New government-backed research reveals disparities in health, behaviour, and academic expectations among young children from lower-income families and those with special educational needs, intensifying calls for earlier intervention.
A new government-backed study has found that gaps between children from poorer households and those with special educational needs and their peers are visible from the first year of primary school, intensifying ministerial concerns that disadvantage is already shaping long-term outcomes.
The first findings from “five to twelve”, a longitudinal project being carried out by the National Centre for Social Research with support from the National Foundation for Educational Research and the National Children’s Bureau, suggest that vulnerable pupils face disadvantage in several areas linked to later attainment. The report says children with special educational needs were more likely to have longstanding health conditions, less likely to keep regular bedtimes or exercise daily and slept fewer hours on average. Teachers also reported weaker motor skills among pupils with special educational needs and those eligible for free school meals.
Schools minister Georgia Gould called the findings “stark” and said disadvantaged children were “already falling behind by year 1”, warning that this could have a lasting effect on education and wider life chances. She said the government was acting early through Best Start Family Hubs, expanded free school meals, specialist SEND support and RISE teams aimed at raising standards.
The study is following pupils through primary school in the 2020s to examine how education and wellbeing interact with social inequality. It found that family circumstances differed sharply by disadvantage: while 78% of children overall lived with two parents, the figure fell to 59% among those eligible for free school meals. Participation in home learning was also lower among poorer families, parents with less education and children with special educational needs.
Researchers said cognitive skills were strongly tied to background, with verbal skills, non-verbal reasoning and working memory all associated with parental education and socio-economic status. The report also found that children from lower-income households and those with less educated parents were more likely to be identified as having special educational needs, showing how disadvantage and additional needs often overlap early in school.
The digital habits recorded in the study also varied by income. Parents reported an average of 1.74 hours of screen time on a weekday outside school, but children in households earning below £19,999 were much more likely to spend three hours or more on devices than those in households earning above £90,000.
Behaviour and classroom experience also diverged early. Pupils from poorer homes, boys, children with special educational needs and those eligible for free school meals were more likely to show disruptive or bullying behaviour, but were also more likely to experience bullying themselves. They were less likely to feel close to their teachers and more likely to receive tutoring or small-group support.
The report said two-thirds of children were taught English and maths in ability groups, a rate that was slightly higher than other evidence suggests for this age group. It added that children from lower-income households and those with less parental education were less likely to be expected by teachers to meet end-of-primary standards or to be placed in higher attainment groups. The authors warned that such early expectations and grouping practices may influence future outcomes, even before pupils have settled into primary school.
The government’s early education evidence base has long pointed to similar patterns. Its own report on early education and outcomes to age 5 found that children from disadvantaged backgrounds often start school with lower cognitive skills that can persist. Studies in the United States and elsewhere have likewise shown that achievement gaps are already visible at school entry, reinforcing the case for early intervention rather than waiting for pupils to fall behind.
Disclaimer: This content is for informational purposes only and is not intended to be a substitute for professional medical judgment, advice, diagnosis, or treatment.
