Skip to main content

Inequality, social mobility and the ‘glass floor’: How more affluent parents secure educational advantage for their children

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Educational Research for Social Justice

Part of the book series: Education Science, Evidence, and the Public Good ((EDUS,volume 1))

Abstract

The UK has high levels of income and wealth inequality. However, successive governments have been unwilling to put in place policies to reduce inequality. Instead they have focused on social mobility, assuming that people will be more contented if they can see the possibility of improving their position. In particular, they assume that a meritocracy (in which positions in society reflect differences in talent and effort) can legitimate inequality, and will ensure no talent is wasted. Education is seen as the main way of creating social mobility and a meritocracy. Research evidence summarised in this chapter suggests that social mobility is limited by a ‘glass floor’; those from higher social classes use a range of strategies to ensure that their children do not drop down the social scale. The chapter discusses whether current or potential education policies in England can increase social mobility or, more importantly, reduce inequality; what other policies might be needed; and how researchers could contribute more usefully in these areas.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 119.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 159.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 159.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    Disadvantaged pupils are defined as those who have been eligible for free school meals at any time in the last six years (a proxy for economic disadvantage) and looked after pupils (children in the care of the local authority).

  2. 2.

    Hutchinson et al. (2019) have calculated the gap as the number of months disadvantaged pupils are behind their peers. They show that this increases from 4.5 months at age 4–5, to 9.2 months at age 10–11 and 18.1 months at age 15–16.

  3. 3.

    Ironically, this is the situation we have in 2020; nearly two-thirds of Prime Minister Boris Johnson’s cabinet were privately educated (The Sutton Trust 2020).

  4. 4.

    In January 2019 about 85% of secondary pupils in England attended state comprehensive schools, with smaller proportions in fee-paying schools and state selective (grammar) schools (DfE 2019f).

  5. 5.

    For example, specialist schools, technology colleges, two types of academy (some being ‘failing’ schools that were forced to convert, while others were highly successful schools which chose to convert) and free schools.

  6. 6.

    Income inequality is measured in various ways: for example, by comparing the income of the top 10% with that of the bottom 10%, or by using the Gini coefficient, which measures inequality across the whole society rather than simply the extremes. The outcomes are similar on all measures. For recent figures see Chapter 1 (Ross 2021a). Note that while this chapter focuses on educational policies in England, statistics for inequality and social mobility are for the UK as a whole.

  7. 7.

    Cingano (writing for the OECD) argues that the impact of inequality on growth stems from the gap between the bottom 40% and the rest. Grigoli and Robles (IMF) show that the negative impact on growth occurs in countries with Gini coefficients over 27%. The UK Gini coefficient is currently estimated at 34% (McGuinness and Harari 2019).

  8. 8.

    Note that the category ‘disadvantaged’ is based on parents’ eligibility for state benefits. It is not synonymous with social class; Thompson (2019) showed that in 2006, one in eight pupils categorised as disadvantaged were from NS-SEC classes 1 and 2. Nor does it represent those from families with the lowest incomes (Hobbs and Vignoles 2009). But it is the only measure we have for describing differences between pupils that may relate to class or income inequality.

  9. 9.

    This also illustrates the assumption that social mobility policies are about upward mobility.

  10. 10.

    The only exception to this was Social group E (pensioners, the unemployed with state benefits and the lowest grade workers). The characteristics of those making up the group were very varied; some were highly educated (but presumably unemployed) and their reported behaviour fitted better with social group A and B.

  11. 11.

    PISA is the OECD’s Programme for International Student Assessment.

  12. 12.

    In areas with selective schools, the non-selective schools obviously do not have intakes representing the population as a whole.

  13. 13.

    In the primary sector there is a higher proportion of faith-based schools than in the secondary sector, but fewer academies and free schools. No primary schools are selective and only a handful are single-sex.

  14. 14.

    Estimates suggest some 10–20% of the difference in educational outcomes is down to the school attended (Burgess et al. 2020).

  15. 15.

    This results from the accountability system described in Chapter 3.

  16. 16.

    In 2009, Harrow Council used the Fraud Act to prosecute a parent who had used a false address, but had to withdraw the case when they were advised that the Act did not apply in such circumstances (BBC News website, 3 July 2009).

  17. 17.

    Teacher Tapp is an app which allows teachers to share thoughts and opinions by answering three short multiple-choice questions sent to their phones at 3:30 pm each day. They are sent the results, which are also published online. The number of teachers responding to questions on the app is growing. In October 2019 there were almost 5000.

  18. 18.

    David Cameron (Prime Minister 2010–2017) argued that low aspirations were a key factor in limiting social mobility (Merrick 2013).

  19. 19.

    The changes also impacted on more advantaged students, reducing pass rates. However, the decrease in percentage of pupils achieving the expected level was 12 percentage points greater for disadvantaged pupils than for other pupils.

  20. 20.

    This may apply only to those areas of China entered in the PISA tests – Shanghai for example. Those who have visited Chinese schools recently do not all support Schleicher and McInerney’s analyses.

  21. 21.

    Almost 900,000 people were recorded as being on zero-hours contracts in 2019 (Office for National Statistics 2019).

  22. 22.

    In 2018, only 57% of graduate 21–30-year-olds were in high-skilled employment, 4.3 percentage points lower than ten years earlier. The DfE noted, ‘this fall provides some indication that since 2008 young graduates have increasingly found employment in medium/low-skill roles, potentially due to the absence of high-skill opportunities’ (2018d).

References

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Merryn Hutchings .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2021 Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Hutchings, M. (2021). Inequality, social mobility and the ‘glass floor’: How more affluent parents secure educational advantage for their children. In: Ross, A. (eds) Educational Research for Social Justice . Education Science, Evidence, and the Public Good, vol 1. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-62572-6_7

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-62572-6_7

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-030-62571-9

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-030-62572-6

  • eBook Packages: EducationEducation (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics