept whites and blacks apart in stores, neighborhoods, and schools. Though the Supreme Court ruled in the 1954 Brown v. Board of Education case that school segregation was separate and unequal, resulting efforts at integration did not always lead to greater equality. Today, white privileges are frequently institutionalized, which makes them difficult to identify. They are also frequently denied as even existing—a symptom that this privilege is so normalized as to be invisible.

Magnet Schools. To grasp how white privilege is institutionalized in schools, a closer look at the history of desegregation is needed. Following the mandate in Brown to dismantle the separate black and white educational systems, school districts developed a variety of ways to encourage integration. One of these was to bus children from their neighborhood school to a school in another part of the district. In some districts, all-black schools were closed, and their students dispersed to their white counterparts. Some districts established magnet schools. These schools were designed to focus on a specialized curriculum and were supposed to be so enticing that parents from around the district would want to send their children there (AndrÉ-Bechely, 2004; Dixson & Rousseau, 2005).

White Flight. While the Brown decision forced schools to integrate, whites were not always enthusiastic about the change. After all, segregation existed due to deep racial prejudices and resentments. White resistance to integration took several forms. Many whites moved out of the inner cities to suburbs where few blacks lived. This white flight effectively created black majority schools in the inner cities and white majority schools in the suburbs. In areas where whites and blacks could choose to be bused to a different school, more black students than white students took advantage of the option. Dixson and Rousseau (2005) write that for blacks, the movement to a new school meant a gain of social and educational justice. Whites, however, didn't see a reason to disrupt their education for the purpose of achieving racial equality. In schools where whites maintained their majority, blacks often faced discrimination that resulted in lower performance.

Eventually, open resistance to integration subsided, but policy decisions remain that have effectively institutionalized racism. That is, the policies still provide advantages or privileges to whites, but the policies themselves are so subtle, they are often difficult to recognize or challenge. For instance, André-Bechely (2004) writes of how a court decision in one district meant to ensure desegregation now grants whites a privilege in attending the district's best magnet schools. This happened because the court action approved a racial formula for integration that is still in effect even though the number of whites in the district has declined. As a result, the formula, which mandates a white to black ratio in the schools of 30 percent to 70 percent or 70 percent to 30 percent, now disproportionately favors white attendance in the district's magnet schools even though whites comprise just 11 percent of the entire district population. Because the court no longer has jurisdiction in the case, the formula will remain in place indefinitely.

Tracking. In schools that are integrated, an institutionalized system that was supposed to cater to the needs of students with different ability levels has been found to be one root of unequal educational outcomes for blacks and whites. This is the practice of tracking. Tracking involves placing students in classes according to their ability levels and postsecondary objectives. Theoretically, tracking allows those planning to attend college to take more challenging courses while those with nonacademic goals can work at a more relaxed pace. Studies have found, however, that many minority students are tracked out of college preparatory programs, reducing their chances for long-term educational and career advancement.

One study which effectively documented racial disparities in school tracking was the Berkeley High School Diversity Project. California’s Berkeley High School touts its multicultural population. Though percentages fluctuate slightly, in the 2012–2013 school year, the school was approximately 36 percent white, 27 percent African American, 14 percent multi-racial, 13 percent Hispanic, and 10 percent Asian American (Berkeley High School, 2013, p. 1). The school is located within a community that prides itself on its progressive values, especially related to tolerance and diversity. Yet a multiple year study investigating the experience of nonwhite students in the school found a variety of institutional factors that created disparities in achievement between whites and other students. These factors included counseling advice that resulted in some minority students being misplaced in lower level courses. Others were discouraged from enrolling in Advanced Placement classes. The project found that the disparities in achievement were widespread and were recognized by teachers and administrators. Yet few white teachers/administrators attributed the problems to systemic racism. Rather, they perceived the achievement gap to be a normal result of a diverse population, one that existed but about which nothing could be done (Noguera & Wing, 2006).

The denial by whites of the existence of white privileges that lead to inequality and oppressive conditions for minorities is recognized as being common (Denevi & Pastan, 2006). Distanced from the more overt discrimination of the past, some whites have argued that racism no longer exists or that past wrongs have been adequately corrected. Some have said that the United States is ready to be a color-blind society. Proponents of this position argue that advancement in a democratic society should be based on merit without regard to race (Meese, 1991).

Critical race theorists argue that these beliefs are part of a white perspective that legitimates the traditional white monopoly on power and control as being a neutral baseline, thereby masking that white privilege and domination are maintained. (Dixson & Rousseau, 2005). These theorists examine inequality in education from the perspective that racism is endemic to American life. They insist historical contexts must be taken into account when evaluating disparities in achievement, and they believe that unless white people learn to see how their race grants them privileges in society, real change that eliminates oppression of minorities will be difficult to achieve.

Viewpoints

Critical Race Theory. In an overview of critical race theory (CRT) in the contexts of law and education, Dixson and Rousseau (2005) highlight the kinds of shifts in thinking that may be needed for schools to address disparities in achievement due to race. They suggest that one change may be in how whites conceptualize equality. To illustrate this, they cite Rousseau and Tate's study of teachers working in a diverse high school. The researchers found that teachers tended to have a restrictive view of equality. When asked how they responded to their diverse student populations, the teachers said they treated the students equally. (p. 14). Even though minorities in their classrooms performed worse than their white counterparts, teachers felt that because they had treated the students the same, there was equality in the classroom. Rousseau and Tate argue that if the teachers had an expansive perspective of equality in which equality is perceived as an outcome, they might have viewed the situation differently. Then the teachers might have reflected on their teaching practices and the curriculum in order to understand how these factors led to the unequal outcome in which minorities underperformed whites (Dixson & Rousseau, 2005).

Many researchers have questioned how methodology, curriculum, and teacher background have created inequalities in achievement. In this vein, a substantial body of research has shown how cultural differences between teachers and students and students and other students impact interactions and outcomes. For example, research has shown that when students' cultures differ from the mainstream culture of the school, they tend to be disadvantaged in the environment (Heath, 1983; Philips, 1983). Culturally relevant and multicultural curricula have been developed to overcome inequities that arise from these differences. These curricula take into account different interactional styles of students and invite the exploration of the diversity of peoples and histories of the world (Modla & Wake, 2007).

Ideology. Perhaps one of the most hidden factors behind educational inequality is the ideological constructions that impact how students, teachers, and parents position themselves within the school system. Ideologies are group based, sociocognitive systems for organizing beliefs. Individuals identifying with a particular ideology develop beliefs, attitudes, and behaviors that identify them with other members of their group and differentiate themselves from those they view as outsiders (van Dijk, 1998). In a society divided along class and racial lines, one set of ideological beliefs may exist for groups that are privileged and another set of beliefs may belong to those who are disadvantaged. These ideologies can impact how individuals perceive themselves in relation to the school and the larger society. Subsequently, these perceptions may influence behavior.

In an extensive study of the education of affluent children, Howard (2008) examined the role of ideological operations and frames in constructing a high school student's identity and understanding of social inequalities. For the affluent, ideological beliefs served to reinforce the superior position the affluent hold in society and legitimated the advantages they have as a result of their position. One of these advantages is access to better schools, which students in the study said they deserved because they "work harder" (p. 199) than the poor and care more about education. The affluent students attributed their personal success in school to individual effort, attributes, and attitudes of themselves and their families. Although these students were aware of class divisions, they did not connect their advantages to the disadvantages experienced by the poor. Rather, they conceptualized the poor as making bad decisions that led to lower academic achievement and consequently to disadvantaged lifestyles. As a result of their attribution of success to personal effort, the affluent students did indeed work hard to succeed in what they perceived to be a competitive environment.

In contrast to the affluent, Howard (2008) found that disadvantaged students were not as willing to embrace the ideology that individual achievement results in success. In a poor school district located near one of the affluent schools he studied, Howard noted the differences in educational opportunities of the students and their attitudes. Using the case of one student with a particular harsh history, Howard connected the student's rejection of school and subsequent failure to his understanding of societal inequalities. Because the student did not believe that society would provide someone like him the opportunity to get out of poverty, he had no reason to attempt to excel in school. Howard's work shows that belief systems operate at both individual and societal levels to impact educational outcomes.

Teacher Expectations. While students have ideological perceptions of themselves and others, so do parents, teachers, and community members. Studies have shown that teacher perceptions and expectations are especially influential in determining student success or failure. For instance, it has been found that teacher's expectations for student achievement can lead them to behave in a way that becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy. That is, if a teacher believes that a student is not likely to do well, the teacher may not work as hard to help that child reach a high level of performance. Similarly, if the teacher expects a child to perform as he or she has done in the past, the teacher may disregard evidence when the child acts differently (Rubie-Davies, Hattie & Hamilton, 2006). Teachers' expectations have been found to be impacted by many factors including socioeconomic status (SES) and race/ethnicity. For example, in one study, teachers were found to view low-SES boys less favorably than their high-SES counterparts and to hold more pessimistic views about their future (Auwarter & Aruguete, 2008). These kinds of expectations must be countered, researchers say, if teachers are to gain the sense of self-efficacy, or perception of themselves as being able to help all children, that is needed to eliminate achievement gaps in student performance. Thus, one tool against inequality in education is to uncover and change negative perceptions that individuals and groups hold about one another.

Inequality in schools is a complex issue. Sociopolitical contexts reflect historical patterns of thought and behavior as well as community values, attitudes, and beliefs. School organizational systems and structures as well as individual actions are important factors affecting school equity. Inequalities exist today in the allocation of resources among schools and in the hidden advantages given to whites that support their achievement while inhibiting minority advancement. Yet the bright spot in the discussion of inequality is that more people are becoming aware of how the privilege of some creates disadvantage for others. With this awareness, there is hope that American schools, like American society, will be able to continue on a path that leads them to become both progressively more diverse and more equitable.

Terms & Concepts

Color-blind society: A concept of society in which race, because it is deemed unimportant compared to merit, should not be used as a factor in making decisions that affect individual achievement. (e.g., college admissions).

Critical race theory: A theory that recognizes that racism is endemic in American society and thus it must be considered when examining situations where inequalities exist.

Magnet schools: Schools that focus on a specialized curriculum. They are open to all students in the district and were designed to achieve greater racial integration.

Self-efficacy: The belief that teachers have when they believe what they do leads to student success.

Self-fulfilling prophecy: A situation where someone's beliefs impact his or her behavior in a way that makes preconceived expectations come true.

Socioeconomic status (SES): Status defined by one's level of income and education.

Tracking: A school organizational system in which students are divided into educational pathways based on their levels of achievement and postsecondary goals.

White flight: A term used to describe the increased movement of whites from the inner cities to the suburbs that occurred following school desegregation.

White privilege: The advantages that whites have in American society solely because of their skin color.

Brown v. Board of Education: The Supreme Court case that mandated that American schools be desegregated.

Bibliography

André-Bechely, L. (2004). The goals of a voluntary integration program and the problems of access: A closer look at a magnet school application brochure. Equity & Excellence in Education, 37, 302-315. Retrieved June 18, 2008 from EBSCO online database Education Research Complete. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ehh&AN=14303032&site=ehost-live

Auwarter, A., & Aruguete, M. (2008). Effects of student gender and socioeconomic status on teacher perceptions. Journal of Educational Research, 101 , 242-246. Retrieved June 18, 2008 from EBSCO online database Education Research Complete. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ehh&AN=31891750&site=ehost-live

Battle, J., & Pastrana, A. (2007). The relative importance of race and socioeconomic status among Hispanic and white students. Hispanic Journal of Behavioral Sciences, 29 , 35-49.

Berkeley High School. (2013). 2012–2013 profile. Retrieved November 18, 2013, from bhs%5Fprofile%5F1213.pdf.

Allweiss, A., & Grant, C. A. (2013). Progressives, conservatives and "educational disadvantage": The limits of the bifurcation. Race, Gender & Class, 20(1/2), 8–24. Retrieved November 18, 2013, from EBSCO online database SocIndex with Full Text. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=sih&AN=87581114

Buchanan, C.M. (2006). The impact of race and socioeconomic status on post-secondary achievement. International Journal of Learning, 13 , 69-81. Retrieved June 18, 2008 from EBSCO online database Education Research Complete. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ehh&AN=24978613&site=ehost-live

Denevi, E., & Pastan, N. (2006). Helping whites develop anti-racist identities: Overcoming their resistance to fighting racism. Multicultural Education, 14 , 70-73. Retrieved June 18, 2008 from EBSCO online database Education Research Complete. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ehh&AN=24496284&site=ehost-live

Dixson, A., & Rousseau, C. (2005). And we are still not saved: Critical race theory in education ten years later. Race, Ethnicity and Education, 8 , 7-27. Retrieved June 18, 2008 from EBSCO online database Education Research Complete. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ehh&AN=16295805&site=ehost-live

Fram, M. S., Miller-Cribbs, J. E., & Van Horn, L. (2007). Poverty, race, and the contexts of achievement: Examining educational experiences of children in the U.S. south. Social Work, 52 , 309-319. Retrieved June 18, 2008 from EBSCO online database SocINDEX. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=sih&AN=29339674&site=ehost-live

Goodwind, L., Weiner, R., Pristoop, E., & Roza, M. (2006). Funding gaps 2006. Retrieved June 18, 2008 from Education Trust. http://www2.edtrust.org/NR/rdonlyres/CDEF9403-5A75-437E-93FF-EBF1174181FB/0/FundingGap2006.pdf

Heath, S. B. (1983). Ways with words. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.

Howard, A. (2008). Learning Privilege. New York: Routledge.

Johnson, W., McGue, M., & Iacono, W. (2007). Socioeconomic status and school grades: Placing their association in broader context in a sample of biological and adoptive families. Intelligence, 35 , 526-541.

Keane, E. (2011). Distancing to self-protect: The perpetuation of inequality in higher education through socio-relational dis/engagement. British Journal of Sociology of Education, 32, 449–466. Retrieved November 18, 2013, from EBSCO online database SocIndex with Full Text. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=sih&AN=60610090

Meese, E., III. (1991). Civil rights, economic progress, and common sense. Harvard Journal of Law and Public Policy, 14 , 150-157. Retrieved June 18, 2008 from EBSCO online database Academic Search Complete. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=a9h&AN=9612173616&site=ehost-live

Modla, V., & Wake, D. (2007). Using a culturally-responsive approach to a multicultural literature: Preparing pre-service teachers to work with all students. College Reading Association Yearbook, 28, 293-311. Retrieved June 18, 2008 from EBSCO online database Education Research Complete. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ehh&AN=26328914&site=ehost-live

Noguera, P., & Wing, J. (Eds.). (2006). Unfinished business. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Philips, S. (1983). The invisible culture: Communication in classroom and community on the Warm Springs Indian Reservation. Long Groves, IL: Waveland Press.

Pilkington, A. (2013). The interacting dynamics of institutional racism in higher education. Race, Ethnicity & Education, 16, 225-245. Retrieved November 18, 2013, from EBSCO online database SocIndex with Full Text. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=sih&AN=85340766

Podgursky, M., Smith, J., & Springer, M. (2008). A new defendant at the table: An overview of Missouri school finance and recent litigation. Peabody Journal of Education, 83, 174-197. Retrieved June 18, 2008 from EBSCO online database Education Research Complete. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ehh&AN=31808643&site=ehost-live

Rollock, N. (2017). Race, self-interest and privilege amongst students at elite U.S. and U.K. universities. Ethnic & Racial Studies, 40(13), 2280-2284. doi:10.1080/01419870.2017.1344272. Retrieved March 18, 2018 from EBSCO online database Sociology Source Ultimate. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=sxi&AN=124723903&site=ehost-live&scope=site

Rubie-Davies, C., Hattie, J., Hamilton, R. (2006). Expecting the best for students : Teacher expectations and academic outcomes. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 76, 429-444.

Squires, G., & Kubrin, C. (2005). Privileged places: Race, uneven development and the geography of opportunity in urban America. Urban Studies, 42, 47-68. Retrieved June 18, 2008 from EBSCO online database SocINDEX. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=sih&AN=16111097&site=ehost-live

van Dijk, T.A. (1998). Ideology. Great Britain: Sage Publications.

Suggested Reading

Goodwind, L., Weiner, R., Pristoop, E., & Roza, M. (2006). Funding gaps 2006. Education Trust. Retrieved June 18, 2008 from, http://www2.edtrust.org/NR/rdonlyres/CDEF9403-5A75-437E-93FF-EBF1174181FB/0/FundingGap2006.pdf

Hollingdale, H. (2011). Losing and using male privilege: Gay men and instrumental masculinity. Conference Papers—American Sociological Association, 2245. Retrieved November 18, 2013, from EBSCO online database SocIndex with Full Text. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=sih&AN=85659773

Liasidou, A. (2013). Intersectional understandings of disability and implications for a social justice reform agenda in education policy and practice. Disability & Society, 28, 299–312. Retrieved November 18, 2013, from EBSCO online database SocIndex with Full Text. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=sih&AN=86213947

Nielsen, F., & Roos, J. M. (2015). Genetics of educational attainment and the persistence of privilege at the turn of the 21st century. Social Forces, 94(2), 535-561. doi:10.1093/sf/sov080. Retrieved March 18, 2018 from EBSCO online database Sociology Source Ultimate. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=sxi&AN=110693651&site=ehost-live&scope=site

Noguera, P., & Wing, J. (Eds.). (2006). Unfinished business. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Strenze, T. (2007) Intelligence and socioeconomic success: A meta-analytic review of longitudinal research. Intelligence, 35, 401-426.