To what extent does a parent’s socio-economic status affect their ability to access the activities and resources that will support their child’s life chances? And do children from more affluent and well-resourced backgrounds always come out on top? The evidence suggests this is not always clear cut.
Published this week, analysis from our latest report, The Childhood Origins of Social Mobility, reveals a picture far more complex and nuanced than ‘rich kids do well and are better-supported’ or ‘poor kids do badly’.
In this report, we take a look at what parents do with their children (such as reading and helping with homework) and what they have (the practical areas of home life, activities and interests). We also look at issues like wellbeing and experiences of school. All of these factors have the potential to influence the chances of a child doing well.
The value of cultural activities
A number of studies link children’s access to cultural activities to their performance in school and their future occupational attainment.
Our report shows that across all socio-economic groups, when it comes to the activities parents undertake with their children, most opt for the same kinds of activities. Trips to the cinema, museums, theatre, live music and sport all feature among the most popular activities, although rates of participation are higher among higher socio-economic status.
For those who do not participate in activities, parents from higher socio-economic groups are more likely to say they are short of time, with lower working-class parents citing poor health as a reason.
Research tells us that taking part in cultural activities is linked to doing well at school and future occupational success, so it stands to reason that children who grow up in families who are more active in their interests and outings should have a higher chance of success.
Supporting education in the home
Analysis of the frequency and types of home learning support children receive presents a mixed narrative.
Data shows that mothers from higher socio-economic groups spend on average 79 minutes per weekday on ‘developmental activities’ (reading and playing with their young children) compared to 50 minutes for mothers from lower working-class groups.
However, it seems there is no uniform picture of parents from lower occupational groups or with lower levels of education spending less time or undertaking fewer activities with their children.
In some cases, they do more than advantaged parents. Over one-quarter (26 per cent) of lower-working-class parents help with writing every day compared to 21 per cent of parents in the higher professional class. The report also found that 24 per cent of lower-working-class parents help their children with maths every day, compared to 21 per cent of higher professional parents.
But there can also be differences in the approach to activities within lower socio-economic groups, with some parents reporting daily story-telling and musical activities, and others saying they never do those activities with their children.
The lives of children
Factors negatively affecting children’s wellbeing, including poor mental health, inattention and hyperactivity, and alcohol and drugs use all have the potential to impact future educational attainment and occupational progress.
Lower-working-class parents are three times more likely to report issues relating to hyperactivity and inattention compared to higher professional parents. However, the differences are almost non-existent when relying on children’s own self-reports.
There are no differences across socio-economic backgrounds in rates of truancy and exclusion from school. However, drinking alcohol, vaping and illegal drug use are more common in affluent families.
There are also worrying signs of poor mental health among young people. On a question about feeling nervous and losing confidence in new situations, 35 per cent of 11–15-year-old girls agree – a strikingly high number.
When it comes to mental wellbeing in general, gender appears to be a more significant factor than socio-economic background. Although it should be noted that those from lower socio-economic backgrounds often come out worst.
The practical challenges children faced during the pandemic also cast light on their ability to withstand turbulent times.
Research shows that children from lower socio-economic backgrounds were less able to access computers or tablets to support their learning during lockdown. For example, 18 per cent of lower-working-class children report relying on their mobile phone for school work, and a further 9 per cent had no suitable device whatsoever. The figures were 5 per cent and 1 per cent respectively among children in higher professional families.
So when it comes to understanding the pathways that support children’s future progress, it is clear that children’s success is not determined by their parents’ socio-economic status alone. And although we know that the background of families has a strong influence on life chances, the findings of this report show that the picture is complex and varied.
Children’s life chances are affected by compound interactions of resources and actions. Gaining a greater understanding of the nature of these interactions is key, as only then will we be able to ensure that the right interventions are put in place to support children according to their specific needs.
Read the full report, ‘The childhood origins of social mobility’
This article was originally featured in Schools Week.