1

Structural Inequalities in Access to

Educational Opportunities
John C. Tacapan
California State University, Long Beach

PART I
Synthesis of Literature
The educational system of the United States of
America has been hailed by some countries as the
landmark of its democratic ideals and as the
foundation of its equity principle. Americans have
this general belief that their education is their
passport to upward economic and social mobility.
The general assumption about the relationship
between education and development has been
validated by many scholars around the world. For
instance, Phillips and Schweisfurth (2008) claim that
there is a positive relationship between an educated
population and national development in all its forms,
and that education can be used as a weapon against
poverty and other forms of underdevelopment.
Darling-Hammond (2000) also asserts that
education is not only the ticket to economic success
but to basic survival [sic] (p. 265). However,
because of its complexities where contradictory
objectives, values, and forces frequently converge,
our educational system has been meritorious in some
ways and prejudiced in others (Tsui, 2003).
Historically, despite the popularity of the
American educational system, it has also been
instrumental in reproducing social injustice and
structural inequalities. As Cremin (1970) claims
For all of its openness, provincial America, like
all societies, distributed its educational resources
unevenly, and to some groups, particularly those
Indians and African Americans who were
enslaved and even those who were not, it was for
all intents and purposes closed. For the slaves,
there were few books, few libraries, few
schoolsdoors of wisdom were not only not
open, they were shut tight and designed to
remain that way. (pp. 411-412).
De Facto Segregation
The structural inequalities are still pervasive in
our contemporary educational system, and these are
reflected through the de facto segregation, tracking
placement, funding inequity, curricular inequalities,
and unequal access to qualified teachers. Historically
disadvantaged low-income groups of students and
students of color do not receive the educational
opportunities that are available to those who come
from privileged and middle-class groups; the former
usually have low academic achievements which
further marginalize them.
In her study, Darling-Hammond (2000) reports
that students of color in the U.S. face persistent and
profound barriers to educational opportunities and
that schools which serve large numbers of African
American and Hispanic students are least likely to
offer the kind of curriculum and teaching needed to
meet the new standards. Moreover, Taylor and Piche
(1991) claim that these schools are typically funded
at lower levels than schools serving a white and more
affluent population; they often lack courses,
materials, equipment and qualified teachers that
would give students access to the education they
would need for social and economic participation
(Darling-Hammond, 2000). Oakes (2003) states that
many schools in California are severely overcrowded
that they run a multi-track schedule offering a
shortened school day and school year. Despite the
Williams legislation, Oakes observes that these
schools lack basic textbooks and materials, do not
offer the courses students need to be eligible for
college, and are staffed by a large number of
untrained, inexperienced, and temporary teachers.
Structural inequality is manifested in the de facto
segregation of the communities. In various studies,
Oakes (1996), Tatum (1997), and Wells (1996) reveal
that even within integrated schools, students are often
either segregated by academic tracking or re-
segregated themselves along racial and ethnic lines.
Guinier and Torres (2002) also observe that schools
in most areas of the U.S. remain largely segregated
by race. The continuing segregation of
neighborhoods and communities is alarming because
de facto segregation intersects with funding formulas
and school administrators practices that create
substantial differences in the educational resources
made available in different communities (Darling-
Hammond, 2004). Kozol (1991) warns that de facto
segregation creates apartheid schools that serve racial
and ethnic minority students exclusively and with
little political clout where resources are
extraordinarily scarce. As Kumashiro (2012) argues,
From its history of segregating students by race to
its current system of inequitable funding between
communities, the educational system has worked to
disadvantage certain groups, making the achievement
gap inevitable (p. 9). Undeniably, de facto
segregation produces ongoing inequalities in
educational opportunities (Darling-Hammond, 2004).
Tracking Placements
Another structural inequality in our educational
system is the tracking placements embedded covertly
in the magnet school, the Advanced Placement (AP),
and the Higher Education Master Plan programs. In
the 1970s, magnet schools were established based on
the premise that there are students who have natural
talents and abilities that justify their inclusion in
these programs (Vopat, 2011, p. 60). In the early
part of 1950s, the AP program was conceived and
during its initial stages, students had to be sorted
and separated so that the best and brightest could be
STRUCTURAL INEQUALITIES IN EDUCATIONAL OPPORTUNITIES 2

challenged and subsequently assume leadership
positions in a Cold War in which science and
diplomacy mattered more and more each day
(Sneider, 2009, p.813). The contradictions in these
programs, however, are reflected in the programs
very selective admission process which further
stratified the poor, the middle class, and the wealthy
students.
Additionally, Ochoa and Cadiero-Kaplan (2004)
claim that academic tracking continues to be
prevalent in most schools that serve language and
minority student population. For example, Tsui
(2003) claims that Black students have been tracked
into vocational training instead of college preparatory
classes. The tracking placement exacerbates
educational inequalities because school achievement
expectancies channel students into different
curricular tracks (i.e., remedial, vocational, non-
college bound, college bound, gifted and advanced)
with different messages about students academic
potentials (Ochoa & Cadiero-Kaplan, 2004). The
unequal educational opportunities due to tracking
placements that students of color receive from their
basic education are further exacerbated and extended
in their quest for equal access to quality higher
education. As a result, many of the traditionally
marginalized and economically disadvantaged
students of color are ill-equipped to access and to
navigate higher education institutions (HEIs), further
constraining their educational, economic, and social
mobility.
The legitimization of dominant forms of
knowledge and culture in higher education creates a
greater challenge among students who have different
social and cultural experiences prior to their tertiary
education. Darling-Hammond (2000) contends that
the educational systems in many urban schools with
large numbers of traditionally marginalized
population focus their curriculum more on rote
learning of basic skills than on problem solving,
thoughtful examination of serious texts and ideas, or
assignments requiring frequent and extended writing.
These curricular emphases are apparently
disconnected from what the HEIs emphasize and
validate. Naidoo and Jamieson (2005) claim that in
industrialized countries like the United States of
America, there has been an increasing pressure on
universities to impart to students the skills,
knowledge, and dispositions related to innovation and
the ability to learn how to learn in order to
continuously upgrade their skills in tune with the
demands of a changing global economy. Rizvi and
Lingard (2010) state that these types of knowledge
are essential to meet the challenges of globalization
and the knowledge economy and to prepare students
for workplaces that are increasingly transnational and
transcultural. Thus, those who have been tracked to
college preparatory, honors, and advanced courses
have more educational opportunities.
Funding or Fiscal Inequity
Another structural inequality in our educational
system is reflected in funding or fiscal inequity.
Generally, districts serving large proportion of poor
children have the fewest resources (Darling-
Hammond, 2004). Kozol (1991) argues that because
school districts funds are typically raised and spent
locally, districts with higher property values have
greater resources with which to fund their schools,
even when poorer school districts tax themselves at
proportionally higher rates. These disparities in
financial resources translate into real differences in
the services provided in schools because higher
spending districts have smaller class sizes, higher
paid and more experienced teachers, greater
instructional resources, better facilities, more up-to-
date equipment, and a wider range of course offerings
(Darling-Hammond, 2004). On the contrary, students
of color are disproportionately likely to find
themselves in poorly-funded schools with few
facilities and inadequate resources (Zirkel & Cantor,
2004) or assigned to non-college preparatory courses
of study (Fischer et al., 1996). Ostensibly, these
inequitable systems of school finance inflict
disproportionate harm on economically
disadvantaged students of color (Taylor & Piche,
1991). As organizations like NEA (National
Education Association) call for more funding for
public education, other organizations such as First
Class Education counter that the problem is not the
amount of funding but the ways in which that funding
is spent (Kumashiro, 2008).
Curriculum Inequalities
Educational issues related to de facto
segregation, tracking placement, and funding inequity
are further exacerbated by curriculum inequalities.
According to Ochoa and Cadiero-Kaplan (2004),
Our public schools are stratified institutions in
which some students are provided with high status
knowledge that yields social and economic control,
while others are relegated to a second class
citizenship both within our K-12 public school
system and in the larger society (p. 27). At the high
school level, for example, Oakes (1996) asserts that
students of color have been traditionally
underrepresented in academic programs and
overrepresented in general education or vocational
programs where they receive fewer core courses like
mathematics, science, and English. Darling-
Hammond (2000) also claims that when schools
which have large number of students of color offer
any advanced or college preparatory courses, they
offer them to only a very tiny fraction of students.
Moreover, in many racially integrated high schools, a
large number of Black students have not been
STRUCTURAL INEQUALITIES IN EDUCATIONAL OPPORTUNITIES 3

sufficiently prepared in lower grades to take on the
AP curriculum (Russel, 2005).
Lack of Access to Qualified Teachers
Students access to equitable educational
opportunities is further constrained by their lack of
access to qualified teachers. Perez Huber, Huidor,
Malagon, Sanchez, and Solorzano (2006) claim that
access to qualified teachers is one of the most
inequitably distributed educational resources among
poor and minority children and that this lack of
access contributes to the achievement gap between
students of color and white students. Holding socio-
economic status constant, Ferguson (1991) asserts
that the single most important predictor of increased
student learning is teacher expertise, which is
measured by teacher performance on a state
certification program, along with experience and
masters degrees. A significant number of better
qualified and more expert teachers are usually found
in schools in affluent neighborhoods serving middle-
class and white students; on the other hand, less
qualified teachers are found disproportionately in
schools serving large numbers of economically-
disadvantaged students of color (Kumashiro, 2012;
Lankford, Loeb, & Wyckoff, 2002). In their study,
Perez Huber et al. (2006) report that almost 98% of
teachers at the Beverly Hills Unified School District
(BHUSD) which has a large enrollment of white
students hold a full credential compare to the 79% at
the Los Angeles Unified School District (LAUSD)
which has a large enrollment of poor students of
color. Moreover, while 2.4% and 1.7% of LAUSDs
teachers hold District and Pre-intern credentials,
BHUSD has none (Perez et al., 2006).
Moreover, Kumashiro (2012) reports that
teachers receiving traditional preparation are more
likely to be teaching in the most elite schools while
those from fast-track alternative preparation
programs are far more likely to teach in schools with
large percentage of students of color and students
living in poverty. For example, students in
Californias most segregated schools with large
number of students of color were more than five
times as likely to have uncertified teachers as those in
predominantly white schools (Shields et al., 2001).
Ferguson (1991) confirms that these schools usually
have large class sizes, high rate of poverty, and large
percentage of students of color whose parents have
low educational level.
In another study, Darling-Hammond (2004)
concludes that access to high quality teachers and
teaching has positive and substantial impact on
students school achievement. In fact, Darling-
Hammond claims that a 1% increase in teacher
quality, as measured by NTE (National Teacher
Examination) scores, was associated with 3-5%
decline in percentage of students failing the
(standardized) examination. According to Kumashiro
(2012), When teachers are not learning new ideas,
they fall back on their own experiences and
observations, and turn to common sense, which are
often the very ideas and practices that need to be
questioned and improved upon (p. 48). On the
contrary, good teachers construct active learning
opportunities involving student collaboration, help
students access prior knowledge, structure
meaningful learning tasks, and engage students
higher order thought processes (Braddock &
McPartland, 1993, as cited in Darling-Hammond,
2000).
The aforementioned structural inequalities are
further exacerbated by cultural deficit thinking
framework prevalent among some teachers, staff, and
administrators in schools with large numbers of
students of color. They have this presumption that the
continued low levels of achievement on the part of
students of color must be a function of genes, culture,
or a lack of effort and will (Darling-Hammond, 2004;
Solorzano & Yosso, 2001; Valencia, 2010). Howard
(2010) asserts that while there is a myriad of reasons
for the achievement gap, one of the most important
factors in this perennial underachievement is that
teachers do not expect all students to succeed,
believing instead that poverty makes some students
incapable of high academic achievement.
The complex structural inequalities caused by
the overlapping of de facto segregation, tracking
placement, funding inequity, curricular inequalities,
and unequal access to qualified teachers significantly
influence students educational outcomes. These
inequalities reveal that educational outcomes for
students of color are much more a function of their
unequal access to key educational resources,
including skilled teachers and quality curriculum,
than they are a function of race (Darling-Hammond,
2004). Solorzano and Yosso (2001) claim that these
students fail because of the unequal conditions (e.g.,
structures and processes) at the schools they attend
and because schools reinforce and reproduce societal
inequalities. These inequalities confirm Reids (2007)
argument that the structures, practices, and outcomes
of public schooling have not always been democratic
in the sense that they have been implicated in helping
to reproduce an unequal status quo. Thus, Darling-
Hammond (2000) reiterates that if we do not
recognize that students experience very different
educational realities, policies will continue to be
based on the presumption that it is students, not their
schools or classroom circumstances, that are the
sources of unequal educational attainment.




STRUCTURAL INEQUALITIES IN EDUCATIONAL OPPORTUNITIES 4

PART II
Theoretical Analysis
The American educational system has been
historically marred by issues of inequality and
injustice. Despite the common rhetoric that education
is an important aspect of the national culture and the
economy, and that it is essential for international
understanding, social cohesion, and multiculturalism,
our educational system has failed in its mandate to
deliver equitable and quality education to all
students. Many of the students especially from urban
cities with large number of working class, immigrant,
and impoverished population perform far below the
proficiency level academically when compared to
their counterparts from more affluent urban and sub-
urban neighborhoods. Our students in general
compare poorly in international competitions such as
in PISA (Program for International Student
Assessment) and in TIMSS (Trends in International
Mathematics and Science Study). Unfortunately,
teachers become the scapegoats. Educational
policymakers apparently overlooked the structural
and institutional biases and historical legacies
regarding oppression and injustice which continually
breed social injustice and educational inequality.
These structural inequalities, however, could be
understood better and analyzed further using the
capitalist globalization and cultural reproduction
theories. Using these social frameworks, we could
formulate and identify some culturally and socially
transformative resolutions to the pervasive
educational inequalities.
Globalization, economy, and education are, in so
many ways, interrelated and interdependent with each
other. Because it affects employment, globalization
touches upon one of the primary traditional goals of
education which is the preparation for work
(Burbules & Torres, 2000). The global educational
discourses, explicitly supported by multinational
organizations such as the OECD (Organization for
Economic Cooperation and Development), the UN
(United Nations), and the WB (World Bank), validate
the concept that education is an economic investment
with the goal of developing human capital or better
workers to promote economic growth and
multiculturalism (Spring, 2009). Rury (2009) points
out that education has become an increasingly
important aspect of the national culture and the
economy. Burbules and Torres (2000) also state that
the broader economic effects of globalization tend to
force national educational policies into a neoliberal
framework that emphasizes performance. Although
globalization of education aims to promote
multiculturalism, its most obvious goals are to
prepare students for knowledge economy and to
educate them for work within the knowledge
economy.
There is also an assumption that the neoliberal
ideology of globalization, particularly those
implemented by bilateral, multilateral, and
international organizations, is reflected in an
educational agenda that privileges, if not directly
imposes, particular policies for evaluation, financing,
assessment, standards, teacher training, curriculum,
instruction, and testing (Burbules & Torres, 2000).
Kumashiro (2012) outlines the reforms aligned with
these policies, namely: students must be focused
exclusively on scoring well on standardized test,
teachers must be held accountable to raising those
test scores, and parents must be given the choice to
move their children out of failing schools.
Apparently, the capitalist globalization theory, as
reflected on its neoliberal ideology and as highlighted
in the Race to the Top initiative of the Obama
administration, similar to the No Child Left Behind
(NCLB) Act of the Bush administration, presumes
that competition will solve all problems, and that
school systems will improve when structured like a
marketplace where schools, teacher preparation
programs, educational services, and even teachers
compete. Unfortunately, this ideology promotes an
understanding of equality and freedom that presumes
a level playing field and that encourages competition
(Kumashiro, 2012).
Oftentimes, the decisions related to educational
agenda are made and influenced by individuals or
groups who belong to the core societies. Seidman
(2008) describes them to be economically, politically,
militarily, and culturally dominant. Certainly,
curricular programs in public education reflect the
kinds of knowledge the global community and the
labor market need, and we can infer that educational
agenda implemented in public schools promote social
reproduction and class domination. Class
domination, according to Seidman (2008), is
accomplished insofar as the knowledges, lifestyles,
tastes, and aesthetic judgment and social mannerisms
of the dominant class become socially legitimate and
dominant (p. 143). The emphasis in standards
movement to certain subject areas such as
mathematics, science, and reading is a classic
example of class domination. These are the academic
skills that carry a premium, and educators at all levels
of the school system are struggling with the challenge
of improving students achievement in these subject
areas (Rury, 2008) because these subject areas have
the highest national and global relevance and
legitimacy. In fact, these subject areas are most
frequently linked to various sectors of economy and
to the higher demand for advanced educational
credentials (Kumashiro, 2008, 2012; Naidoo &
Jamieson, 2005; Phillips & Schweisfurth, 2008;
Rury, 2008; Tsui, 2003).
STRUCTURAL INEQUALITIES IN EDUCATIONAL OPPORTUNITIES 5

Globalization has paradoxical and contradictory
implications too; while it provides opportunities to
prepare individuals for engagement in a globalized
world, it also polarizes, stratifies, and reproduces
different zones in our society. The proponents of
capitalist globalization see this social stratification
essential for core societies to dominate and exploit
the weaker and subordinate (periphery) societies
(Seidman, 2008). This social reproduction is also
replicated in our current educational system.
Currently, there is the growing global demand
for individuals who have strong mathematical,
critical thinking, technological, and communication
skills in the world of employment. International
assessments are even conducted in order to gauge
students competencies in these areas. Recently, the
OECD released the results of its 2009 PISA tests of
15-year old students in 65 countries in the areas of
Math, Reading, and Science which revealed that all
participating regions of China outperformed the
United States, which ranked 23
rd
in Science, 17
th
in
Reading, and 32
nd
in Math (Dillon, 2010). In TIMSS,
the Americans did not perform well either. This
relatively poor performance of Americans in PISA
and TIMSS fueled interest in intensified testing
policies in the United States (Kumashiro, 2012).
Subsequently, educational policy makers re-
evaluated, modified, and strengthened standards-
based curriculum and reforms.
As offshoots of capitalist globalization
framework in the educational system, standards-
based reforms highlight the rewards and sanctions
based on students achievement in standardized
assessments. The outcomes of standardized
assessments determine grade retention or promotion
as well as graduation for students, merit pay award or
threats of dismissal for teachers and administrators,
and extra funds or loss of registration, reconstitution,
or loss of funds for schools (Darling-Hammond,
2000; Howard, 2010; Kumashiro, 2012). The
implementation of the NCLB Act of 2002
strengthened the Title I accountability by requiring
States to implement statewide testing systems
covering all public schools and students.
According to the NCLB law, districts and
schools that failed to make Annual Yearly Progress
(AYP) toward proficiency goals were subject to
corrective actions and restructuring measures, while
those that met or exceeded AYP objectives were
eligible for academic awards (Kumashiro, 2012;
Rury, 2008). However, because of structural
inequalities poor students of color experience, they
are further marginalized in their educational and
social spheres. Rury (2008) claims that urban
children often lack the social and cultural capital to
compete for higher education opportunities, and
Greene, (2000) observes that schools in
neighborhoods are thought to be ineffectual in the
face of such obstacles.
There is also a common perception that children
who come from impoverished families that are
concentrated in larger cities, from single-parent
households, and from minority ethnic and racial
groups have lower academic achievement compared
to those who come from middle-class and more
affluent neighborhoods. According to Leonardo and
Valencia (2007), much of the public imagines people
of color in urban areas as drains of the school system,
lazy, helpless, and hopeless. This phenomenon
validates Bourdieus concept of social reproduction
which explains that individuals who share a structural
or class position have similar, repetitive experiences
that produce a common habitus which, in turn,
structures their social practices sets out guidelines
and limits but allows for individual innovation
(Seidman, 2008).
Although Rury (2008) argues that differences in
social and cultural capital appear to have accounted
for great disparities in the school performance of
children from different backgrounds, Bourdieus
theory of social reproduction explains that those who
come from traditionally marginalized groups have
opportunities to break the social barriers that hinder
their economic and social mobility if they have
innovation and creativity (Seidman, 2008), and if
their environment provides them an atmosphere for
creativity, innovation, and learning.
If schools provide equal educational provisions
and equitable structural conditions to all students,
schools can mediate the process of realizing and
increasing such cultural, social, and educational
capital for all students. In a study conducted by
Peterson (1989, as cited in Darling-Hammond, 2000),
the researcher concludes that 7
th
grade at risk
students randomly assigned to remedial, average, and
honors mathematics classes showed that at risk
students who took the honors class offering a pre-
algebra curriculum outperformed all other students of
similar backgrounds. Oakes (2003) also claims that
when students of similar backgrounds and initial
achievement levels are exposed to more and less
challenging curriculum material, those given richer
curriculum opportunities outperform those placed in
less challenging classes. The findings of these studies
affirm Bourdieus argument that individuals are
neither totally free agents nor passive products of
social structure and that habitus always operates in
relation to fields and capital (Seidman, 2008, p.
142).
As Howard (2010) claims, Among the more
important aspects of understanding poverty is the
recognition that while there are complex obstacles
involved in teaching students from impoverished
backgrounds, students are still capable of being
STRUCTURAL INEQUALITIES IN EDUCATIONAL OPPORTUNITIES 6

academically successful (p. 47). Howard thus
confirms that students have the capability to achieve
regardless of their socio-economic backgrounds.
Overall, the findings from relevant social
researches reveal that students from privileged
backgrounds have different and enriched educational
experiences relative to the desired and valued cultural
forms and practices of the dominant society. Most
often, these students are found in selective
enrolment schools where politicians and wealthy
families send their children, such as the school where
President Obama sent his children (Kumashiro,
2012). Kumashiro states further that these schools are
well-resourced with up-to-date curriculum materials,
advanced laboratories, safer and healthful facilities,
opportunities for extracurricular activities, and small
class sizes.
Students experience different learning
opportunities because of structural inequalities in the
educational system and disparities in access to well-
qualified teachers, high quality curriculum, and small
schools and class sizes. English language learners in
our nation, specifically Latino students, are viewed as
having linguistic deficits (Ochoa & Cadiero-Kaplan,
2004). Even among the college bound, non-Asian
students of color take fewer and less demanding
math, science, and foreign language courses (Pelavin
& Kane, as cited in Darling-Hammond, 2000). These
structural inequalities define students higher
educational opportunities as well.
Likewise, the emphasis put on the English
language is perceived by some critics as a sign of
neocolonialism and new imperialism which are
embedded in the ideology of global capitalism. The
domination of English-speaking institutions in the
global trade in educational services contributes to the
growth of English as the global language (Spring,
2009). Even branches of universities from non-
English speaking countries often use English as the
medium of instruction because they believe that the
use of English language could lead to global
educational culture although the emphasis given to
English language is seen by some critics as the
perpetuation of hegemony and dominant culture.
Regardless of how people perceive it, English now
serves as the main international academic language
(Spring, 2009; Rizvi & Lingard).
Although there are studies that show the
academic success of students of color and of those
who were traditionally marginalized, the structural
inequalities as manifested in de facto segregation,
tracking placement, funding inequity, curricular
inequalities, and lack of access to qualified teachers
undeniably play crucial roles in cultural reproduction
and educational inequity. The cultural-deficit
thinking framework of some school personnel
exacerbates the dehumanizing conditions of some
students. As a result, our educational system serves
the purpose of neoliberal and capitalist globalization
agenda that promotes meritocracy and competition in
education and in society in general.
As advocates of social justice and educational
equity, we must acknowledge and problematize the
structural inequalities in our educational system so
we can reframe the dominant educational discourse
that have been historically accepted as common
sense and provide all students with a genuine
equality of access to meaningful and equitable
educational opportunities. As Howard (2010) argues,
there is undoubtedly a correlation between socio-
economic status and school outcomes, and a litany of
data highlights the nexus between race, social class,
and school performance, which must be recognized
in any analysis of the achievement gap across racial
groups (pp. 46-47).

PART III
Implications and Strategies for Social and
Educational Justice
The educational capital of the members of the
community serves as an instrument to increase the
nations human and economic capital. To illustrate,
Sweetland (1996) claims that individuals and society
derive economic benefits from educational
investment in people. Apropos to this ideology,
educators should provide all students with equitable
educational opportunities so students develop their
fullest potentials as self-actualized individuals and
responsible global citizens. Kyburg, Hertberg-Davis,
and Callahan (2007) report that students who take
more rigorous and more challenging courses are
better prepared for college than those who have not.
Moreover, Handwerck, Tognatta, Coley, and Gitomer
(2008) assert that high school students who take and
succeed in rigorous academic coursework are more
likely to enjoy later academic and professional
success. Thus, equitable investment in education is
the key to sustainable human development.
Despite the promising rhetoric attached to
education, it is apparent that the United States has
failed to deliver equitable education to its people.
According to Andrade-Duncan and Morrell (2008),
equitable education means that people should receive
an education specific to their needs as defined by
their circumstances and that educational institutions
provide service on the basis of specific needs (social,
economic, linguistic, political) of the people being
served. Equitable education means employing
different resources and pedagogy that match the
specific needs of the community, and it does not
employ an assessment that measures student
achievement on the basis of assimilation into white,
middle-class norms.
STRUCTURAL INEQUALITIES IN EDUCATIONAL OPPORTUNITIES 7

In contrast, our educational system reflects the
glaring and overlapping structural inequalities found
in all levels of schooling. These challenges, however,
serve as focal points for hope and possibilities
especially among those who work in educational
institutions and their allied agencies in various fields.
There are socially- and culturally-transformative
strategies that could promote social justice and
educational equity; these strategies include the
following: reimagining the roles of critical
educators, redefining the responsibilities of teacher
education programs and improving teacher
recruitment strategies, reframing educational policies
and challenging disproportionate allocation of
resources, developing a school-based talent
curriculum and promoting a college-going culture in
high schools, expanding access to more rigorous
courses and ensuring high academic expectations at
all levels, and reframing the dominant discourse in
educational system.
Reimagining the Roles of Critical Educators
Acknowledging the seriousness of the negative
impacts of structural inequalities in our educational
system, we need to revisit the traditional roles of
educators perceived from the common sense
perspective and reimagine their roles crucial for the
promotion of genuine educational equity and social
justice. Duncan-Andrade and Morrell (2008) suggest
that educators should create a critical counterculture
in their classrooms and programs that mount a
deliberate attack on any and all forms of low
expectations and social, political, and economic
exploitation, replacing them with a culture of
excellence and justice. They should create an
academic culture that integrates the confrontation of
the immediate material conditions of the community
where the teaching is taking place and should connect
the local struggles for freedom to larger, state,
national, and global struggles over similar issues
(Duncan-Andrade & Morrell, 2008).
When students see the interrelationships of their
own struggles with those outside their spaces, they
will be able to develop a close awareness of their
own issues and challenge the oppressive racial
microaggressions which have been accepted as
common sense assumptions. Howard (2010)
further suggests that educators should be empathetic
because only empathetic educators can eradicate
deficit-based thinking that frequently serves as a
major obstacle to academic success for countless
students, particularly those from culturally diverse
and low-income backgrounds. According to Howard,
empathetic educators hold students accountable
despite difficult circumstances, see promise and
possibilities and assets in students, become active
problem solvers, and develop critical and complex
teaching practices to engage students. These
educators also listen and learn from students
experiences to inform teaching and view learning as a
reciprocal process between teachers and students.
Reeve and Jang (2006) assert that teacher
expectations correlated with students motivation to
succeed; thus, when students feel their teachers
support, they are more likely to feel a sense of
connection to school and more likely to be
academically successful. Through teachers pervasive
and consistent belief that students could succeed and
through their scaffolding to support and challenge
able students, schools help create an environment that
nurtures the growth of academic talent among
students of diverse backgrounds (Kyburg et al.,
2007).
Developing a School-based Talent Curriculum
Critical educators should create opportunities for
students to use what they are learning in ways that
directly impact their lives (Duncan-Andrade &
Morrell, 2008). These educators should help prepare
their students develop common goals and prepare
them to work collectively toward their goals.
Moreover, critical educators should develop a
curriculum and pedagogy that address the material
concerns of students and their community and that
permit and encourage students to use what they are
learning to act upon those concerns. These can be
done by encouraging students, through the
supervision, guidance, and collaboration of any
discipline-specific and English Language Arts
teachers, to conduct research studies related to their
immediate social realities and experiences. By
providing culturally congruent and socially relevant
learning experiences in schools, critical educators
make education more meaningful to their students.
Establishing Culturally-relevant and Meaningful
Assessment Tools
Since educators are equally responsible in
assessing the growth and progress of their students,
they should develop a valid and reliable form of
assessment in order to gauge whether genuine and
meaningful learning has been achieved by students.
One central tenet of critical pedagogy is reflective
learning where students reflect on what they have
learned to evaluate their own work and to move
forward with their work on the basis of the
knowledge that gained from that reflection (Duncan-
Andrade & Morrell, 2008). Through reflections,
students will be able to evaluate their own efforts on
the basis of their own growth, and they will be able to
progress gradually from the stage when they require
adult guidance and supervision to the stage when
they can perform independently. This type of
assessment reflects the theory of Vygotskys (1978)
zone of proximal development (ZPD), as opposed to
the norm-referenced assessments inherent in high-
stakes tests which are not reflective of students
STRUCTURAL INEQUALITIES IN EDUCATIONAL OPPORTUNITIES 8

genuine growth and development, since historically
these assessments are culturally-bias and socially-
incongruent.
Redefining the Responsibilities of Teacher
Education Programs and Institutions
Another strategy that can promote social justice
and educational equity is by redefining the roles of
teacher education programs and institutions.
According to Levine (2006), more than half of the
teachers who graduate from teacher education
program feel as though they have not been
adequately prepared. This observation should prompt
us to strengthen our contemporary teacher education
programs by creating centers of excellence for
teacher education. These institutions should employ a
rigorous selection of best candidates for teacher
education programs. They should focus on the
preparation of teachers for urban contexts, teach
about critical pedagogy, critique the banking model
of education, and eliminate the pedagogy of
poverty (Haberman, 2006, as cited in Duncan-
Andrade & Morrell, 2008, p. 179) that emphasizes
back to basics, drill-and-kill scripted literacy, zero
tolerance discipline policies, high-stakes testing, and
one-size fits all standards based instruction.
Increasing Teacher Education Research and
Enriching Teacher Education Programs
Teacher education programs should increase the
impact of teacher education research and improve
coursework in teacher education programs. This can
be done by including discussions of critical theory
and history or sociology of urban education in
addition to the common methods and foundations
courses (Duncan-Andrade & Morrell, 2008). There
should be a strong focus on the research studies that
document the various ways that beginning teachers
are drawing upon critical pedagogy to make powerful
connections with their students. Kumashiro (2012)
emphasizes that teacher education programs should
establish and strengthen connections to the
surrounding urban school system by preparing and
supporting teachers who are finding innovative and
effective ways to improve education for Black and
Latina/o students, the group of students who
dominate the school system but whose levels of
achievement and attainment are disturbingly low.
Improving Teacher Recruitment Strategies
Recruitment of diversified pool of applicants and
faculty in higher education benefits the general
college population in general and the students of
color in particular (Perez Huber et al., 2006). Thus,
college of education should create scholarships that
target students of color because, oftentimes, financial
issue is a determining factor in the persistence of
college students (Perez Huber et al., 2006).


Reframing Educational Policies
Educators and policymakers who are serious
about addressing structural inequalities in the
educational system must find the courage to commit
resources to low-income urban schools. Duncan-
Andrade and Morrell (2008) suggest that schools
serving poor children should receive resources
substantially more than schools serving wealthy
children, because despite the Title I initiative, an
honest assessment of school funding reveals that
wealthy parents more than make up for that funding
gap with the social and economic capital that they
provide to their local school.
Challenging Disproportionate Allocation of
Resources
Educational policymakers should challenge the
disproportionate allocation of educational resources
in low income and rural areas that further perpetuates
educational disparities between the wealthy, elite,
and impoverished or low-income students (Russell,
2005). By using the Critical Race Theory framework,
educators, researchers, and policymakers should
critique school practices and policies that are both
overtly and covertly racist (DeCuir & Dixson, 2004;
Perez Huber, 2011). Since CRT acknowledges how
social class and gender intersect with race, it is
imperative that educators and researchers uncover
and unmask the persistent and oppressive nature of
the normativity of Whiteness, the co-option and
distortion of oppositional discourses, and the ways in
which policies that are offered as remedies to
underachievement and educational disparity that are
not in the best interest of marginalized groups, but
rather serve the elite (DeCuir & Dixson, 2004).
Promoting a College-going Culture
Schools should also promote a college-going
culture. They should create a culture of college
expectations and provide opportunities for students to
be exposed to college-related activities (DeVance
Taliaferro & DeCuir-Gunby, 2007) such as visiting
colleges and universities, participating in programs
such as Upward Bound, EAOP, etc., and inviting
alumni who are either currently enrolled in
universities or have graduated from universities to
give motivational talks to students. Schools should
provide an environment where teachers, parents, and
student peers have high expectations and encourages
students to prepare for college (Perez Huber et al.,
2006). Perez Huber et al. further assert that teachers
who expect their students to go to college improve
students chances for a successful transition to
college by increasing their opportunities to learn.
Furthermore, Wing (2004) states that the most
academically successful students of color or students
from poor families were those who found or created a
network of adults at school who cared about their
college and career aspirations (p. 3). Therefore, if
STRUCTURAL INEQUALITIES IN EDUCATIONAL OPPORTUNITIES 9

teachers expect students to go to college and succeed,
Devance Taliaferro and DeCuir-Gunby (2007)
suggest that the academic community should
encourage students to believe that college is in their
future, and teachers should relay their expectations
from their students to graduate from high school and
to attend college.
Extending Educational Opportunities to
Traditionally Underserved Gifted Learners
Increasing access alone will not resolve the
inequities experienced by students in many urban
educational environments. Educational opportunities
should be extended to traditionally underserved
gifted learners, and teachers should recognize the
diversity and complexity of their students
backgrounds; moreover, teachers should be cognizant
of the potential limitations of students who are less
prepared to engage in more rigorous academic study
(Kyburg et al., 2007). Hallet and Venegas (2011)
assert that administrators, counselors, and teachers
must understand the course-taking patterns and
opportunities for highly motivated students who
attend low-income and academically at-risk high
schools.
Reframing the Current Dominant Discourse in
Education
An equally important strategy towards the
attainment of educational equity and social justice is
reframing the current dominant discourse in
education. Lakoff (2004) explains that our frames
shape our social policies and the institutions we form
to carry out policies, and that reframing is social
change. Essential to our reframing of the dominant
discourse in education is imagining more effective
ways to collectivize, collaborate, and build coalition
(Kumashiro, 2012). Kumashiro emphasizes forming
coalition based on constituents (i.e., teachers, school
employees, parents, students, community advocates,
taxpayers, researchers, and anyone concerned about
our children and our future) strengths in order to
amplify different voices, energize different groups,
and interweave different causes. It is, therefore,
important that as we form our coalition, we have to
acknowledge the different forms of community
cultural wealth such as aspirational, linguistic,
familial, social, navigational, resistant, and spiritual
capital (Perez Huber, 2009) which we can use to
reframe our ideals, values, aspirations, and hopes.
According to Greene (2000), through reflective and
impassioned teaching we can do far more to excite
and stimulate many sorts of young persons to reach
beyond themselves, to create meanings, to look
through wider and more informed perspectives at the
actualities of their lived lives (p. 172).
Conclusion
Because education is perceived to be the great
equalizer, the school environments must promote
equity to realize equal opportunity as an outcome
(DeVance Taliaferro & DeCuir-Gunby, 2007). Given
the educational constraints of structural inequalities,
we can still achieve social justice and educational
equity by reimagining the roles of critical educators,
redefining the responsibilities of teacher education
programs and improving teacher recruitment
strategies, reframing educational policies and
challenging disproportionate allocation of resources,
developing a school-based talent curriculum and
promoting a college-going culture in high schools,
expanding access to more rigorous courses and
ensuring high academic expectations at all levels, and
reframing the dominant discourse in educational
system. Above all, it is imperative for us to reframe
what the purposes of U.S. education really ought to
be in these times, and to reimagine what it means to
be concerned about our youths futures.

References
Barker, C. (2008). Cultural studies: Theory and
practice. 3
rd
Ed. Los Angeles: Sage
Publications.
Burbules, N. C., & Torres, C. A. (2000).
Globalization and education: An
introduction. In N. C. Burbules & C. A.
Torres (Eds.), Globalization and education:
Critical perspectives. New York: Routledge.
Cremin, L. (1970). American education: The
colonial experience 16071783. New York:
Harper & Row.
Darling-Hammond, L. (2000). New standards and
old inequalities: School reform and the
education of African American students.
The Journal of Negro Education, 69(4), 263-
287. Retrieved from ProQuest Library
database.
Darling-Hammond, L. (2004). The color line in
American education: Race, resources, and
student achievement. Du Bois Review, 1(2),
213-246.doi:
10.1017/S1742058X0404202X.
DeCuir, J. T., & Dixson, A. D. (2004). So when
it comes out, they arent that surprised that it
is there: Using critical race theory as a tool
of analysis of race and racism in education.
Educational Researcher, 33(3), 26-31.
Retrieved from JSTOR database.
DeVance Taliaferro, J., & DeCuir-Gunby, J. T.
(2007). African Americans educators
perspectives on the Advanced Placement
opportunity gap. The Urban Review, 40(2),
164-185. doi: 10.10071/s11256-007-0066-6.
Duncan-Andrade, J. M. R., & Morrell, E. (2008).
The art of critical pedagogy: Possibilities for
moving from theory to practice in urban
schools. New York: Peter Lang.
STRUCTURAL INEQUALITIES IN EDUCATIONAL OPPORTUNITIES 10

Ferguson, R. F. (1991). Paying for public
education: New evidence on how and why
money matters. Harvard Journal on
Legislation, 28, 465-498.
Fischer, C. S., Hout, M., Sanchez Jankowski, M.,
Lucas, S. R., Swidler, A., &Voss, K. (1996).
Inequality by design: Cracking the bell
curve myth. Princeton, NJ: Princeton
University Press.
Greene, M. (2000). Releasing the imagination:
Essays on education, the arts, and social
change. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Guinier, L., &Torres, G. (2002). The miners
canary: Enlisting race, resisting power, and
transforming democracy. Cambridge, MA:
Harvard University Press.
Handwerck, P., Tognatta, N., Coley, R. J., &
Gitomer, G. H. (2008). Access to success:
Patterns of Advanced Placement
participation in U. S. high schools.
Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service.
Retrieved from www.ets.org/research/pic.
Howard, T. C. (2010). Why race and culture
matter in schools: Closing the achievement
gap in Americas classrooms. New York:
Teachers College Press.
Kozol, J. (1991). Savage Inequalities. New York:
Crown.
Kumashiro, K. K. (2008). The seduction of
common sense: How the right has framed
the debate on Americas schools. New York:
Teachers College Press.
Kumashiro, K. K. (2012). Bad teacher! How
blaming teachers distorts the bigger picture.
New York: Teachers College Press.
Kyburg, R. M., Hertberg-Davis, H., & Callahan,
C. M. (2007). Advanced Placement and
International Baccalaureate programs:
Optimal learning environments to talented
minorities? Journal of Advanced
Academics, 18(2), 172-215.
Lakoff, G. (2004). Dont think of an elephant:
Know your values and frame the debate.
New York: Chelsea Green.
Lankford, H., Loeb, S., & Wyckoff, J. (2002).
Teacher sorting and the plight of urban
schools: A descriptive analysis. Education
Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 24: 3762.
Levine, A. (2006). Educating school teachers.
New York: Education Schools Project.
Morrow, R. A., & Torres, C. A. (2000). The state,
globalization, and educational policy. In N.
C. Burbules & C. A. Torres (Eds.),
Globalization and education: Critical
perspectives. New York: Routledge.
Naidoo, R., & Jamieson, I. (2005). Knowledge in
the marketplace: The global
commodification of teaching and learning in
higher education. In P. Ninnes & M.
Hellsten (Eds.), Internationalizing higher
education: Critical explorations of pedagogy
and policy (pp. 119-140). The Netherlands:
Springer.
Oakes, J. (1996). Two cities tracking and within
school segregation. In E. C. Lagemann & L.
P. Miller (Eds.), Brown v. Board of
Education: The Challenge for Todays
Schools (pp. 8190). NY: Teachers College
Press.
Oakes, J. (2003). Teaching to change the world.
Boston, MA: McGraw-Hill.
Ochoa, A. M., & Cadiero-Kaplan, K. (2004).
Towards promoting biliteracy and academic
achievement: Educational programs for high
school Latino English language learners.
The High School Journal, 87(3), 27-43.
Retrieved from ProQuest Research Library
database.
Prez Huber, L. (2009). Challenging racist
nativist framing: Acknowledging the
community cultural wealth of undocumented
Chicana college students to reframe the
immigration debate. Harvard Educational
Review, 79(4), 704-729.
Prez Huber, L. (2011). Discourses of racist
nativism in California public education:
English dominance as racist nativist
microaggressions. Journal of Educational
Studies, 47(4), 379-401.
Prez Huber, L., Huidor, O., Malagon, M.,
Sanchez, G., & Solorzano, D. (2006).
Falling through the cracks: Critical
transitions in the Latina/o educational
pipeline (Rep. No. 7). Los Angeles, CA:
UCLA Chicano Studies Research Center.
Phillips, D., & Schweisfurth, M. (2008).
Comparative and international education:
An introduction to theory, method, and
practice. London: Continuum.
Raduntz, H. (2007). The marketization of
education within the global capitalist
economy. In M. W. Apple, J. Kenway, & M.
Singh (Eds.), Globalizing education:
Policies, pedagogies, & politics. New York:
Peter Lang.
Reid, A. (2007). Rethinking the democratic
purposes of public schooling in a globalizing
world. In M. W. Apple, J. Kenway, & M.
Singh (Eds.), Globalizing education:
Policies, pedagogies, & politics. New York:
Peter Lang.
Reeve,J., & Jang, H. (2006). What teachers say
and do to support students autonomy during
STRUCTURAL INEQUALITIES IN EDUCATIONAL OPPORTUNITIES 11

learning activity. Journal of Educational
Psychology, 98(1), 209-218.
Rizvi, F., & Lingard, B. (2010). Globalizing
education policy. London: Routledge.
Rury, J. L. (2008). Education and social change:
Contours in the history of American
schooling. New York: Routledge.
Russell, M. L. (2005). Untapped talent and
unlimited potential: African American
students and the science pipeline. Negro
Educational Review, 56 (2 & 3), 167-182.
Retrieved from ProQuest Research Library
database.
Seidman, S. (2008). Contested knowledge: Social
theory today. 4
th
Ed. MA: Blackwell.
Shields, P. M., Humphrey, D. C., Wechsler, M.
E., Riel, L. M., Tiffany-Morales, J.,
Woodworth, K., Youg, V. M., & Price, T.
(2001). The status of the teaching profession
2001. Santa Cruz, CA: The Center for the
Future of Teaching and Learning.
Slaughter, S., & Leslie, L. (1997). Academic
capitalism: Politics, policies, and the
entrepreneurial university. Baltimore: John
Hopkins University Press.
Sneider, J. (2009). Privilege, equity, and the
Advanced Placement program: A tug of war.
Journal of Curriculum Studies, 41(6), 813-
831.
Spring, J. (2009). Globalization of education: An
introduction. New York: Routledge.
Sweetland, S. (1996). Human capital theory:
Foundations of a field of inquiry. Review of
Educational Research, 66(3), 341-359.
Retrieved from ProQuest Research Library
database.
Tatum, B. D. (1997). Why are all the Black kids
sitting together in the cafeteria? And other
conversations about race. New York: Basic
Books.
Taylor, W. L., & Piche, D. M. (1991). A report
on shortchanging children: The impact of
fiscal inequity on the education of students
at risk. Prepared for the Committee on
Education and Labor, US House of
Representatives. Washington, DC: US
Government Printing Office.
Tsui, L. (2003). Reproducing social inequalities
through higher education: Critical thinking
as valued capital. Journal of Negro
Education, 72(3), 318-332. Retrieved from
JSTOR database.
Valencia, R.R. (2010). Dismantling contemporary
deficit thinking: Educational thought and
practice. In R. Delgado & J. Stefancic
(Eds.), The critical educator. New York:
Routledge.
Vopat, M. (2011). Magnet schools, innate talent
and social justice. Theory and Research in
Education, 9(1), 59-72. doi:
10.1177/1477878510394811.
Vygotsky, L. (1978). Mind in society. Cambridge,
MA: Harvard University Press.
Wells, A. S. (1996). Reexamining social science
research on school desegregation: Long
versus short term effects. In E. C. Lagemann
& L. P. Miller (Eds.) Brown v. Board of
Education: The challenge for todays
schools (pp. 91106). NY: Teachers College
Press.
Wing, J. Y. (2004). Closing the achievement gap
in diverse California high schools.
(UC/ACCORD Public Policy Series Rep.
No. PB-003-0504). Los Angeles:
UC/ACCORD.
Zirkel, S., & Cantor, N. (2004). 50 years after
Brown v. Board of Education: The promise
and challenge of multicultural education.
Journal of Social Issues, 60(1), 1-15.