Democracies endeavour to create fair societies in which people, irrespective of who they are, where they have come from, are able to enjoy fulfilling and successful lives. However, while this remains a noble cause, history has demonstrated, time after time, the challenge of this grand dream. Humans are a complex species, full of all sorts of quirks and biases they are unaware of. We struggle to get things right.

The government's position on equality of opportunity is predicated on the idea that merit and merit alone (should) contribute to one's success in a fair society. Hardworking, skilled (and talented) individuals are the ones that should be rewarded for their effort, not those born into privilege and power, not those who take the state for a ride.

Yet, disparities of wealth still exist, stupendously so, further entrenching and dividing – in this example – the UK into a two-state nation. Oxfam's recent study into the matter, a Tale of Two Britains, is one of the latest surveys into rising inequality, reporting that the income of affluent people continues to 'spiral upwards'. The five richest families in the UK, it stated, own more wealth than the poorest 20 per cent.

And so, politicians acknowledge, social mobility remains one of the great modern challenges. "Children from poorer homes are far less likely to achieve their potential than other children," deputy prime minister Nick Clegg, on behalf of the coalition government, has stated. "And who your parents are appears to have a bigger impact on your future in the UK than in many other countries."

Social mobility, politicians say, is key to changing this, which is another way of saying that there should be no barriers to disadvantaged children ending up in well-paid professional jobs. Getting there starts with education.

The Social Mobility and Child Poverty Commission (SMCPC) is tasked with, as its name suggests, making social mobility a demonstrable reality and ending child poverty. One of its recent surveys into the matter places an element of responsibility on schools. If education is key, then surely schools should be at the forefront of social mobility.

In early October, it published a report entitled Cracking the Code: How Schools Can Improve Social Mobility. The SMCPC highlighted how, despite countless efforts to bridge the gap between rich and poor children in terms of educational attainment, the overall results for disadvantaged youngsters "remains shockingly low". As concerning as that is, there are some schools operating in deprived neighbourhoods that are, in fact, bucking the trend. It is possible, therefore, for positive change to occur.

"Deprivation," says Alan Milburn, chair of the commission, "needn't be destiny." As these high-performing schools have shown, he continues, it is possible to cultivate the right kind of environment in underperforming schools and give youngsters the best possible start in life. Social mobility is therefore an imperative for schools.

Schools can learn a lot from institutions that have improved their ability to get the best out of children, irrespective of whether or not they come from disadvantaged backgrounds. These schools are what the report refers to as 'code-breakers', and while there is no magic formula behind their successes, common strategies to their accomplishments have been identified.

The paper outlines five approaches that these establishments have taken onboard. They include using the pupil premium 'strategically' to improve social mobility, 'building a high expectations, inclusive culture', focusing ceaselessly on the quality of teaching, coming up with 'tailored strategies' to engage parents, and ensuring that students are prepared for all aspects of life and not just exams.

As a collective whole, as the SMCPC's analysis of performance has shown, schools can enrich the experience of education, motivate and inspire youngsters to be more engaged in the learning, and narrow the gap between them and their wealthier peers.

This isn't a one-stop solution to the fissure that exists between the majority and the minority (the latter being affluent, the former less so) but it is, nevertheless an important step forward. It's more realistic to break down the status quo bit by bit and while that is unsatisfactory – a social mobility revolution would be more immediate – it is the best that can be achieved within the confines of British democracy in the 21st century.