Previously, I discussed how income inequality could lead to inequality in education, precisely due to the economic food chain/economic capital, the fair contest/cultural capital, and the privatization of schools which is partly both social and cultural capital.

The income inequality in the United States is partly attributed to the economic capital or the accumulation of wealth, which we discussed last week. This week, I would like to focus primarily on social and cultural capital emphasizing the non-economic resources that drive our social mobility and why this contributes to educational inequality.

Much like last week, starting at the beginning, we can see that social and cultural capital are driving factors for continued educational success in the United States perpetuating the vicious cycle of inequalities in education. Studies have shown that cultural and social capital affects the likelihood of college-bound success, teacher bias, and higher success for children from high-socioeconomic backgrounds.

Social capital is the use of social relationships and networking to drive ones social mobility, while cultural capital is the use of embodied, institutionalized, and objectified assets to do so. Conceptualized by Pierre Bourdieu, these theories reflect the non-economic resources that drive our social mobility, that is being used to reinforce the differences within our education system between socio-economic backgrounds.

Social capital can explicitly be seen in the private schools I mentioned last week. Those children's whose families can afford private school are making connections with other students, adults, organizations, and corporations that match their high socioeconomic background, in other words, have a more significant opportunity for networking.

Private schools have funding to prepare children for a more prestigious, and unfortunately in some cases a better future by offering children opportunities to build their social capital that public schools cannot. These connections that are made can potentially last the entire duration of their educational career and are used to get into college, obtain scholarships, internships, and jobs later on in life as well.

Not only do private schools offer networking, they offer children the opportunity to build their social capital, but their embodied cultural capital too. Embodied cultural capital can loosely be defined by social skills such as manners, gendered behaviors, and overall communication skills. Private schools offer children more opportunities to build their cultural capital with socialization, with businesses and political figures that teach them different "languages" or how to communicate the way society wants them too, which is a big deal in the United States.

Kids that go into kindergarten with more embodied cultural capital speaking "school language" for example, typically get more attention and help from the teacher, leading to teacher bias reinforcing educational inequality which can be seen in public schools primarily.

Coming into school, teachers form biases based off of children's embodied cultural capital; whether the child can communicate, socialize, whether they behave well or are disruptive, and ultimately whether they see that child going somewhere in life. Teacher bias is a big factor in educational inequality because teachers will give more attention to those they feel deserve it the most rather than based on needs.

When children come in without pre-schooling or socialization skills, those children often require more help and time from the teachers, which is why some kids that are extremely intelligent with behavioral issues usually remain in classes that do not meet their educational needs. If children are being afforded different educational opportunities based off their teachers, it is impossible that each child is being prepared equally, which comes back to teachers and the education system only furthering the gaps between children instead of leveling out the playing field.

Teacher's do not always only utilize the students social and embodied cultural capital to establish this bias, but also the child's parents. While teachers will often sympathize with parent's and children, they will still blame the child for their shortcomings. Children not being challenged academically or given an adequate amount of one-on-one time are behind because teacher's and schools are not requiring them too. If the schools that are in place to help us prepare our children for the rest of their lives do not believe in these kids, what do we do?

Every aspect of human capital is lifelong and continues to have effects once children leave grade school and either pursue higher education or jump right into the workforce. That social capital that children from private schools build helps them get into college, as well as afford it but those kids who could not afford private school, in turn, could not afford to network which can mean the end of their educational career.

Those children who did not have the opportunity to attend pre-school and extracurricular activities also miss out on building embodied cultural capital which has proven to increase teacher bias meaning children with different socio-economic backgrounds will receive different educations.