House of Lords Communications and Digital Select Committee inquiry ‘Digital exclusion and the cost of living’
The Sutton Trust
The Sutton Trust champions social mobility through programmes, research, and policy influence. Since 1997 and under the leadership of founder Sir Peter Lampl, the Sutton Trust has worked to address low levels of social mobility in the UK. The Trust works to improve social mobility from birth to the workplace so that every young person – no matter who their parents are, what school they go to, or where they live – has the chance to succeed in life.
1. What are the main causes of digital exclusion in the UK? What is the economic and social impact?
Digital exclusion is an issue that was thrown into sharp relief by the COVID-19 pandemic. The impact of this period of remote learning has had a serious knock-on effect on social mobility, increasing the gap between poorer students and their peers. Barriers to remote learning, such as the lack of access to a suitable digital device, or the need to share a device, were more likely to be experienced by young people from lower socio-economic backgrounds, with those students working fewer hours as a result.
The COVID Social Mobility & Opportunities (COSMO) Study, a collaboration between the UCL Centre for Education Policy and Equalising Opportunities (CEPEO), the Sutton Trust, and the UCL Centre for Longitudinal Studies, is a major youth cohort study of 13,000 young people across England. It found that pupils have had extremely different experiences of remote learning, with those from lower-income backgrounds struggling with access to technology and finding a quiet space to work, while working-class parents felt less confident in supporting their children’s home schooling.
Before the pandemic, Ofcom estimated that 1.8 million across the UK had no home access to a laptop, desktop, or tablet.[1] While the COSMO study found that most young people aged 16-17 had such a device, this was not universal. In the first lockdown, 86% reported having a ‘suitable device’, rising to 90% by the third lockdown period, with those using a mobile phone for learning dropping from 11% to 8% in the same period.[2]
The rate of young people using a mobile phone for remote learning, or who had no device at all, was socio-economically patterned. Almost a quarter (24%) of young people attending state schools with the most deprived intakes did not have access to a suitable device in lockdown 1, compared to 6% of those at the least deprived schools and just 2% at independent schools.[3] A similar pattern can be seen by parental occupation and education, housing tenure, and two-parent versus single-parent homes. Looking at household characteristics, just 7% of those with parents in professional and managerial jobs lacked a device in lockdown 1, compared to over 20% whose parents had routine/manual jobs or who did not work.[4]
Even if students had access to a device, research has also shown that there are many children in households where there may be a device, but not enough for all the children in the house to do their daily online learning. 13% of young people reported needing to share devices in lockdown 1, dropping to 9% in lockdown 3.
There were patterns on shared devices by background characteristics. 13% of those at state comprehensives reported issues due to having to share devices, compared to just 4% at independent schools. 9% of those whose parents have professional/managerial occupations had such issues in lockdown 1, compared to over 15% of those whose parents have routine/manual occupations. Household size was also a factor. In lockdown 1, 6% of those in one/two-person households reported problems due to having to share devices, compared to 22% of those in a household with six or more.
Sharing devices also differed by ethnic background, with 11% of those in White households sharing a device during lockdown 1, compared to 19% in Asian households and 23% in Black households.[5]
Access to digital devices improved between lockdowns 1 and 3 as schools began to provide them, including because of government programmes to support this. Overall, 47% of those needing devices at the beginning of the pandemic had received one by the end of the school closures period.
However, just 5% of teachers in state schools reported that all of their class had access to a device and adequate internet access to engage in home-learning.[6] Teachers in secondary schools were more likely to report their class having adequate access than in primaries.
Young people having no device or just a mobile phone was also socio-economically patterned. Young people with parents with a higher managerial or professional background were less likely to report only having access to a shared device, a mobile device, or no device as a barrier to learning than those with parents with a routine, manual, and never worked background.[7]
These barriers appear to have had a significant impact on how young people were able to continue with their studies during the lockdowns. The difference in time spent completing schoolwork was most pronounced between young people with access to a laptop or tablet compared to those without access to a device for remote learning. In most cases, those facing the barrier worked fewer hours than those who didn’t, with a notable exception being those who reported internet problems.[8]
In the first lockdown, young people with a laptop or tablet spent 14 hours a week on schoolwork, compared to 9.8 hours for those with a mobile only, and 8 hours for those with no device. In lockdown 3, young people with a laptop or tablet were doing 17.3 hours of schoolwork per week, compared to 11.6 hours for those with a mobile only, and 10.4 hours for those with no device. Multivariate analysis conducted supports lacking a device or only having access to a mobile phone as the strongest influences on time spent engaging with schoolwork, controlling for background characteristics.[9]
This resulted in variation in the amount of learning that children from different backgrounds completed, as well as the quality of that engagement. Sutton Trust research from January 2021 found that 40% of children in middle class homes were completing over 5 hours of lessons a day, compared to 26% of those from working class homes. At secondary schools, 53% of children from middle-class homes were doing over 5 hours a day, compared to 36% of those from working class homes. (For primary the figures were 30% of children from middle class backgrounds v 17% of those from working class).[10]
Although this is older data, the experience of home learning during the pandemic provides an illustration of the digital divide and highlights the disadvantages of solely digital learning in terms of widening the gap between poorer students and their more affluent peers.
2. How has the rising cost of living affected digital exclusion?
a) To what extent does digital exclusion exacerbate cost of living pressures?
b) What are the long-term implications of this relationship?
N/A
3. What are the obstacles to greater digital inclusion? Where is policy intervention likely to have the greatest impact over the next 12 months and 5 years?
a) To what extent would these changes help unlock economic growth?
The increasing digitisation of school work and examinations following the COVID-19 pandemic means it is important to ensure that all young people have access to the technology they need.
The COSMO Study found that, of the education recovery and ‘catch-up’ activities that were offered to students during the 2020/21 academic year, additional online classes that students could watch were the most common type of activity offered. 50% of students in the study were offered additional online classes, with 30% taking them up.[11]
Digital inclusion will be vital to tackling the attainment gap that widened over the course of the pandemic, as children in state comprehensive schools with the highest intakes of pupils eligible for free school meals (FSM) were the most likely to have taken part in catch-up activity, at 61%, compared to 48% of those in the least deprived state comprehensive schools.
A major obstacle to greater digital inclusion for young people is the supply of devices. In January 2021, almost half (47%) of senior leaders reported that their school was only able to supply half of their pupils or fewer with the laptops they needed, and only 18% reported that they were able to supply devices to all pupils who have needed one. Virtually no private schools reported such an issue.[12]
4. How effective are Government initiatives at addressing digital exclusion? What further action is needed, and what should be done to provide offline access to services?
Despite a government roll-out of laptops, many schools had to use their own resources to address the issue, with two-thirds (66%) of senior leaders in state schools reporting in January 2021 that they needed to source IT equipment for disadvantaged pupils themselves while waiting for government support. Schools across the disadvantage spectrum had to step in at similar rates, demonstrating that this was an issue for everyone.[13]
5. How well are existing industry initiatives (for example cheaper internet tariffs) addressing digital exclusion? How could they be enhanced?
We welcomed moves by data providers to zero-rate educational sites, such as Oak National Academy, during the pandemic. Ofcom found that up to a million children are only able to access the internet through costly mobile data, so ensuring that all pupils can access educational resources and catch-up online tutoring without impacting on data limits or costs, means that the most disadvantaged families are able to access support without financial burden.
6. How effective is civil society at supporting digital inclusion? How could this work be enhanced, and what is the appropriate balance between civil society and Government intervention?
N/A
7. What lessons can the UK learn from abroad?
N/A
March 2023
7
[1] Ofcom (2020) Connected Nations 2020. Available at: https://www.ofcom.org.uk/__data/assets/pdf_file/0024/209373/connected-nations-2020.pdf
[2] Cullinane, C. et al. (2022) Wave 1 Initial Findings – Lockdown Learning. COVID Social Mobility & Opportunities study (COSMO) Briefing No. 1. UCL Centre for Education Policy and Equalising Opportunities & Sutton Trust. Available at: https://cosmostudy.uk/publications/lockdown-learning
[3] Ibid
[4] Ibid
[5] Ibid
[6] Sutton Trust (2021) Remote Learning: The Digital Divide. Available at: https://www.suttontrust.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/01/Remote-Learning-The-Digital-Divide-Final.pdf
[7] Ibid
[8] Ibid
[9] Ibid
[10] Montacute, R. and Cullinane, C. (2021) Learning in Lockdown. Sutton Trust. Available at: https://www.suttontrust.com/our-research/learning-in-lockdown/
[11] Montacute, R. et al. (2022) Wave 1 Initial Findings – Education Recovery and Catch Up. COVID Social Mobility & Opportunities study (COSMO) Briefing No. 1. UCL Centre for Education Policy and Equalising Opportunities & Sutton Trust. Available at: https://cosmostudy.uk/publications/education-recovery-and-catch-up
[12] Montacute, R. and Cullinane, C. (2021) Learning in Lockdown. Sutton Trust.
[13] Ibid