Social mobility in Jersey

Introduction

The Policy Centre Jersey has undertaken a programme of work on social mobility. This report brings together detailed research on two areas – the impact of high housing costs on social mobility and the provision of university education on-Island – and extracts from relevant reports on other areas relevant to social mobility – the school system, early years provision and action that employers can take.

The work that has been done is sufficient to identify that there are significant barriers to social mobility in Jersey and the areas where action can be taken to improve social mobility.

Summary

• Social mobility refers to change in a person’s socio-economic situation, either in relation to their parents or throughout their lifetime, and is linked to equality of opportunity.
• Long-term inequality is exacerbated during childhood. While almost six of 10 children from privileged socio-economic backgrounds are exposed to regular home learning before primary school, only just over three of 10 children from disadvantaged backgrounds are. Socio-economic status also shapes a child’s ambitions. Across OECD countries, only around half of 15-year-olds from households of low socio-economic status expect to complete higher education, compared to more than four of five from high-status households.
• The five main drivers of social mobility in the UK are conditions of childhood, educational opportunities and quality of schooling, work opportunities for young people, the value of people’s social connections and research and development expenditure.
• The operation of the housing market has worsened social mobility in Jersey. Those who bought homes many years ago have benefitted from the significant rise in house prices and have been willing and able to use the increase in wealth to help their children with housing costs, in particular to become home owners. Those whose parents have been tenants have therefore been less able to acquire capital and are less able to help to help their children with housing costs.
• The benefits and tax system improve income equality, while housing costs almost remove this improvement. As a result of housing costs income inequality has grown over the last 12 years.
• A significant proportion, about 20%, of UK university students choose to go to a university near their home and continue to live at home while they are studying. This has obvious advantages in terms of costs and is therefore particularly attractive to students whose parents cannot help with meeting the cost of living away from home. This option is not available to most students from Jersey, therefore worsening social mobility.
• The prevailing approach to education in Jersey is currently based on separating provision so that it aligns to the needs of different groups of children and young people. Whilst this approach is arguably underpinned by good intentions, it can be a structural barrier to achieving inclusive education.
• There is a huge disparity between the primary schools in urban areas and those in rural areas. In the five St Helier schools in 2021 66% of pupils did not have English as a first language, 13% had special education needs and 43% qualified for the Jersey premium. By contrast, in the ten rural schools the proportions were 14%, 9% and 18%. Clearly the St Helier schools have a more challenging task than the rural schools.
• Children’s early years experiences shape their development, educational attainment and life chances. Disadvantaged children tend to benefit more significantly from high-quality early childhood, so there is a strong case for prioritising policies that seek to increase early childhood education and care participation amongst economically disadvantaged groups.
• People from disadvantaged backgrounds are further disadvantaged in the employment market. For example, most internships are unpaid – locking out young people who cannot afford to work for free.
• Employers can promote social mobility by measuring socio-economic diversity into their workforce, building a talent pipeline, improving recruitment practices, keeping and nurturing talent and looking outside of their workplace.

If there is a wish to increase social mobility in Jersey the following measures would be appropriate for the Government to take –

• Commission a study on the extent of and trends in social mobility in Jersey drawing on existing statistical data and comparisons with the UK and other jurisdictions so as to provide the data to inform policy decisions.
• Take action to reduce housing costs, particularly for those young people who do not have access to a “Bank of Mum and Dad”.
• Increase the attractiveness of and demand for higher education on-Island to address the low level of aspiration among state school students.
• Begin the process of reforming the secondary school system to reduce the extent of selection.
• Collect and publish data on attainment levels by Jersey schools so as to identify where improvements are needed.
• Prioritise policies that seek to increase early childhood education and care participation amongst economically disadvantaged groups.
• Raise awareness and incentivise Jersey employers to improve and disclose their socioeconomic diversity.

However, addressing social mobility is not a matter for the Government alone. The Social Mobility Foundation views the workplace as important as the classroom in creating social mobility. Employers have a major role to play through their recruitment, retention and development policies and can draw on readily available toolkits to help them.

What is social mobility?

The OECDhas a simple definition of social mobility –

Social mobility refers to change in a person’s socio-economic situation, either in relation to their parents (inter-generational mobility) or throughout their lifetime (intra-generational mobility).

Social mobility is linked to equality of opportunity: the extent to which people have the same chances to do well in life regardless of the socio-economic background of their parents, their gender, age, sexual orientation, race, ethnicity, birthplace, or other circumstances beyond their control.

International evidence

The OECD has an Observatory on Social Mobility and Equal Opportunity comprising analysis and data. The key evidence is that long-term inequality is exacerbated during childhood –

While almost six of 10 children from privileged socio-economic backgrounds are exposed to regular home learning before primary school, only just over three of 10 children from disadvantaged backgrounds are.

Socio-economic status also shapes a child’s ambitions. Across OECD countries, only around half of 15-year-olds from households of low socio-economic status expect to complete higher education, compared to more than four of five from high-status households.

These unequal ambitions and resources affect achievements later in life. Children whose parents hold a tertiary degree are 45 percentage points more likely to graduate from university than those whose parents earned less than a secondary degree. They are also more likely to be in good health and have greater disposable income.

Students’ performance tends to be worse in schools where most students come from disadvantaged backgrounds – regardless of their own parents’ socio-economic standing. Segregation and low social mixing can therefore reinforce inequality of opportunity.

The most authoritative source of analysis and evidence on social mobility in the UK is the UK Government’s Social Mobility Commission . Its report State of the Nation 2023: People and Places identifies five drivers of social mobility in the UK –

• Conditions of childhood – childhood poverty, parental occupation and youth unemployment.
• Educational opportunities and quality of schooling.
• Work opportunities for young people.
• Social capital (the value of people’s social connections) – parental education, parental occupation and young people’s occupation.
• Research and development environment – broadband speed, business expenditure on R&D and university research students.

Key conclusions included –

adults with lower working-class parents are about 3 times as likely – 30% against 11% – to be in a working-class occupation themselves compared with adults with higher professional parents. In education, people whose parents had degrees are far more likely – 64% against 18% – to get a degree than those whose parents had no qualifications. And on housing mobility, we have found a significant tightening of the link between parental home ownership and children’s home ownership. Worryingly, your parents’ ownership of their home has become a much better predictor of whether or not you will own yours.

And

Since house prices in the UK have risen faster than in many other countries, home ownership has become an important factor in wealth accumulation. This has created concerns about intergenerational fairness – younger people who are unable to buy a house won’t benefit from this accumulation.

Jersey-specific evidence

There is limited specific data on Jersey similar to that quoted in the previous section. However, there are six relevant reports –

• Early Years Policy Development Board Report – a report for the Chief Minister (2021).
• Independent Review of Inclusive Education and early years – a report prepared for the Government of Jersey by Nasen International (2021).
• Independent School Funding Review a report prepared for the Government of Jersey by 2020Delivery Ltd (2020).
• Social Mobility Report – a report by the Jersey Community Relations Trust (2022)
• Further education and Skills – Actionable Agenda – Government report (2022).
• Messages for Jersey from the UK and international evidence on optimising early childhood education and childcare (ECEC) – a report prepared for the Government of Jersey by the Isos Partnership (2023).

The key points, almost all of which relate to education, are –

• An integrated Best Start early years offer for all families complemented by family friendly measures will give children the best start in life.
• Children with English as a second language or who receive the Jersey premium perform significantly less well than other children in education outcomes.
• The prevailing approach to education in Jersey is currently based on separating provision which can be a structural barrier to achieving inclusive education.
• Children in Jersey achieve academic outcomes broadly in line with England, though disadvantaged children do not currently achieve well.
• The current low level of education funding is most acute for disadvantaged children and those on vocational pathways.
• The current policy of transferring pupils at 14 to Hautlieu may have an impact on diversity within other secondary schools at a key point in students’ academic study and in the development of their self-confidence and aspirations.
• The legally presumed age for leaving education and/or training is still 16 whereas in the UK and most European nations the age is 18.
• The allocation of funding for Highlands College does not take account of the number of students recruited, thereby presenting a potential disincentive for the College to recruit more students.

Housing

In September 2023 the Policy Centre published a research report Housing and social mobility in Jersey .

Housing is not seen as being a key driver of social mobility generally compared with, for example, conditions in childhood and education. However, Jersey’s special circumstances mean that it is relevant, particularly because people have to live close to their work and house prices have increased substantially in real terms.

In the UK, the fall in home ownership generally has been far more pronounced among those whose parents are not owner-occupiers. Home ownership and housing wealth accumulation is increasingly associated with parental wealth.

In Jersey, over a long period, house prices have increased substantially in real terms. Between 2000 and the end of 2022, house prices increased by 141%, rents by 128% and retail prices by 102%. Average house prices in Jersey are 122% higher than in the UK and 25% higher than in London.

The “Bank of Mum and Dad” is important in helping people meet housing costs, and particularly to become home owners. But many households are struggling to meet day-to-day costs and are in no position to help children with a house purchase. Tenants are more likely to be in that position than owner-occupiers. The most recent Jersey Opinions and Lifestyle Survey reported that 46% of social housing tenants and 34% of private tenants found it difficult to cope financially, compared with 14% of owner-occupiers.

The operation of the housing market has worsened social mobility in Jersey. Those who bought homes many years ago have benefitted from the significant rise in house prices and have been willing and able to use the increase in wealth to help their children with housing costs, in particular to become home owners.

So in practice there is a two-tier market in Jersey –

• Those who can be helped by their parents to buy housing, those parents having acquired capital as a result of the rise in house prices.
• Those who cannot be helped by their parents to buy housing, those parents having been tenants and have therefore not acquired capital as a result of the rise in house prices.

It is also worth noting here that the rise in house prices has effectively removed the beneficial effects of tax and benefit policies in reducing income inequality. This was the conclusion in the report Jersey Household Income Distribution 2021/2022 .

The benefits and tax system improve income inequality; housing costs almost remove this improvement. This effect of housing costs increasing income inequality has grown over the last 12 years.

The most commonly used measure of income equality is the Gini coefficient defined in the report as –

The Gini coefficient is an indicator taking values between 0 and 1, where 0 represents complete equality (all households have equal income) and 1 represents complete inequality (one household accounts for all the income). Therefore a reduction in the Gini coefficient represents a more equal distribution of incomes across households.

The Gini coefficient in Jersey in 2021/22 was 0.39 before housing costs and 0.43 after housing costs. Between 2009/2010 and 2021/2022 the Gini coefficient after housing costs increased from 0.39 to 0.43. The Gini coefficient was 5 percentage points higher for Jersey than the UK.

The report includes a comparison of the Gini coefficient in Jersey with that in European countries for net income before housing costs. Of the 38 countries compared, Jersey ranked 36th with a Gini coefficient of 0.38, higher than the EU average of 0.30 and the United Kingdom at 0.34. Income inequality was greater only in Turkey (0.43) and Bulgaria (0.38). The figure for France was 0.30 and Germany 0.29. The countries with the least income inequality (0.25 or lower) were Slovenia, Slovakia, the Czech Republic, Iceland, Belgium and Norway.

University education

In December 2023 the Policy Centre published a research report University education on-Island . This paper described what university-level education is available in Jersey, analysed data on participation in university-level education and educational standards in the Island, discussed the case for a “University of Jersey” and considered other options for increasing university-level education on-Island. The paper was not primarily concerned with social mobility but one of the key conclusions was that a principal reason for seeking to expand university-level education on-Island was to promote social mobility.

A significant proportion, about 20%, of UK university students choose to go to a university near their home and continue to live at home while they are studying. This has obvious advantages in term of costs and is therefore particularly attractive to students whose parents cannot help with meeting the cost of living away from home. It is also attractive to students with a disability or caring responsibilities, to some ethnic minority groups and to those who simply prefer to stay local.

A useful source of information is a2018 Sutton Trust report Home and Away . Key points include –

• Social class is a key factor which drives the mobility choices of young people, with disadvantaged students less likely to leave home and travel further. Over three times more students in the lowest social class group commute from home than do so from the highest group (44.9% compared with 13.1%). In contrast, leaving home and attending a distant university is too often the preserve of white, middle class, privately educated young people.
• Controlling for other factors including class, location and attainment, state school students are 2.6 times more likely to stay at home and study locally than their privately educated counterparts.

The impact of rising costs in recent years is covered in a study published in August 2023 Class of 23 more likely to be “stay-at-home” students by Sutton Trust and UCL –

New data from a major national study on the impact of recent crises on educational inequality and social mobility, shows that 20% of the ‘class of 2023’ plan to live at home during term time if they are successful in getting into their preferred university next week, while a further 14% have not yet decided if they’ll move to their university.

Disadvantaged students are particularly impacted, as families facing financial challenges expect to struggle to support a child living away from home. Young people from families who used a foodbank in the last year were much less likely to apply for university at all, and those that did apply for university were much more likely to plan on living at home (31% vs 19% for those that did not use a foodbank). The same was true for those from families who are behind with their housing payments (33% vs 17%).

Among students who plan to live at home, about one fifth said this is because they could not afford to live away, and just one fifth because their preferred university was near their home. 46% said the main reason was because they wanted — or needed — to remain near to their families. For example, for those with caring responsibilities, moving away is more difficult.

Sir Peter Lampl, Founder and Chairman of the Sutton Trust and Chairman of the Education Endowment Foundation, said –

These research findings highlight the difficult decisions many young people face as they weigh up their future. Young people from disadvantaged families are less likely to apply to university and are less likely to live away from home if they do apply, limiting their university choice.

The importance of university education in promoting social mobility is illustrated in a comprehensive report by the Sutton Trust – Universities and Social Mobility: summary report . Its key conclusion is that –

Higher education is a key driver of social mobility in this country. Young people from less well-off backgrounds who attend university are more likely to become socially mobile into higher income brackets, and income gaps are lower between graduates from disadvantaged backgrounds and their peers compared to non-graduates.

These reports suggests that, compared with their counterparts in the U,K students in Jersey from disadvantaged backgrounds are even more disadvantaged because many do not have the option of going on to university while living at home because the subjects they want to study are not available on-Island.

Currently, the main provider of university-level education in Jersey is University College Jersey, part of Highlands College. Other providers are the Institute of Law Jersey, the Department of Health and Social Services Higher Education Department, BPP International Finance and the Jersey International Centre for Advanced Studies. However, provision is necessarily limited given the small size of the market, is disjointed and also is often seen as not having the same status as attending a UK university. University College Jersey also has to operate under a financial system which makes it difficult to run three-year courses.

The Highlands College campus is not fit for purpose for further education or for higher education. There are arguments for and against co-locating further and higher education, and it is also the case that greater use of technology facilitates multi-site provision. However, there is a clear need for investment in the necessary facilities for 18+ learning as well as for lifelong learning and training opportunities. Only when this is done will Jersey reach its full potential as a meaningful place to learn, teach and research.

The higher education providers are increasingly co-operating. There is need to formalise and expand this work and to settle the location issue in a way that enhances the status of higher education on-Island and makes it a more attractive option for those for whom studying off-island is not viable, practical or attractive.

The school system

In December 2021 the Independent Review of Inclusive Education and early years was published. This reported many elements of good practice and a sound foundation of which to make further progress, but also highlighted some aspects of the education system that are not inclusive. The executive summary of the review stated –

The evidence-base collated during the review process has led the review team to conclude that whilst there is some exemplary inclusive practice within specific areas of the education system, this is not yet happening consistently because it is not sufficiently reinforced at a strategic, systemic and systematic level. This includes the prioritisation given to realising inclusion, the allocation of resources, and the underpinning policies and processes.

The review team have identified that the prevailing approach to education in Jersey is currently based on separating provision so that it aligns to the needs of different groups of children and young people. Whilst this approach is arguably underpinned by good intentions, it can be a structural barrier to achieving inclusive education.

The review describes a continuum of inclusion that moves forward from segregated provision to partial inclusion to systemic inclusion, and finally to total inclusion.

Having commissioned this review, the GoJ has clearly demonstrated its commitment to developing inclusive education in Jersey. The next step is for the GoJ to apply the inclusion implementation roadmap provided within this report to realise its preferred approach to inclusion. Implementing change of this scale in the Jersey context will inevitably present significant challenges, so it will be important to remember the overriding principle that an inclusive education system benefits not only those who are marginalised, but all children and young people.

Jersey’s secondary school system stands out for the extent of selection, with transfer to Hautlieu at ages of 14 and 16, and also the high proportion of students going to fee-paying schools. The review quoted earlier in this section made the point that the current structure “can be a structural barrier to achieving inclusive education”. This is an understatement. It is certainly a barrier. There is a strong case at least for the four non-fee paying secondary schools to cover the whole of the 11-16 age range at least. The large fee-paying sector is probably also a barrier to social mobility, but is well entrenched. The secondary school structure does not support social mobility and needs to be reformed.

At primary level there is a huge difference between urban and rural schools. The state primary schools are required to publish data on a number of variables including pupils whose first language is not English, pupils with special education needs and pupils in receipt of the Jersey Premium, primarily those who live in a household which has recently claimed Income Support. Data for individual schools can be misleading, but the schools can usefully be categorised into four groups –

• The five schools in St Helier.
• Seven schools in more urban areas: the four St Saviour schools, two St Clement schools and Bel Royal in St Lawrence.
• Ten schools in more rural areas.
• The two fee paying schools.

The following table shows the aggregate data for the four groups of schools.

Jersey state primary schools, summary, 2021 – 2022 data

The table show a huge disparity between the schools in urban areas and those in rural areas in respect of number of pupils, pupils whose first language is not English, pupils with special education needs and pupils entitled to the Jersey Premium. In the five St Helier schools 66% of pupils did not have English as a first language, 13% had special education needs and 43% qualified for the Jersey premium. By contrast, in the ten rural schools the proportions were 14%, 9% and 18%. Clearly, the St Helier schools have a more challenging task than the rural schools. This has been recognised with changes to the funding formula which give more resources to the schools with the highest concentration of pupils whose first language is not English and who are eligible for the pupil premium.

Covid had a disproportionate impact on children and young people, particularly on those with home environments that were not conducive to remote learning. An OECD report on the 2022 PISA results noted that: “in all countries/economies with available data, students who enjoy more support from their families reported a greater sense of belonging at school and life satisfaction, and more confidence in their capacity for self- directed learning.” The impact of Covid in Jersey has been tackled with the Education Recovery Programme but it is likely that some adverse effects will persist.

More generally, there seems to be a relative lack of ambition in respect of education standards in Jersey. It may be that data exist on how Jersey schools compare in respect of attainment with those in comparable jurisdictions but such data are not published. Aggregate data shows that Jersey schools are simply on a par at GCSE level with schools in England on average but well below schools in the South East of England. At A level, attainment is actually worse than the England average and substantially worse than the best performing areas. Jersey’s future prosperity depends to a large extent on its educational system. Jersey should aspire at least to match the performance of the best local authorities in England not simply the average, but for this to occur comparable data needs to be produced and published as is common in other jurisdictions. Such data would help to indicate where improvements are needed.

Early years

The Early Years Policy Development Board Report (2021) usefully summarised evidence on the importance of early years –

Evidence is clear that children’s early years experiences shape their development, educational attainment and life chances. There is a wealth of research that shows the importance of their Early Years’ experience on a child’s development.

Less advantaged children are more likely to fall behind and struggle to catch-up. While in 2017 84% of 2-year-old children in Jersey assessed by ‘Ages and Stages’ were developing normally in the 5 domains, 16% were not. It was the area of communication that was the main contributor to children not reaching their milestones overall. Strong language skills are a determinant of progress through education. In 2018 57% of reception children in Jersey met or exceeded ALL 17 Early Learning Goals at the end of the Early Years Foundation Stage and in 2019 this rose to 62%, with Communication and Language rising to 82% in 2019. Children with strong foundations start school in a position to progress, however, too many children do not have this advantage. Disadvantaged children underperform, and even when they experience success in education, they achieve poorer career outcomes than their more affluent peers with the same qualifications. Data shows that children in receipt of Jersey Premium do less well than their peers year on year, although the gap is beginning to close. We also know that the number of children referred to the early years inclusion team is rising year on year and high quality, universal inclusive practice is key to their success.

Key aspects of children’s skills, capabilities, behaviours and wellbeing emerge in early childhood These factors can significantly impact on a child’s trajectory through the rest of childhood and well into adulthood.

Children who receive high quality early childhood care, education and health services from conception onwards are more likely to have a positive attitude to learning when they start school, be more resilient, and have better learning, development and health outcomes overall. They are more likely to complete secondary school and secure jobs with wage progression. They are also less likely to rely on the welfare system and are significantly less likely to become involved in the criminal justice system.

In addition to formal Early Years settings, the quality of the home learning environment (HLE) is also critical to a child’s development.

Evidence indicates that investment in preventative and early intervention approaches not only raise standards from early years to post 16 and beyond, but also provide value for money in the long term: Greater access to Early Help for families to services improves early identification and intervention which eliminates or reduces costly and damaging social problems.

International research by UNICEF suggests that the financial case for investing in children’s early years is strong. The rate of return on investing in early childhood programmes can be about 13.7 per cent. The benefits are reaped in better education and health outcomes, lower crime and higher individual earnings. Investments in children’s early development can lead to better individual adult incomes of up to 25 per cent. Investing in early childhood development also benefits nations – supporting a more skilled workforce that is better prepared to take on the future challenges of a global and digital economy.

As set out in the ‘Review of Early Childhood Education’, a strong Early Childhood Education and Care market can have a positive impact on the labour market as it better enables parents to work, re-enter the labour market, undergo training, and increase their working hours if they wish, ‘thus, it can play a role in improving family income, reducing welfare dependency and poverty, and improving social mobility for families – and later for the children themselves’.

The Board recommended six policies –

• The establishment of a universal integrated ‘Best Start’ offer to children and families from conception to five. This offer would be accessed from community hubs ensuring that from the start of life children and families are at the heart of delivery of joined up services.
• The vital role of families is recognised through the continued adoption of family friendly policies which enables parents to have choice in relation to parenting (childrearing) particularly during the first year of life.
• A Best Start Plus part-time early education offer for 2 – 3-year olds, initially to children at risk of disadvantage.
• The establishment of an integrated progress review for young children involving the child, parents, health and early education services.
• The consolidation of an educational entitlement for all 3 – 4year olds during term time with a future extension to 30 hours.
• The introduction of a transformation fund to recognise and enable a graduate workforce in private nursery settings providing pedagogical leadership within each setting.

In June 2023 the Government published a report Messages for Jersey from the UK and international evidence on optimising early childhood education and childcare (ECEC) .This report, by the Isos Partnership, includes a section on who stands to benefit most from ECEC. The following key “take-aways” were identified in respect of ECEC and disadvantage –

• Disadvantaged children tend to benefit more significantly from high-quality ECEC, so from a child-development equity perspective, there is a strong case for addressing this, prioritising policies that seek to increase ECEC participation amongst economically disadvantaged groups.
• International experience suggests that rolling out universal entitlements is likely to be the most effective means of achieving higher participation of economically disadvantaged groups. On this basis, there is an argument for Jersey to continue to pursue the previously proposed extension of the universal free entitlement to all two-year-olds if this is practicable.
• The experience of the targeted offer for two-year-olds in England suggests that any expansion through a targeted offer for the most disadvantaged children would need to be planned carefully and supported with extensive outreachwork to secure good take-up.
• It also shows that targeted entitlements can be more successful with families who have children with special educational needs and disabilities (SEND), endorsing the decision to extend them to families with two-year-olds with SEND in Jersey.

Employment

There is a great deal of evidence that people from disadvantaged backgrounds are further disadvantaged in the employment market. The issues are well covered in a report by the Sutton Trust Social mobility in the workplace . Among the evidence it cites are –

• People in Britain’s top jobs are five times more likely to have attended a private school than the general population.
• 70% of internships are unpaid – locking out young people who cannot afford to work for free.
• Workers in the top professions from upper middle-class backgrounds are estimated to earn 16% more than those from working class backgrounds, even in the same type of jobs.

It then outlined five steps through which employers could improve social mobility in their workforce –

Measuring socio-economic diversity

By measuring the socio-economic background of your workforce, you will be able to:

• See any gaps in applications, hires, progression or retention
• Target initiatives to improve diversity
• Track progress over time.

We recommend you ask questions on the following (in order of priority):

• Parental occupation
• School type attended
• Free school meal eligibility
• Parental education.

Build a talent pipeline

Create diverse routes into your workforce by:

• Paying and openly advertising internships and work experience placements
• Making use of apprenticeships to open up new routes into the workplace.

Improve recruitment practice

To make sure you are finding top talent, regardless of background:

• Where possible, put in place contextual recruitment practices
• Ensure recruitment practices are open and transparent
• Have honest conversations about talent.

Keep and nurture talent

To give all your employees, regardless of background, equal opportunity to succeed within your organisation:

• Monitor class pay gaps
• Ensure promotion and work allocation processes are fair
• Create an inclusive, welcoming culture that celebrates diversity and different viewpoints.

Looking outside of your workplace

Working with young people in schools, universities and further education colleges can help to broaden their horizons and open up opportunities.

To make the largest impact:

• Where possible, go through an organisation already working with young people – they can ensure students have sustained engagement with employers and target support where it is most needed
• Look beyond your local area
• When working with schools, take your lead from teachers; they know their pupils best
• Consider widening the range of universities you recruit from
• Think about financial barriers for example the cost of attending an industry insight day.

The British Government has published The building blocks – an employer’s guide to social mobility , developed by the Social Mobility Commission. The guide identifies five building blocks for improving social mobility through employment practices –

• Create a compelling, shared vision of socio-economic diversity and inclusion across your business
• Widen your talent pool
• Create a diverse and inclusive culture
• Progression – make sure the best can succeed
• Ask the key questions and analyse your data

The guide gives detailed advice on each of these areas and is a useful alternative to the Sutton Trust report.

Jersey is an international financial centre and around 30% of the working population are employed in the finance and related industries. The City of London Corporation has published a report Breaking the Class Barrier – Recommendations for Building a More Socio-Economically Diverse Financial and Professional Services Sector , based on the work of the Social Mobility Task Force, which had wide representation from all parts of the financial services industry. This included a Five Point Pathway,“which sets out tangible steps that employers, large and small can take, along with recommendations for Government, regulators, and sector bodies to support employers along the way.” For employers this pathway comprises assigning accountability and responsibility, collecting data, taking action, setting targets and publishing data and what activities have worked.

Another significant resource is the UK’s Social Mobility Foundation ’s Social Mobility Employer Index, now in its 7 ^th year. It assesses employers in eight areas: outreach and accessible routes into the profession; attraction methods to reach those from lower socioeconomic backgrounds; data collection; advocacy; routes into the employer and parity of esteem between graduate and non-graduate routes; removing barriers to recruitment selection; progression and inclusive workplace culture; employee surveys.

Of the top UK 75 employers in the Index, at least seven have a significant presence in Jersey. A starting point could be to convene these employers, draw together insight about how they are supporting social mobility locally, and share this with the wider business community. The key message to convey is that lack of social mobility is not only a societal issue but one for business and the economy.

Case study: PwC tops the Social Mobility Employer Index in the UK for 2023 . In Jersey, as in the UK, PwC has seen first-hand the benefits of improving the socioeconomic diversity of the workforce. Attracting and retaining local on-Island talent is key to building the business alongside talent from overseas, and it is well understood that bringing together people from different backgrounds creates the highest value for their clients. The firm offers work experience, insight days and a range of routes to employment for Jersey school and college leavers. Higher Apprentices study for an accountancy qualification, whilst there are sponsored degree qualification routes for local school leavers in both accounting and digital solutions. Educational level upon entry is no barrier to progression, and the firm’s supportive and inclusive culture is consistently highly rated in employee engagement surveys.

Action to promote social mobility in Jersey

If there is a wish to increase social mobility in Jersey the following measures would be appropriate for the Government to take –

• Commission a study on the extent of and trends in social mobility in Jersey drawing on existing statistical data and comparisons with the UK and other jurisdictions so as to provide the data to inform policy decisions.
• Take action to reduce housing costs, particularly for those young people who do not have access to a “Bank of Mum and Dad”.
• Increase the attractiveness of and demand for higher education on-Island to address the low level of aspiration among state school students.
• Begin the process of reforming the secondary school system to reduce the extent of selection.
• Collect and publish data on attainment levels by Jersey schools so as to identify where improvements are needed.
• Prioritise policies that seek to increase early childhood education and care participation amongst economically disadvantaged groups.
• Raise awareness and incentivise Jersey employers to improve and disclose their socioeconomic diversity.

However, addressing social mobility is not a matter for the Government alone. The Social Mobility Foundation views the workplace as important as the classroom in creating social mobility. Employers have a major role to play through their recruitment, retention and development policies and can draw on readily available toolkits to help them.

‍