Income Inequality - is that the cause of education inequality?

To contact us Click HERE
Income inequality is often seen in the media as the root cause of why there is an inequality in education. One such article is found in the NYTimes written by a professor at University of California, School of Business, at Berkeley. [Laura D’Andrea Tyson: Income Inequality and Educational Opportunity].

We are basically talking k-12 education. It is the first floor often dictating one's future prosperity. It cannot be gainsaid that income and education are inextricably linked. Take a Google trip using "income and education." You will find that amount and quality of education is directly linked to everything positive in a person's life. But a child's access to education cannot be determined by his or her family's income.

However, in our society income equality is both a driving and limiting force. Acquisition of a better standard of living is income dependent. And income is directly related to education. Of course there are exceptions - there are always those self-made financial successes that formal education seemed to play little to no role in that success.

There will always be income inequality – at least in any foreseeable future. Contrary to some thinkers it is not likely that there will ever be a society in which goods and services are distributed according to need. Americans above all seem to accept a certain amount of income inequality, but not always accept the manner by which that inequality comes about nor accept the amount of inequality.

But it is an odd conundrum being posited – education inequality derives from income inequality, and income inequality derives from education inequality. It is a downward spiral. Without some societal intervention to provide a level playing field of opportunity – the cycle cannot be broken.



The New York Times author posits income inequality indicators poverty and residential segregation as causes of inequality in education. Yet it is interesting that she seems to accept that the qualified teachers find themselves at the 'good' schools, i.e., she sees that as an effect rather than a cause of inequality.

It seems clear that certain schools that seem to do well, whatever the standard of measure, are often all white located in higher income neighborhoods. But I don't believe for a minute that student success is because of wealth or race. Success is more likely because good teachers find their way to 'better' schools located in 'better' neighborhoods.

It is through the system that teachers, the more experienced and qualified, become situated at schools of their choosing, not where they are needed. The school system is not for students - it is for the administrators and teachers. E.g., the desire for new buildings and the like is a work environment issue unrelated to student education. And, it is easy to see why.

Students are merely passing through. While they may be in the system for 12 years, the structure breaks the student's time into three different partitions - elementary, middle and high school. Never long enough to effect any meaningful change. Teachers and administrators are there as a career.

However, it isn't too difficult to find those schools that are excelling despite large class sizes, racial composition, family incomes, poverty, etc. A constant factor in these schools is the good teacher. Maybe it isn't obvious but not all teachers are good teachers. Many are not even qualified.

Rather than rooting these failed teachers out of the system - they are often transferred to the less desirable schools. They remain employed unless they commit some criminal offense. The teachers union will fight to the end to protect the jobs of these teachers - despite that they are failed teachers. The school system isn't about students.

Inequality in education isn't an income issue – it is a public school system issue. It is a governmental problem. We see it mostly at the local level where the state and city school officials lack the necessary competence. The federal government has been left with finding ways to incentivize (force) school systems to provide core educational programs.  The school system misallocates its human resources. It doesn't distribute the resources according to need.

The whole concept of public education is to level the playing field. Students from low income families and those from high income families should - must - have the same opportunity for education. The same - not similar education - must be provided to all students. Of primary importance is the good teacher.

The same high quality teachers must be provided to all students no matter where they live. Teacher should not be able to opt out of teaching at schools that might be perceived as located in low income areas. Students should not have to be transported across town or out of their school district because the district fails to provide the promise opportunity.

It is the obligation of the state (government) to insure that necessary teachers and funds are available.

"'The whole people must take upon themselves the education of the whole people and be willing to bear the expenses of it. There should not be a district of one mile square, without a school in it, not founded by a charitable individual, but maintained at the public expense of the people themselves.' — John Adams, U.S. President, 1785^[33] " [History of education in the United States].


See Short essay on the Importance of education;
The Value of Higher Education Made Literal;
The Importance of Basic Education;
History of education in the United States.