SOCIOECONOMIC STATUS BETWEEN WHITE AND NON-WHITE; SOCIAL MOBILITY FOR THE MARGINALIZED COMMUNITIES
Introduction
In many cases, America remains the land of two worlds — one White and one non-White — as measurements of key demographic indicators of social and economic sustainability and growth. Socioeconomic class is the social standing of an individual or group, measured in a combination of education, income, and occupation. Socioeconomic status systematically affects our everyday life. But how does socioeconomic status affect our daily life, and how can we accelerate social mobility as a cure to vast socioeconomic differences in America? According to the 2020 Census and the population estimate as of July 1, 2019, shows that Whites are 76.3%, Hispanic or Latinos are 18.5%, Blacks or African American are 13.4%, Asians are 5.9%, American Indian and Alaska Native are 1.3%, and Native Hawaiian and other Pacific Islanders are 0.2% of the U.S. population (United States Census Bureau, 2019). Analysis of federal government data by the Pew Research Center found that even though the Black population is about five times less than the White population, Blacks on average are at least twice as likely as Whites to be poor or be unemployed (Pew Research Center, 2016). Low socioeconomic status correlates intimately with lower educational achievement and results in poverty, poor health, and family financial instability. It ultimately leads to not enough savings for low-income children’s education and results in joining the workplace at an early age for financial survival. The vicious cycle continues causing a systemic generational financial instability and declining of the national development. Statistics say for low-income students, a college degree may be the single-handed engine for social mobility, stated in a journal called “The Role of Higher Education in Social Mobility,” published by Princeton University (Haveman, Robert, and Timothy Smeeding, 2016, 126). On average non-White households earn a little more than half of the White households earn, which leads to further stretching the existent socioeconomic differences in America. Economic disparities have narrowed between White and non-White populations since the mid-1970s, but the difference remains large in the present economy. Research done by the Brooklyn Institution on multidimensional poverty and race in America stated that Minority racial groups are more likely to experience multidimensional poverty than their White counterparts (Richard et al. 2016). Statistics derived from National Center for Education Statistics show that African Americans and Latinos are more likely to attend high-poverty schools than Caucasians, and Latino students remain at the highest for dropouts, followed by African Americans and Whites. All of these aspects have been linked to poverty and income disparities in marginalized communities. Lower socioeconomic status and financial instability have also shown depressive and other effects in the psychological health of racial and ethnic differences. Systematic generational lower socioeconomic status of the Black population has been linked to the long history of employment discrimination and other discriminatory practices in the United States. A Federal Reserve Note of 2017 at the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System showed that the median family wealth of Black and Latino families was $17,600 and $20,700, compared to White families’ median wealth of $171,000 (Lisa J. et al. 2017). Lower-income communities are deprived of financial benefits. An article of the Center for American Progress also stated: “A well-documented history of mortgage market discrimination means that Blacks are significantly less likely to be homeowners than Whites, which means they have less access to the savings and tax benefits that come with owning a home.” Furthermore, the income gap has also worsened over time. According to the Economic Policy Institute’s report of 2016, the income gap between the Black and White population has grown intensively since the 1970s. For example, in 1979, Black men in the United States earned 22% less than White men; in 2016, the income gap increased to 31% (Wilson, Valerie, and William M. Rodgers III, 2017). In this paper, I will argue that higher education funding policies in the United States have contributed to long-term socioeconomic inequality between the White and non-White segments of the population, and how education is the single-handled engine for sociomobility for marginalized communities.
Over the years, education has shown a positive impact and a major driven force for social mobility for the marginalized and low socioeconomic communities. For a low-income family, education may single-handled be the only path for social mobility and socioeconomic growth. But as the income and wealth gap continues to grow in the United States, so does the education policies. High education expenses rose while the criteria for acceptance narrowed. In the journal: “The Role of Higher Education in Social Mobility,” the authors stated: “The high concentration in the nation’s colleges and universities of youth from the top echelons of parental income and social class is disturbing and appears to be increasing (Haveman, Robert, and Timothy Smeeding, 2016, 127). It exists at all levels of postsecondary schooling but is especially evident at the nation’s best (most selective) colleges and universities.” It is evident that two social forces operating in two different directions widening the socioeconomic gaps even further. White parents with higher income invest money and influence to ensure children’s academic success from pre-school to grad school; whereas Black parents with low income and less education, with limited resources, are unable to assist children’s education which returns with generational financial instability and lower socioeconomic status.
In this paper, I will be further researching the socioeconomic status between White and non-White Americans and social mobility for marginalized communities, and how can educators and policymakers formulate a policy for eliminating the gap. Although resilience, luck, and persistence pay off for a small number of minority low-income children, there remains a boulder increasingly stacked against their success. Therefore, for the outcome of my research, I would like to spread the information of an education policy should not be focused to address these inequalities simply at which students moved from secondary to postsecondary education, but on the long-term path from kindergarten through college graduation and ultimately providing and accelerating a successful path for social mobility.
Racial differences in family marital structures have also remained persistent over the years. While marriage rates are at a decline in the U.S, the decline rate is much more intense in the Black population, compared to the White population. Non-martial birth rates in Black mothers are twice as much as that of White mothers. Black children are three times more likely to be living with a single parent than White children (Pew Research Center 2016, under “Demographic trends and economic well-being”). Growing up with a single parent not only plays a financial and psychological pressure on the children. Without the support of an additional family member, the household finances become a burden on the single member, and its results affect the child. The lack of collective income in the household leads to living in low-standard houses and neighborhoods, leading to less available resources for the child’s growth. It also leads to the children joining the workforce at a young age for survival (Bogenschneider, Kaplan and Morgan 1993, 23). Limited household income also means that the single parent is unable to save or finance their children’s higher education. With the cost of higher education in the United States, education becomes an unattainable option. Psychology is one of the other aspects that result in an impact on the single-parented child (Bogenschneider, Kaplan and Morgan 1993, 23). In a single-parent home, a parent has to tackle every household chore by oneself along with employment, if not multiple employments, to meet end’s needs. It leaves the child with a lesser parental supervisor, physical support, and attention (Bogenschneider, Kaplan and Morgan 1993, 24). It leads to a weaker connection between a parent and the child. Parenthood can be a difficult task, especially for a single parent-it leads to a stressful environment not only for the parent but also the child. Moving houses, household chores, changing schools, or employment becomes far more challenging. It turns into a life of work to survive (Bogenschneider, Kaplan and Morgan 1993, 26). It turns into a cycle of generational depletion of socioeconomic classes. According to American Sociological Association, Using the 2004 Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System, a study was conducted on the relationship between awareness, perceived discrimination, and self-rated health among Black and White adults (Sarah et al. 2018). In the paper, the researchers found evidence for differential vulnerability among Black and Whites adults based on socioeconomic status. The results supported the hypothesis, and the negative consequences of discriminatory experiences for Black adults are exacerbated by poorer socioeconomic standing. The study suggested that socioeconomic status plays a prominent role in shaping the relationship between race-based treatment and self-rated health statuses between White and non-White populations (Sarah et al. 2018, 5.1).
Household incomes headed by Blacks are significantly behind White households. According to brooking.edu, a nonprofit public policy organization lead by 300 governmental experts from over the world to conduct policy and governmental research-based in Washington DC, the net worth of a White family at $171,000 is 10 times greater than that of a Black family at $17,150 (Kriston, et al. 2020). Statics say that the household heads with higher levels of formal education tend to have higher household incomes. According to the data from the U.S Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS), there is an inverse relationship between the attainment of higher education and the unemployment rate (U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, 2020). The data presents the median weekly earnings with a bachelor’s degree is $1,248, in contrast to the weekly earning with a high school diploma is $746. The chart also shows that workers with a high school diploma had an unemployment rate of 3.7%, compared to works with a bachelor’s degree at 2.2% (U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, 2020). According to Current Population Survey data, Black unemployment has been at least twice as high as White unemployment (Pew Research Center 2016, under “Blacks twice as likely as whites to be unemployed”). The unemployment rate for White families was 4.5% in 2015; for Hispanic families, it was 7.2%, and for Black families, it was 10.3% (Pew Research Center 2016, under “Blacks twice as likely as whites to be unemployed”). This unemployment gap continues to grow with time between the White and non-White families. Black families with the lowest net worth make it difficult, if not impossible, to strive for higher education levels. Limited and minimum financial resources leave the family without the option to support their children’s higher education and leave the child with no choice but to commit to joining the workforce at a young age for survival. It leads to another generation of socioeconomic disadvantaged, and the cycle continues. The same disadvantages are noticed in Hispanic and other racial ethnicities. According to FED’s 2019 Survey of Consumer Finances, the median net worth of Hispanic families is $36,100 (FEDS Notes 2020, under “Disparities in Wealth by Race and Ethnicity in the 2019 Survey of Consumer Finances”). White families are more likely to have parents with a college degree, and since higher levels of education are associated with higher levels of wealth, it suggests that White families are likely to have wealthier parents than Black or Hispanic families. Wealth accumulation is another factor that plays a part in the racial family income disparities. The survey of the median wealth by age category based on the age of the reference person, separately, for White, Black, Hispanic, and 4other families shows that the median young Black family has almost no wealth at about $600, whereas compared to a White family has a family wealth about $25,400 (FEDS Notes 2020, under “Wealth over the life-cycle”). Young Hispanics fall in a little lower than the middle of both White and Black families at $11,200. And according to the survey, the wealth accumulation disparities grow larger with the ages in these particular races. At the age of over 55 years, White families have a median wealth accumulation of $315,000, in contrast to Black families with only $53,000, with a gap wealth of six times smaller in comparison to White families.
Wealth-holding can also differ significantly due to the intergenerational transmission of wealth between White and non-White families. Families can transmit wealth and resources across generations in multiple ways, such as in the form of a bequest, or gifts. For example, supplementing a family member with a down payment of a home purchase or substantial wedding gift. In addition to gifts, families can also invest in their children’s education by paying their college tuition, which in return acts in favor of their children’s ability to accumulate further wealth. A survey shows that White families are sustainably more likely to receive inheritances, gifts, and other family support than Black and Hispanic families (FEDS Notes 2020, under “Inheritances and other family support”). In the survey, the data collected showed that nearly 30% of White families had reported having received an inheritance or gift, compared to about 10% Black families, 7% of Hispanic families, and 18% of other families. Due to the higher net worth persistent within White families, they also tend to receive relatively larger inheritances than other racial families. The survey also presented that in times of a financial emergency or need, about 72% of White families had reported being more likely to obtain $3000 from family or friends, compared to 41% of Black families, and 58% of Hispanic families had reported of its likeliness to obtain (FEDS Notes 2020, under “Inheritances and other family support”).
For most families, housing is the biggest and the most common component of wealth. Homeownership is directly proportional to family wealth. However, the relation between the two is quite complex. On one side, one must have the ability to purchase a home, which is a reflection of wealth the family already has-maybe through generational wealth accumulation or gift, as significant funds are usually required for the down payment of the home purchase. On the other side, homeownership has the advantage to yield strong financial returns, which builds onto the family’s existing wealth (FEDS Notes 2020, under “Homeownership”). According to the Federal Reserve Board 2019 Survey of Consumer Finances, data collected on homeownership based on races and ages, and the data showed significant gaps in homeownership between White and non-White families. Among young families under 35 years of age, about 46% of White families owned the homes, compared to 17% of Black families, 28% Hispanic, and 29% other races (FEDS Notes 2020, under “Homeownership”). This gap is a reflection of generational wealth that differs between White and non-families and the ability of White families to assist their children’s homeownership compared to non-White families (Signe-Mary, et al. 2017, 6). Among the middle-aged families, there was nearly a 30% gap between White and Black families. About 73% of middle-aged White families owned their homes, compared to 53% of Hispanic families, 51% of Black families, and 63% of other racial backgrounds. Additionally, not only the homeownership differed from White and non-White families, but also their home values. Typical White families’ home values are $230,000, and Black and Hispanic families’ home values are at $150,000 and $200,000, respectively (FEDS Notes 2020, under “Homeownership”).
Participation in retirement accounts and retirement plans is another important factor through which families build wealth, also provides financial security after retirement. These benefits include individual retirement accounts (IRAs)-which are investment accounts purchased by individuals, and defined contribution plans (DC) such as 401k’s, which are employer-sponsored plans. Data collected through the 2019 Survey of Consumer Finances showed that under the age of 35, about 53% of White families has participated in some sort of retirement accounts, in contrast to about 31% of Black families, 28% Hispanic families, and 49% other racial backgrounds (FEDS Notes 2020, under “Retirement accounts and plan participation”). One reason for gaps in participation in retirement plans is that not all families are not eligible to participate in an employer-sponsored retirement plan due to the fact that not every employer offers retirement plans of such to their employees (Signe-Mary, et al. 2017, 7). It means that the families who lack access to employer sponsored-retirement plans such as 401(k), Roth 401(k), and 403(b) misses out on a common added benefit: many employers contribute to their employee’s retirement plans such as by matching or contributing some amount to their plans. For families who do not have the opportunity of access to employer-sponsored retirement plans, they have the option to invest on the own, also known as an Individual retirement account (IRA). But purchasing an investment personally or chipping away a portion of monthly income for retirement accounts are more attainable for higher net worth or available wealth, which we are seen in our previous survey that White families rank the highest on the category of net worth. But for a typical Black family who is on the lower ends of the net worth, chipping away a portion of their monthly income as an investment may not be a choice they have, and may challenge their sustainability. Investing in retirement plans may not only lack in younger families but also in elder families. The same survey showed that for families over 55 years old, about 54% of White families had invested in their retirement plans, compared to 29% Black families, about 21% Hispanic families, and 48% others (FEDS Notes 2020, under “Retirement accounts and plan participation”).
Emergency savings is another factor that plays a vital role in the White and non-White disparities. A recent example of such a factor is the covid-19 pandemic. With lower levels of wealth prior to the pandemic and having limited access to emergency savings and other assets, Black households faced higher rates of distress during the covid-19 pandemic than White families (Emily, et al. 2020, under “BLACK HOUSEHOLDS FACE HIGHER RATES OF DISTRESS DURING COVID-19”). The average value of liquid assets of White households was $8,100 in 2019, compared to $1,500 for Black households (Emily, et al. 2020, under “BLACK HOUSEHOLDS FACE HIGHER RATES OF DISTRESS DURING COVID-19”). According to the Federal Reserve Board’s 2019 survey, while typical Black and Hispanic families have $2000 or less in liquid savings, White families have more than four times that amount. Families can also choose to convert higher-return assets in times of a financial emergency (FEDS Notes 2020, under “Emergency Savings”). Stocks and Mutual funds that can be sold, and retirement account such as 401K, can be liquidated in terms of a financial emergency. The Urban Institute is a nonprofit research organization collaborated with philanthropists, social service providers, community advocate, businesses, federal, state and local leaders to access public policies for community development. According to them, in 2016, White families had about $ 130,000 more in average liquid assets than Black and Hispanic families. With $157,844 White families had six times more than Black families with $25,212 and Hispanic families with $28,581(Signe-Mary, et al. 2017, 7). The chart presented by the Urban Institute shows that only that the liquid assets disparities remain between the White and non-White families, but the gap continues to grow with years. The 2019 SCF was collected prior to the pandemic suggested large disparities in families’ ability to weather the pandemic. According to Neil Bhutta, Jacqueline Blair, Lisa Dettling, and Kevin Moore in their article: COVID-19, THE CARES ACT, AND FAMILIES’ FINANCIAL SECURITY, finds that without the substantial cash assistance included in the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security (CARES) Act, the wealth and ability to pay recurring expenses disparities between White and non-White families would have grown further immensely. They have found that only 10% of Hispanic families and 14% of Black families have enough savings to cover six months of expenses, compared to 36% of White families (Neil, et al. 2020, 24). The study concludes with the statement that if the jobless persists during the pandemic and there is not a sufficient supply of cash assistance, the unequal amount of savings between races will lead to further financial disparities between White and non-White populations during the pandemic (Neil, et al. 2020, 24). It shows growing evidence that suggests that Black, Hispanic, and other racial communities are being disproportionally affected by the health and economic effects of Covid-19 (FEDS Notes 2020, under “Emergency Savings”).
Along with wealth inequalities between White and non-White families, college debt has played its share of role. According to Urban Institute, Black families carry more student loan debt than White families (Signe-Mary, et al. 2017, 8). In 2016, the Survey of Consumer Finances 1989–2016 showed that 42% of Black adults between the ages of 25 to 55 had student loan debt, compared to 34% of similar aged White adults (Signe-Mary, et al. 2017, 8). With lesser resources and wealth, Black families are more like to turn to student loans to finance their education. Whereas White families are five times more likely to receive large gifts and inheritances, which can be used to pay for their college (Signe-Mary, et al. 2017, 8). It is important to also take into account that Black students have the lowest graduation rates, and student loan debt does not necessarily mean achieving a degree, that promotes mobility — and income and wealth — in the long run. A Black student is more likely to face financial struggle during their college journey, which may challenge the graduation probabilities. According to the Brookings Institute, on average, a Black college graduate owes $7,000 more than their White peers (Judith Scott-Clayton, and Jing Li, 2017). In average, Black colleges graduate owes $23,400 in student debt than White college graduates with $16,000 debt. And the Black-White student debt gap nearly triples in the four years after graduation in terms of interest accrual leading Black student debt to nearly S53,000 (Judith Scott-Clayton, and Jing Li 2017). A 2014 study by Goldrick-Rab, Kelchen, and Houle and a 2015 report by Demos show that Black students are more likely to borrow large sums of student loans than their White peers for the same degree, and Black students are also more likely to drop out before receiving a degree (Huelsman 2015, 2). Research conducted by the Washington Center of Equitable Growth has also proved that Black and Hispanic students have the highest number of student loan delinquencies (Vaghul, Kavya, and Marshall Steinbaum 2016). The data collected showed that nearly 48% of all Black students owed more on their federal undergraduate loans than when they graduated, compared to just 17% of White students (Judith Scott-Clayton, and Jing Li, 2017). Similar, if not larger, student loan debt differences showed between White and non-White graduate students. While the student loan debt showed a $7000 for an undergraduate Black-White gap but graduate borrowing the gap increased to $11,984, showing almost a 45% of student debt gap between the White and non-White student populations (Judith Scott-Clayton, and Jing Li, 2017). The interest accrual is also proven to be greater in graduate student loan debt for Black students than White students. On net percentage, Black students end up owning up to 6% more than what they had initially borrowed, compared to White students, who owe 10% less than what they had borrowed, four years after graduation (Judith Scott-Clayton, and Jing Li, 2017).
The study of education and social mobility has been a key factor of sociological research for a long time. Education has been often seen as a strong, if not the only, driver of social mobility. For the marginalized community, it has proven to be the only engine for social mobility. According to the Thomas Fordham Institute, 47% of adults without a college degree remain stuck in the lower socioeconomic class, in which they are born. Whereas, with a college degree, 90% of adults from lower socioeconomic class have achieved upward mobility and out of poverty (Petrilli, 2017, under “Postsecondary education as a path to the workforce”). The data collected showed, on average, a person with a technical certificate earns about $47, 000, an associate degree about $56,000, bachelor’s degree with about $69,000 in about 10 years into their careers (Petrilli, 2017, under “Postsecondary education as a path to the workforce”). According to the Pew Trusts Charitable Trusts, a college degree enables a person to be more than three times more likely to rise from the bottom of the family income ladder to all the way to the top and makes a person more than four times more likely to rise from the bottom of the family wealth ladder to the top (Susan K., et al., 2012, 3). About 39% born and raised in the middle of the family income ladder who does not get a college degree falls from the middle compared to 22% of those with a degree. Likewise, 39% raised in the middle of the family wealth without a degree fall down the wealth ladder, compared to 19% of those with a degree (Susan K., et al., 2012, 3). Over the years, having a college degree has consistently been the most promising way to climb the economic ladder. The minimum wage in relation to a college degree has also risen drastically, and increased financial returns on education directly translate into upward absolute mobility gains (Susan K., et al., 2012, 23). The data collected showed that 88% of those with a college degree had exceeded their parents’ family income, compared to 83% of those without a college degree. It has also proven that college graduates have greater wealth mobility than non-college graduates. 57% of college graduates have more assets than their parents, in contrast to 46% of non-college graduates (Susan K., et al., 2012, 24). Earning a four-year college degree promotes upward mobility from the bottom and prevents downward mobility from the middle and top of the family income and wealth ladder. The data also showed that 45% of the observed population without a degree were trapped at the bottom of the family wealth ladder, in contrast to only 20% with a college degree (Susan K., et al., 2012, 25). It also proved that having a college degree makes one more like to climb to the top of the ladder from the very bottom, over three times more likely for family income, and four times more likely for family wealth (Susan K., et al., 2012, 25). Additionally, a college education also protects against download mobility of the family income and wealth ladder. 51% of those raised in the top of the family income ladder and with a college degree stayed at the top. Whereas about only 3.75% of those raised in top of the family income and wealth ladder, stayed at the top (Susan K., et al., 2012, 25).
Affordability plays as much as, if not more, in the role of social mobility through education. According to College Board, a non-profit organization for student success states that average in-state tuition in 2019–20 of the public four-year tuition is $10,440, and including fees, room and board are $21,950. Similarly, an average out-of-state public four-year tuition in 2019–20 is $26,820, and including fees, room and board are $38,330 (College Board, 2019, 3). The affordability gap grows larger when it comes to private non-profit universities. An average non-profit private university tuition in 2019–2020 was $36,880, and including other charges such as room and board, the total was $49,870 (College Board, 2019, 3). Data acquired has shown that the 2019–20 increase in tuition and fees was the largest in the private non-profit sector, where the average price increased by 3.4% ($1,200) to $36,880 (College Board, 2019, 9). Institutional financial aid offices construct student budgets by determining the total cost of attendance, which can affect the amount of financial aid students are eligible. Even though the average in-state public university tuition is 72% lower than the average private non-profit university tuition, the average student budget for a public university at $26,590 is about half the size of the private non-profit university at $53,980 (College Board, 2019, 10). According to the 2019–2020 report, only one-third of full-time enrolled public four-year universities had tuitions below $9,000, just over one-third of the universities enrolled had tuitions ranging from $9000-$13,000, and little under one-third universities had their tuitions at $13,000 or more (College Board, 2019, 11). With private non-profit universities, the affordability gap grows even larger. On the same report, about half of full time enrolled private non-profit four-year universities had tuition of $37,580 or less, 21% of those students have less than $25,00, and the biggest percentage, which is 25% of the students was enrolled in universities with tuitions over $50,000 (College Board, 2019, 11). According to the College Board, Annual Survey of Colleges; NCES, IPEDS Fall 2017 Enrollment data, in the state of New York, average out-of-state college tuition is about $22,000 and in-state tuition with $8,000 and counting a five-year incremental percentage of tuition change, there was a 9% change (College Board, 2019, 15). On the highest end of tuition increase was Alaska, with 25% in the five-year in-state tuition change, with an average tuition out-of-state tuition of about $26,000 and $7,000 for in-state tritons. And Washington, with the lowest end of the tuition change, had a -12% in the five-year change (College Board, 2019, 15). Even though college tuitions in the state of Washington had shown a decrease in college tuitions, however, it remains one of the highest college tuitions of out-of-state tuitions with about $32,000 on average. With the data collected, overall tuition in the United States showed a six percent increase in in-state tuition, with an average of $10,440 for in-state tuition and $26,820 for out-of-state tuition (College Board, 2019, 15). There was a difference of four and half times as high for out-of-state tuitions than in-state tuitions in Florida, and about four times as high in North Carolina. The state of Michigan and Virginia had shown to have the highest out-of-tuitions in the country with $51,200 and $49,970 respectively (College Board, 2019, 15). According to the NCES, IPEDS Fall Enrollment and Student Financial Aid data, between 2009–10 and 2019–20, there was an increase of $2000 in tuitions and fees for full-time in-state public full-time students, however, the increase in average grants and financial aid tax benefits was only $300. It shows that the increase in financial aid was only 15% of the amount of increase in the tuition and fees for public four-year in-state colleges and universities (College Board, 2019, 18). The net tuitions for private non-profit colleges were much higher. In 2019–2020 full-time students at a private non-profit college had to cover, on average, about $27,400 in tuition, fees, rooms, and board after financial aid benefits. Additionally, the cost of books, supplies, and other living expenses are not included in the total amount and it is something that is put onto the students to cover (College Board, 2019, 19). We have known that students and families of the lower socioeconomic class have a constant worry about how they will manage to afford higher education. And according to National College Attainment Network, a 501(c)(3) nonprofit organization that share best practices and spread college access and success services around the country, found that in the academic year of 2016–2017, nationally a majority of four-year public and state flagship intuitions were out of reach for the average Pell grant recipient (National College Attainment Network, n.d.). NCAN further examined five years of data for both two years and four-year intuitions and found that from 2012–2013 to 2016–2017, the percentage of national institutions has decreased, while the affordability gaps for students have increased (National College Attainment Network, n.d.). Data collected has proven that 36 states had five or fewer affordable public colleges annually from 2013–2014 to 2017–2018 (National College Attainment Network, n.d.). And as we have seen initially in this research paper, the differences of income and wealth margin between White and non-White population, and for marginalized communities, the cost of colleges can be an impossible burden with limited and minimum wealth and socioeconomic disparities.
It brings us to the question of resolution. One of the biggest resolutions to compact the socioeconomic differences between the White and non-White population is through government funding on the education sector. Research showed that, on average, tuition and fees at public colleges and universities were greater in nine of the 30 years between 1987–88 and 2017–18, and each of those years was followed by a year in which average state and local funding per student declined (College Board, 2019, 24). In 2017–2018, there was a total 2% lower of state and local funding than a decade earlier. Even though total state and local funding has been 36% higher than 30 years ago, but funding per student has declined 10% and continuing. According to the report between 2007–2008 and 2012–2013, there was a total of 15% decline in funding, and with an 11% increase in enrollments, it led to a total of 23% of state and local funding per student (College Board, 2019, 24). According to 2017–18 State and Local Funding for Higher Education per Student, Alaska ranked the highest with $17,700 on average, and on the other end was New Hampshire with $3,070. Total overall U.S funding for Higher Education per Student was at $7,850 (College Board, 2019, 25). However, examine the data of 10-year Percentage change in funding per FTE (full-time equivalent) student, every state has shown a decline in funding per student, except for Montana, Oregon, Maine, North Dakota, Nebraska, California, New York, Illinois, Wyoming, Hawaii, and Alaska. But compared to 10 years difference, the percentage of increase in funding per FTE student was not significant. Illinois has the highest increase with 33%, and Maine with the lowest with only about 1% (College Board, 2019, 25). Compared to the increase of funding in these 11 states, the rate of decline of funding in the rest 39 has been significant. Arizona showed the largest decline in state and local funding per FTE student with 39%. The total overall decline in U.S funding for Higher Education per student was about 9% (College Board, 2019, 25). National College Attainment Network has also predicted that given the state’s current financial challenges (resulting from the Coronavirus pandemic), there could be further funding cuts for higher education, and post-secondary access will become even more difficult for students of color, students from low-income backgrounds, and first-generation students (National College Attainment Network, n.d.).
Conclusion
Throughout my research, it has shown a significant disparity between the White and non-White population. The disparities included the martial structure and nonmarital births, behavioral risk, single-parent family, unemployment rate, higher education, family wealth, income, homeownership, participation in retirement plans and savings, liquid assets, college debt, and affordability. In all of these fields, the White population has shown the highest advantages, compared to the non-White population being the lowest. While education has been one of the major players for social mobility for the marginalized non-White communities, its affordability has not. And when the non-White population already lacks the resources and has been pushed behind on the socioeconomic class ladder, the affordability of education does not make education accessible for them for their socio-economic mobility. The circle continues and creates a generational realm of lower communities of socioeconomics. Therefore, it is important for us to consider the possible resolution to such a social construct within our communities. Education funding has been one of the core factors of it all. Throughout my research, I have reflected the differences in state and local funding available per FTE students and its decline over the years instead of it increases. When one of the core factors is the only opportunity for the marginalized non-White communities through state and local funding is deprived, instead of encouraged, this pushes out the non-White communities further away from social mobility. And the states that showed an increase of state and local funding on the education department based on per FTE student, the increase has been very minute compared to the years passed and the number of enrolled students. With appropriate proportional local, state, and federal funding on the education department, it can show a significant difference in our communities between White and non-White population. It is dependent on us-as citizens and the policymakers collectively, to examine and take action on these disparities between the White and non-White communities, because it is in the best interest of only our communities but also our Nation. It can give the marginalized non-White population an opportunity for social mobility along the socioeconomic spectrum and give them a chance at life.
References
United States Census Bureau, “Quick Facts United States.”
https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/fact/table/US/PST045219
“Demographic Trends and Economic Well-Being.” Pew Research Center’s Social & Demographic Trends Project, Pew Research Center, 27 June 2016, www.pewresearch.org/social-trends/2016/06/27/1-demographic-trends-and-economic-well-being/.
Haveman, Robert, and Timothy Smeeding. “The Role of Higher Education in Social Mobility.” The Future of Children, vol. 16, no. 2, 2006, pp. 125–150. JSTOR, www.jstor.org/stable/3844794. Accessed 3 May 2021.
Reeves, Richard, et al. “FIVE EVILS: MULTIDIMENSIONAL POVERTY AND RACE IN AMERICA.” The Brookings Institution, Apr. 2016, www.brookings.edu/wp-content/uploads/2016/06/ReevesKneeboneRodrigue_MultidimensionalPoverty_FullPaper.pdf.
Dettling, Lisa J., et al. “Recent Trends in Wealth-Holding by Race and Ethnicity: Evidence from the Survey of Consumer Finances.” The Fed — Recent Trends in Wealth-Holding by Race and Ethnicity: Evidence from the Survey of Consumer Finances, 27 Sept. 2017, www.federalreserve.gov/econres/notes/feds-notes/recent-trends-in-wealth-holding-by-race-and-ethnicity-evidence-from-the-survey-of-consumer-finances-20170927.htm.
Wilson, Valerie, and William M. Rodgers III. “Black-White Wage Gaps Expand with Rising Wage Inequality.” Economic Policy Institute, 20 Sept. 2016, www.epi.org/publication/black-white-wage-gaps-expand-with-rising-wage-inequality/.
Bogenschneider, K., Kaplan, T. and Morgan, K., 2021. “Why Single Parenthood Affects Children.” Single Parenthood and Children’s Well-Being, (October 1993): 23–26. https://www.purdue.edu/hhs/hdfs/fii/wp-content/uploads/2015/07/s_wifis02c04.pdf. Accessed 2 May 2021.
Damaske, Sarah et al. “Single mother families and employment, race, and poverty in changing economic times.” Social science research vol. 62 (2017): 120–133. doi:10.1016/j.ssresearch.2016.08.008
McIntosh, Kriston, et al. “Examining the Black-White Wealth Gap.” Brookings, Brookings, 27 Feb. 2020, www.brookings.edu/blog/up-front/2020/02/27/examining-the-black-white-wealth-gap/.
“Learn More, Earn More: Education Leads to Higher Wages, Lower Unemployment : Career Outlook.” U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, May 2020, www.bls.gov/careeroutlook/2020/data-on-display/education-pays.htm. 18
Wilson, Valerie. “Racial Disparities in Income and Poverty Remain Largely Unchanged amid Strong Income Growth in 2019.” Economic Policy Institute, 16 Sept. 2020, www.epi.org/blog/racial-disparities-in-income-and-poverty-remain-largely-unchanged-amid-strong-income-growth-in-2019/.
“Disparities in Wealth by Race and Ethnicity in the 2019 Survey of Consumer Finances.” The Fed — Disparities in Wealth by Race and Ethnicity in the 2019 Survey of Consumer Finances, 28 Sept. 2020, www.federalreserve.gov/econres/notes/feds-notes/disparities-in-wealth-by-race-and-ethnicity-in-the-2019-survey-of-consumer-finances-20200928.htm.
McKernan, Signe-Mary, et al. Nine Charts about Wealth Inequality in America (Updated), 4 Oct. 2017, apps.urban.org/features/wealth-inequality-charts/.
Moss, Emily, et al. “The Black-White Wealth Gap Left Black Households More Vulnerable.” Brookings, Brookings, 9 Dec. 2020, www.brookings.edu/blog/up-front/2020/12/08/the-black-white-wealth-gap-left-black-households-more-vulnerable/.
Bhutta, Neil, et al. “COVID-19, THE CARES ACT, AND FAMILIES’ FINANCIAL SECURITY.” National Tax Journal, vol. 73, no. 3, 2020, pp. 645–672., doi:10.17310/ntj.2020.3.02.
Judith Scott-Clayton, and Jing Li. “Black-White Disparity in Student Loan Debt More than Triples after Graduation.” Brookings, Brookings, 29 Mar. 2017, www.brookings.edu/research/black-white-disparity-in-student-loan-debt-more-than-triples-after-graduation/.
Huelsman, Mark. The Debt Divide, 2015, www.demos.org/sites/default/files/publications/Mark-Debt%20divide%20Final%20(SF).pdf.
Vaghul, Kavya, and Marshall Steinbaum. “How the Student Debt Crisis Affects African Americans and Latinos.” Washington Center for Equitable Growth, 17 Feb. 2016, equitablegrowth.org/how-the-student-debt-crisis-affects-african-americans-and-latinos/.
Petrilli, Michael J. “Education Is Still a Sturdy Path to Upward Mobility.” Thomas B. Fordham Institute, 17 Oct. 2017, fordhaminstitute.org/national/commentary/education-still-sturdy-path-upward-mobility.
Urahn, Susan K., et al. “Pursuing the American Dream: Economic Mobility Across Generations.” Pewtrusts.org, July 2012, www.pewtrusts.org/~/media/legacy/uploadedfiles/wwwpewtrustsorg/reports/economic_mobility/pursuingamericandreampdf.pdf.
“Trends in College Pricing 2019.” College Board, Nov. 2019, research.collegeboard.org/pdf/trends-college-pricing-2019-full-report.pdf. 19
“COLLEGE AFFORDABILITY.” National College Attainment Network, www.ncan.org/page/Affordability.
