1. Socialised Social Capital?
The capacity of schools to use career provisions to compensate for social capital deficiencies among teenagers
Elnaz T. Kashefpakdel, University of Bath Anthony Mann, Education and Employers Taskforce Chris Percy, Independent Researcher

2. Our subject: Social capital and young people
Social capital provides a familiar conceptual tool for attempting to understand variation in outcomes experienced by young people as they enter adulthood. “the sum of the resources, actual or virtual, that accrue to an individual or a group by virtue of possessing a durable network of more or less institutionalized relationships of mutual acquaintance and recognition” (Bourdieu & Wacquant, 1992)

3. Social capital and employer engagement
Teenage informal contacts with people in the labour market are associated with better employment outcomes. M. Jokisaari “From newcomer to insider? Social networks and socialisation into working life” in Youth and Social Capital edited by Helver, H. & J. Bynner. London: Tufnell Press

4. School-mediated employer engagement as a mechanism for enhancing social capital: intensive work experience
“What we have evidenced is that, based on the process of developing social capital through trustworthy reciprocal social relations within individualized networks, young people are provided with an opportunity to gain information, observe, ape and then confirm decisions and actions with significant others and peers. Thus, everyday implicit, informal and individual practical knowledge and understanding is created through interaction, dialogue, action and reflection on action within individualized and situated social contexts.” Raffo, C. and Reeves, M. (2000) “Youth transitions and social exclusion: developments in social capital theory” Journal of Youth Studies, 3: 147–166.

5. Social capital as extensive engagement: the strength of weak ties (Granovetter)
“Weak ties are well suited for a bridging function, as they provide greater access to non-redundant information about employment. In other words, connections with adults that operate outside the young person’s close-knit social circle are more likely to provide new information about opportunities. Since weak ties are associated with the receipt of this non-redundant information, we expect that young people who maintain relatively weak relationships with their mentors will have the greatest access to labor market information and opportunities. This would, in turn, enhance their chances of being employed in young adulthood. Similarly, connections with non-kin mentors are also likely to provide superior access to labour market information by expanding opportunities beyond the family circle.” McDonald, S., Erickson, L. D., Johnson, M. K. and Elder, G. H. (2007) “Informal mentoring and young adult employment” Social Science Research, 36: 1328–1347.

6. Evidence for School-mediated Granovetter-style ‘Virtual’ Social capital
Kashefpakdel, T.E. & Percy, C. (2016). ‘Career Education that Works: an Economic Analysis using the British Cohort Study’, Journal of Education and Work, DOI: /
Investigates the relationship between participation in career talks with people from outside school during year 10 and 11 and wage at age 26 when in full time employment.
Young people who took part in career talk at age 15 benefit from 0.8% wage premium at age 26. This is statistically significant relationship. This wasn’t the case for young people who did this activity at age 16.
Young people who found the career talks very helpful at age benefit from 1.6% wage premium at age 26. With a smaller effect (0.9%) year olds also enjoy the pay rise.

7. Socialising social capital?
1. Can we use longitudinal data to distinguish between ‘real’ social capital (accessed through informal family networks) and ‘virtual’ social capital (accessed through school-mediated employer engagement)? 2. Can school-mediated ‘virtual’ social capital compensate for deficiencies in ‘real’ social capital?

8. British Cohort Study 1970: background
British Cohort Study 1970: it has a rich set of socio-economic factors, it follows members since birth to adulthood, relevant variables of interest
Survey background
Survey attrition rate
Follows ~17,000 born in England, Scotland and Wales in a single week of 1970
Data is available at Birth, age 5, 10, 16, 26, 30, 34, 38 and 42
Data for background variables from birth 16
Labour market outcome data at age 26

9. Methodology: Real vs. Virtual Social Capital
‘Real’ social capital - Once you need to get a job do your parents or anyone you know have a contact(s) who might be able to help you? (N=8,668)
‘Virtual’ social capital – Has anyone come from outside school to talk to you about careers/jobs? (N=4,199)

10. Outcome variable: Wage for full-time employed at age 26
Full-time weekly income in 1996 (age 26) [nominal £]
Number of respondents in FT employment: 5,932 individuals
Following Mann & Percy (2013) part- time wage earners were excluded to identify a more comparable set of labour market participants.
Average earning across the sample: £215 pw

11. What is the effect of having access to family contacts on earnings?
Those who have access to family contacts to help them with a job benefit from a 3.8% wage premium when aged 26 and full time employed. This relationship is statistically significant at 10%. Young people with access to such family contacts are, on average, of higher social backgrounds.
Control variables
Regression Results
Work in Progress
Academic ability/ Education plans
Socio- economic status
Early home learning environment
Demo- graphics
Local labour market
Maths - CSE/O-level results
Highest level of qualification at 26
Cognitive assessment age 5 (hum. fig. drawing)
Education expectation at age 16
Amount of TV watched age 10
Mother socio-economic status
Type of accommodation lived in
Gender
Whether has a UK parent
LEA economic activity rate
N= 1,116
R-square= 0.201
Unstandardized Coefficients t
Sig. B
Std. Error
Gender
.180
.022
8.010
.000
Highest qualification
.036
.010
3.695
Mother social class
-.013
.006
-2.177
.030
Type of accommodation
-.042
.016
-2.616
.009
Math ability
-.053
.008
-6.565
Local unemployment index
-.001
-2.577
No of Days TV Seen After 6pm Mon-Fri
-.007
-1.126
.260
Born to UK parents
-.064
.070
-.922
.357
Education expectation at age 16
-.044
.029
-1.526
.127
Cognitive assessment
.026
2.544
.011
Family contact able to help you get job
.038
1.698
.090

12. Two questions
Q1: does access to ‘real’ social capital impact on the benefits gained through ‘virtual’ social capital?

13. Unstandardized Coefficients
Young people who do not have access to ‘real’ social capital but took part in career talks with people from outside school benefit from a 8.2% wage premium when aged 26 and full time employed. This relationship is statistically significant 5%. This is not the case for those who have access to real social capital.
Control variables
Regression Results
Work in Progress
N=629
Rsquare: 0.208
Unstandardized Coefficients t
Sig. B
Std. Error
Gender
.176
.030
5.855
.000
Highest qualification
.039
.013
2.923
.004
Mother social class
-.010
.008
-1.193
.233
Type of accomodation
-.052
.022
-2.308
.021
Math ability
.010
-5.015
Local unemployment index
-.001
-1.438
.151
No of Days TV Seen After 6pm Mon-Fri
-.003
-.410
.682
Born to UK parents
-.045
.085
-.529
.597
Education expectation at age 16
-.059
-1.507
.132
Cognitive assessment
1.644
.101
Careers talks from anyone outside school
.082
.038
2.144
.032
Academic ability/ Education plans
Socio- economic status
Early home learning environment
Demo- graphics
Local labour market
Maths - CSE/O-level results
Highest level of qualification at 26
Cognitive assessment age 5 (hum. fig. drawing)
Education expectation age 16
Amount of TV watched age 10
Mother socio-economic status
Type of accommodation lived in
Gender
Whether has a UK parent
LEA economic activity rate

14. Q2: are adult wage premiums linked to teenage participation in ‘very helpful’ career talks with people from outside of school (‘virtual’ social capital) bigger or smaller for young people without ‘real’ social capital?

15. The sub-sample analysis: a) don’t have access to ‘real’ social capital b) did participate in career talks with people from outside school c) found the career talks very helpful
Year 11
Year 10
Work in Progress
N=91
R-square: 0.263
Unstandardized Coefficients t
Sig. B
Std. Error
Gender
.056
.077
.730
.468
hqual26
.060
.036
1.684
.096
Mather social class
-.010
.022
-.439
.662
Type of accommodation
.028
.059
.475
.636
Math ability
-.057
.027
-2.079
.041
Local unemployment index
.000
.001
.250
.803
No of Days TV Seen After 6pm Mon-Fri
.024
.020
1.207
.231
Born to UK parents
.030
.279
.108
.914
Education expectation at age 16
-.087
.107
-.815
.418
Cognitive assessment
.040
.042
.962
.339
No. of career talks at year 11
.034
.014
2.481
.015
N=52
R-square: 0.447
Unstandardized Coefficients t
Sig. B
Std. Error
Gender
.137
.106
1.293
.204
hqual26
.103
.043
2.371
.023
Mather social class
-.017
.028
-.595
.555
Type of accommodation
-.095
-.899
.374
Math ability
-.061
.037
-1.643
.108
Local unemployment index
-.001
.002
-.302
.765
No of Days TV Seen After 6pm Mon-Fri
.049
.027
1.794
.080
Born to UK parents
-.147
.331
-.443
.660
Education expectation at age 16
-.081
.141
-.572
.571
Cognitive assessment
.135
.066
2.040
.048
No. of career talks at year 10
.033
.013
2.589

16. Findings
At year 10 teenagers lacking ‘real’ social capital who take part in ‘very helpful’ career talks with people from outside of school benefit from a wage premium of 3.3% at age 26 – significantly higher than their better connected peers. The relationship is statistically significant at 5%.
At year 11, the wage premium associated with very helpful career talks is 3.4% per career talks and the relationship is less significant but still strong at 5%.
These results disappear for those who didn’t find the career talks helpful .
The results also disappear when a similar analysis is undertaken for young people who did have access to ‘real’ social capital as defined in this study.
Quality of the career talks with people from outside school matters a lot to those who don’t have access to family networks
The career talks possesses a compensatory character if done with high quality

17. Summary: what we found so far…
Teenagers with access to family networks (‘real’ social capital) who are able to help them find jobs benefit from a 4% wage premium when aged 26 and in full time employment
Teenagers who don’t have access to such networks but their schools organise for them career talks with people from outside school benefit from 8.2% wage uplift at age 26 when in full time employment
Schools with highly regarded career provision are able to compensate for the lack of access to ‘real’ social capital. Those who don’t have access to ‘real’ social capital and found the career talk with people from outside school very helpful benefit from 3.3 and 3.4 percentage wage premium related to year 10 and 11 respectively. Teenagers who already have access to ‘real’ social capital appear not to gain additional advantages from the activity.

18. Thank you – Any questions. Elnaz. Kashef@educationandemployers
Thank you – Any questions? Tel: