Educational attainment is categorised for this report into three groups: lower secondary education or below; upper secondary and post-secondary non-tertiary education; third level education.

Free second-level education was introduced in Ireland in September 1967.  The number of both national and international students enrolling in full-time third level education rose from 18,499 in 1966 to 181,039 in 2017, according to the Department of Education and Skills.  See EDA37.

Increasing access to higher levels of education are evident when looking at the age of respondents and the highest level of education achieved by either parent.

The parents of 25-39 year olds were more likely to have a higher education than the parents of 40-59 year olds, reflecting a generational shift towards higher education towards the latter end of the twentieth century.  Three out of four (75.0%) respondents that stated the highest level of education achieved by either parent was lower secondary or below were aged 40-59.  See Figure 2.1 and SID01.

The education level of parents is associated with the education of their children.  There are many reasons for this, for example, parental education may influence the perception of importance placed on education.  Also, higher levels of education are associated with higher levels of income and may impact the parental ability to financially support education.  See SIA15.

Government initiatives to assist children in accessing higher levels of education may to some extent limit the effect of the transmission of a low education level through generations.

Three in ten (30.6%) respondents who had parents with lower secondary or below education also had a lower secondary or below level of education themselves in 2019.  In contrast, of respondents whose parents had third level education, 4.2% had an educational attainment of lower secondary or below in 2019.

The persistence of third level educational attainment is the most noticeable amongst the education groups.  More than three in four (77.9%) respondents that had parents with a third level education, had third level education themselves in 2019.  See Figure 2.2.

The persistence of lower secondary or below educational attainment is strongest in the older age group.  Almost one in five (18.6%) respondents aged 25-39 whose parents had a lower secondary or below level of education also had this level of educational attainment themselves compared with over one in three (34.6%) of those aged 40-59. See SID02.

As well as having an impact on the educational attainment on their children, the education levels of parents are also associated with the income of adult children. 

One in three (32.9%) respondents whose parents had a third level education were in the top equivalised disposable income quintile in 2019, compared with 15.8% of those whose parents had a lower secondary or below level of education.  See Figure 2.3 and SID03.

While education level is one of the most important individual factors for adults in reducing the risk of poverty, higher levels of educational attainment in parents are also associated with higher educational attainment of adult children.  Of respondents that stated the highest level of education achieved by either parent was lower secondary or below, 16.2% were at risk of poverty as adults in 2019, compared with 6.2% of those whose parent(s) had a third level education.  See Figure 2.4 and SID04.

Respondents who grew up in a household where either one or both parents worked were more likely to be working as adults in 2019.  Work status is associated with income, and plays an important role in reducing the risk of poverty.   See SIA14 and SIA17. 

Work status is defined in this report as either at work, (covering full-time and part-time employment as well as self-employment) or not at work, (everyone else).  Work status can be influenced by intergenerational transmission, which is examined in this analysis, but it is also subject to complex socio-economic phenomena, such as an economic crisis.

More than two in five (41.7%) respondents who as a teenager lived in a household with no working parents were themselves not at work in 2019, compared with fewer than one in five (18.2%) respondents who as teenagers lived in households with two working parents.  See Figure 2.5.

Where a parent was not at work, this increased the likelihood that the respondent was not at work in 2019 and this was more clearly seen for younger respondents.  For respondents aged 25-39 who had no parent at work in their teenage household, 55.2% were not at work themselves in 2019, compared with 34.4% of those aged 40-59. See SID05.

Respondents who as teenagers lived in households with no working parents were more likely to be at risk of poverty as adults in 2019 (20.6%), compared with those that lived in households with two working parents (7.1%).  See Figure 2.6 and SID06.

Respondents were asked to rate the financial situation of their teenage home, with six possible responses ranging from very good to very bad.  For this report, the responses are grouped into three categories: good; moderate; bad.

Respondents with a bad financial situation in their teenage home were less likely to have achieved a high level of education or to be at work, and were more likely to be at risk of poverty or living in enforced deprivation.

Of respondents who had a bad financial situation in their teenage home, three in ten (33.0%) had a highest level of educational attainment of lower secondary or below, compared with one in ten (9.3%) who had a good financial situation as a teenager.  See Figure 2.7 and SID07.

Just under two in five (38.1%) respondents with a bad financial situation in their teenage home were not at work in 2019, compared with one in five (20.5%) of those with a good financial situation.  See Figure 2.8 and SID08.

Almost one in four (23.6%) respondents with a bad financial situation in their teenage home were in the lowest equivalised disposable income quintile in 2019.  One in ten (11.6%) respondents with a good financial situation in their teenage home were in this lowest income quintile in 2019.  See Figure 2.9 and SID09.

Respondents with a bad financial situation in their teenage home were more likely to be at risk of poverty or living in enforced deprivation as an adult in 2019.  Where the financial situation in the teenage home was bad, the at risk of poverty rate for adults in 2019 was 18.2% and the enforced deprivation rate was 39.0%.  In contrast, where the financial situation in the teenage home was good the at risk of poverty rate for adults in 2019 was 8.4% while the enforced deprivation rate was 10.1%.  See Figure 2.10 and SID10.

Households composed of one adult with children are consistently found to be amongst the households with the lowest annual income and those most at risk of poverty, enforced deprivation and consistent poverty.  See SIA16.

Respondents who were living in single parent households as a teenager were more likely to be at risk of poverty (19.4%) as adults in 2019 than those who lived with both parents (9.1%).  Similar trends were observed in enforced deprivation and consistent poverty rates.  See Figure 2.11 and SID11.

How childhood circumstances can affect the likelihood of owning a home in later life is examined below.  Home ownership and wealth is generally accrued over a lifetime - 28.6% of those aged 25-39 in this survey owned their home compared with 71.1% of respondents aged 40-59.

People who had a good financial situation in their teenage home are more likely to own their home as an adult.  Of respondents that described the financial situation of their teenage home as bad, 10.3% of respondents aged 25-39 and 62.8% of those aged 40-59 currently own the home they live in.  This compares with 34.3% of respondents aged 25-39 and 75.3% of those aged 40-59 that described the financial situation of their teenage home as good.  See Figure 2.12.

Respondents were also asked the estimated value of the house they live in.  The median house values of home owners aged 25-39 were lower than that of respondents aged 40-59.  Both the home-ownership rate and the value of the house increased as the one’s financial situation as a teenager improved.  Respondents aged 25-39 that described their teenage financial situation as bad had a median estimated home value of €220,000, compared with €250,000 for those that described their teenage financial situation as good. See SID12.

In Ireland the value of the household's main residence contributes a substantial proportion of the total national household real asset wealth.  In 2018, the Household Finance and Consumption Survey (HFCS) found that the household's main residence contributed 60.5% of total national household real asset wealth.

In terms of the intergenerational transmission of wealth, in 2018 the HFCS found that almost one third of households (32.6%) reported that they had been the beneficiary of an inheritance or a substantial gift at some time in the past.  However, wealthier households were more likely to receive a substantial gift or inheritance.  Just under seven in ten (66.8%) households in the 10% of households with the highest net wealth had received a substantial gift or inheritance, compared with one in ten (10.0%) households in the 10% of households with the lowest net wealth.

Three in four (76.4%) respondents aged 40-59 that lived in owner-occupied households as teenagers owned their own homes as adults in 2019.  This compares with than one in two (53.0%) respondents aged 40-59 that lived in rented accommodation as teenagers.  See Figure 2.13 and SID13.