A report published by the Social Mobility Commission today has explored the factors thought to affect young people’s life chances across socio-economic groups.
Co-authored by the Department’s Dr Lindsay Richards, the report investigates the various aspects of children's lives that either support or hinder social mobility.
The report examines a wide range of factors, such as whether parents read to their children, the type of neighbourhood a family lives in, parental interests in subjects like the arts or sciences, and whether children have access to an internet connection and a dedicated study space.
It also addresses the wellbeing and mental health of young people.
Worryingly, the report reveals a potential crisis in adolescent mental health in the UK, with young people from lower socio-economic backgrounds more likely to have feelings of anxiety, low confidence and low self-esteem than those from higher socio-economic backgrounds.
Furthermore, girls are more likely to experience these feelings than boys.
According to the most recent data, around 40% of lower working-class girls aged 11-15 said they feel nervous and lose confidence in new situations, compared to 31% of girls in the higher socio-economic class.
Similarly, 29% of boys in the lower working-class group reported the same lack of confidence and nervousness, almost double the percentage of their peers whose parents were higher professionals (15%).
Rob Wilson, Deputy Chair of the Social Mobility Commission, said:
We are witnessing a deeply troubling crisis in young people’s mental health that could impact the life chances of future generations for years to come.
Young people from all social groups face challenges, but our report shows that it is often those from the poorest families who face the greatest difficulties.
Young people’s experiences of truancy, smoking cigarettes, drinking alcohol, trying illegal drugs, and vaping – factors associated with children doing less well at school – were also explored.
While the 2016 Social Mobility Commission report found higher truancy rates among lower socio-economic groups, more recent data from 2021 suggests that truancy rates are now similar across different social groups.
Furthermore, children from more advantaged families were found to be more likely to engage in risky behaviours such as drinking alcohol, using drugs and vaping.
For example, 32% of young people from higher socio-economic backgrounds self-reported drinking alcohol in the last month, compared to 19% from lower socio-economics groups.
The activities and resources of parents were also explored in the report.
While parents from all socio-economic groups expose their children to cultural activities such as going to the cinema, theatre, or museums, higher socio-economic classes participate at much higher rates.
Time use data indicates that mothers with higher socio-economic status spend an average of 79 minutes per weekday on ‘developmental activities’ – e.g. reading and playing with their young children – compared to 50 minutes for lower working-class mothers.
However, the report clarifies that this doesn’t mean parents from lower socio-economic classes are less involved. In fact, in many cases, they engage in more activities with their children than higher socio-economic parents.
The data instead reveals greater inequality within lower socio-economic groups: while more children participate in daily activities, a significant portion does not engage in these activities at all.
When parents don’t engage in these activities, those from higher socio-economic groups cite a lack of time, while lower socio-economic parents often attribute it to poor health.
Additionally, the report discussed parenting styles and values, finding that parenting practices, such as monitoring children’s school performance, are generally consistent across socio-economic groups.
However, parents from higher socio-economic backgrounds are more likely to believe their child will attend university. Despite this, parents from lower socio-economic backgrounds demonstrate a strong understanding of the importance of qualifications and the education system.
According to the report, 58% of parents in higher professional roles believe their child is likely to attend university, compared to 35% of lower working-class parents. When asked directly, 78% of children from higher professional families said they planned to go to university, compared with 58% of children from lower socio-economic backgrounds.
The report also highlights inequalities in children's access to resources during the COVID-19 lockdown. Children from lower socio-economic backgrounds were more likely to struggle with access to a suitable place to work or a reliable device for schoolwork.
For example, 18% of lower working-class children relied on mobile phones to complete schoolwork, and 9% had no suitable device at all, compared to just 5% and 1% respectively, among children from higher socio-economic groups.
The report offers valuable insights into the persistent inequalities affecting social mobility and highlights the need for targeted interventions to support young people from lower socio-economic backgrounds.
Dr Lindsay Richards concluded:
The situation is complex and mixed, but there is a general picture that children from higher socio-economic backgrounds have lives that are a bit more stimulating. They often have access to a broader range of cultural activities, live in neighbourhoods with better amenities and higher levels of trust, and have better study facilities at home.
We need to recognise that these factors may play a role in their future life chances, and that children who lack these advantages may face challenges in reaching their full potential.
