Just Sociology

Breaking the Cycle: How Material Deprivation Impacts Education and Earnings

Education is often viewed as a primary driver of social and economic mobility, providing individuals with the necessary skills and knowledge to succeed in an increasingly competitive job market. However, material deprivation can have a significant impact on educational outcomes and, subsequently, future earnings.

This article will explore the impact of material deprivation on educational outcomes and future earnings, focusing on two key subtopics: Free School Meal (FSM) recipients and independently schooled children. Additionally, this article will examine differences in earnings at age 30 and compare median incomes and top earners between FSM pupils, non-FSM state school pupils, and independently schooled pupils.

Free School Meal (FSM) Recipients

Educational outcomes for FSM recipients are significantly lower than those of non-FSM pupils. According to the Department of Education, in 2019, only 41% of FSM pupils achieved a grade 5 or above in English and Mathematics compared to 70% of non-FSM pupils.

Additionally, FSM pupils are less likely to attend university and have lower earnings potential than their non-FSM peers. This can be attributed to a variety of factors, including financial constraints and a lack of parental support.

Research has also shown that labour market experience is a key factor in determining future earnings. FSM pupils are less likely to secure graduate jobs, which offer higher salaries and greater career prospects, resulting in a lower lifetime income.

Furthermore, due to financial constraints, FSM pupils may be unable to access extracurricular activities, which can help develop skills and increase their attractiveness to employers.

Independently Schooled Children

The median income of independently schooled children is significantly higher than that of non-independently schooled pupils. According to a report by the Sutton Trust, independently schooled children earn a median income of 39,000 at age 29, compared to 23,000 for non-independently schooled pupils.

This can be attributed to several factors, including the acquisition of cultural and social capital, which enhances employability and facilitates access to high-paying jobs. Independently schooled pupils are also more likely to attend prestigious universities, which offer greater career opportunities.

However, this disparity in earnings can also be understood through a Marxist perspective, which emphasizes the role of social class in shaping educational outcomes and future earnings. It is argued that a capitalist society ensures that those who hold cultural and social capital are more likely to achieve success, while those without this capital are more likely to struggle.

Therefore, the concentration of independently schooled children within the top earners reflects the reproduction of privilege and the perpetuation of social inequality.

Comparison of Median Incomes

At age 30, FSM pupils earn significantly less than their non-FSM and independently schooled peers. According to the Department of Education, in 2019, the median income of FSM pupils was 14,800, compared to 22,100 for non-FSM state school pupils and 39,000 for independently schooled children.

This disparity can be attributed to a variety of factors, including material deprivation, lack of access to extracurricular activities, and lower attainment levels. Research has also shown that FSM pupils are less likely to attend prestigious universities, which offer greater career opportunities and higher salaries.

This is due to a variety of factors, including financial constraints, lower attainment levels, and a lack of parental support. As a result, FSM pupils are more likely to enter low-skilled and low-paying jobs, which offer limited career progression and lower salaries.

Top Earners

At age 30, the top 1% of earners are dominated by non-FSM pupils and independently schooled children. According to a report by the Social Mobility Commission, 39% of the top 1% attended independent schools, while 51% attended state schools.

Additionally, only 5% of the top 1% were FSM pupils. This further highlights the impact of material deprivation on future earnings and the concentration of privilege within the highest earning brackets.

Conclusion:

This article has explored the impact of material deprivation on educational outcomes and future earnings, focusing on FSM recipients and independently schooled children. Furthermore, this article has examined differences in earnings at age 30 and compared median incomes and top earners between FSM pupils, non-FSM state school pupils, and independently schooled pupils.

These findings emphasize the need for interventions that address the impact of material deprivation on educational outcomes, as well as the need to challenge the perpetuation of social inequality within the education system. Expansion:

Factors Contributing to Differences in Earnings

University Attendance

University attendance is a key factor that contributes to differences in earnings at age 30. According to a report by the Institute for Fiscal Studies, individuals who attend university are likely to earn at least 100,000 more over their lifetime than those who do not.

However, FSM pupils are less likely to attend university than their non-FSM and independently schooled peers, impacting their future earnings potential. This can be attributed to several factors, including financial constraints, lack of information, and lower attainment levels.

Research has also shown that attending a prestigious university can significantly impact future earnings, as it offers greater access to high-paying jobs and career opportunities. Independently schooled children are more likely to attend prestigious universities, which offer greater social and cultural capital, enhancing their employability and subsequent earnings potential.

Non-FSM state school pupils are also more likely to attend prestigious universities than FSM pupils, further exacerbating the earnings gap.

Labour Market Experience

Labour market experience is another factor that contributes to differences in earnings at age 30. Individuals who have accrued more labour market experience are likely to earn more than those who have not.

However, FSM pupils are less likely to secure graduate jobs, which offer greater opportunities for career progression and higher salaries, compared to their non-FSM and independently schooled peers. Additionally, FSM pupils may be more likely to enter low-skilled jobs, which offer limited career progression and lower salaries.

Research has also shown that labour market experience can significantly impact subsequent earnings potential. For example, individuals who work in high-paying industries, such as finance and consulting, are likely to earn more than those who work in low-paying industries, such as retail and hospitality.

Similarly, individuals who accrue more labour market experience within a specific industry are likely to earn more than those who do not.

Unexplained Differences

While the factors discussed above can explain some of the differences in earnings at age 30 between FSM pupils, non-FSM state school pupils, and independently schooled pupils, there are still unexplained differences. According to a report by the Social Mobility Commission, only 5% of the top 1% of earners were FSM pupils, despite the fact that FSM pupils comprise a much larger proportion of the population.

This suggests that there are additional factors at play that contribute to the perpetuation of social inequality within the education system. While it is difficult to pinpoint the exact factors that contribute to these unexplained differences, one potential explanation could be the role of social and cultural capital.

Independent schools are more likely to offer access to prestigious networks and cultural experiences that enhance employability and career prospects. Similarly, non-FSM state school pupils may have greater access to social and cultural capital compared to FSM pupils, which can impact subsequent earnings potential.

Limitations of Study

While the studies discussed above provide valuable insight into the impact of material deprivation on educational outcomes and future earnings, they also have several limitations.

Use of Historical Data

One limitation of these studies is that they rely on historical data, spanning from 2016 to 2019, which may not be entirely relevant to current conditions. For example, the COVID-19 pandemic has had a significant impact on the labour market, resulting in increased unemployment and financial instability.

Therefore, it is necessary to consider the potential impact of the pandemic on educational outcomes and future earnings.

Narrow Set of Quantitative Data

Another limitation of these studies is that they rely on a narrow set of quantitative data, which may not capture the full extent of the impact of material deprivation on educational outcomes and future earnings. For example, while these studies can measure factors such as attainment levels and university attendance, they may not fully capture the impact of cultural and social capital on employability and career prospects.

Therefore, it is necessary to consider a more comprehensive set of data to fully understand the impact of material deprivation on educational outcomes and future earnings. In conclusion, while the impact of material deprivation on educational outcomes and future earnings is well-established, further research is needed to fully understand the complexities of these issues.

The factors discussed above, including university attendance and labour market experience, play a significant role in shaping subsequent earnings potential. However, there are still unexplained differences that require additional research to fully understand.

Additionally, it is necessary to consider the limitations of current studies, including the use of historical data and narrow sets of quantitative data, to develop a more comprehensive understanding of material deprivation and its impact on educational outcomes and future earnings. Conclusion:

This article has explored the impact of material deprivation on educational outcomes and future earnings, with a focus on two key subtopics: Free School Meal (FSM) recipients and independently schooled children.

Moreover, this article has examined differences in earnings at age 30, comparing median incomes and top earners between FSM pupils, non-FSM state school pupils, and independently schooled pupils. Factors contributing to differences in earnings include university attendance, labour market experience, and the acquisition of cultural and social capital.

Nevertheless, unexplained differences in earnings exist, highlighting the need for further research to understand the complexities of material deprivation and its impact on educational outcomes and future earnings. Overall, this article underscores the importance of addressing the impact of material deprivation through targeted interventions to promote social and economic mobility.

FAQs:

Q: What is material deprivation? A: Material deprivation refers to a lack of resources necessary for individuals to participate in activities and experiences that are considered normal for society.

Q: What is the impact of material deprivation on educational outcomes? A: Material deprivation can significantly impact educational outcomes, resulting in lower attainment levels, lower university attendance rates, and lower earnings potential.

Q: Who is most affected by material deprivation? A: Free School Meal (FSM) recipients are the most affected by material deprivation, with lower educational outcomes and future earnings potential compared to their non-FSM peers.

Q: How does university attendance affect future earnings? A: University attendance is positively correlated with future earnings potential, as it offers greater access to high-paying jobs and career opportunities.

Q: What is cultural and social capital? A: Cultural and social capital are resources that enhance employability and facilitate access to high-paying jobs, including access to prestigious networks and cultural experiences.

Q: Why is it important to address material deprivation? A: Addressing material deprivation is vital for promoting social and economic mobility, reducing income inequality, and enhancing individual well-being.

Popular Posts