Pumping more than £1 billion into catch-up tutoring was arguably the government’s boldest education policy intervention in years. Yet there is a real risk that without more and better evidence of impact from rigorous evaluation, any lasting legacy from the programme will be lost.
Despite myriad setbacks, the National Tutoring Programme (NTP) has resulted in hundreds of thousands of pupils receiving high-quality additional academic support. This must be applauded. But with the programme now in its third year, evaluation of year one (2020/21) is still not published, and there is no plan for subsequent years. Schools and providers need these evaluation insights if we are to reach the scale and impact that is so desperately needed.
Last week, along with other charity and tutoring leaders, I wrote to Kit Malthouse urging him to take action to ensure the impact and legacy of the NTP is secured. One of our recommendations was to better evaluate the programme and share these insights.
Advocates for the NTP (myself included) point to the solid evidence on the impact of tutoring, particularly for disadvantaged pupils. This is indeed the case. Still, much of the research comes from the US, and is based more on reading interventions and primary pupils than other subjects and age groups. The Education Endowment Foundation (EEF) itself acknowledges that there is still some “uncertainty” on the extent of the impact of small group tuition.
The NTP represents a huge opportunity to deepen our understanding of tutoring. It is the largest ever roll-out of tuition in this country, with millions of sessions delivered up and down the country. Despite this, evaluation and evidence generation seem to have been side-lined. Robust large-scale evaluation would give us a better understanding of how to deliver effective tuition and a clearer picture of the impact tutoring has on pupils. This would have two significant benefits.
Evidence generation seems to have been side-lined
First, greater insight into what works best would help schools, tutors, and tutoring organisations have a larger impact on pupils. Important decisions on the right model of tuition, tutor attributes, focus topics, and which pupils to select could be better evidence-informed. We might get more bang – greater pupil progress – from the government’s buck.
Second, evidence of the impact of tutoring, from recent UK experience, would go a long way to persuading the teaching profession of its potential benefits for their pupils. The NTP was envisaged as a temporary measure, a short-term response to lost learning during the pandemic. Yet there was also a bigger vision for the NTP’s legacy – by winning the hearts and minds of the profession to tutoring, it would become embedded in our schools, subsidised or not. Any hope of realising this legacy relies on robust evidence; teachers tend to like to see the workings.
Sadly, as we enter the third year of the programme, we have not seen enough focus on evidence. We are in danger of squandering this perfect opportunity to learn. Yes, the EEF has published a series of “nimble” studies to assess specific strategies related to school and pupil engagement. Others, including the Centre for Education and Youth, ImpactED, and my own charity, Talent-Ed Education, are also making modest contributions.
But the larger evaluation of the first year of the NTP is long overdue and might be too little too late. School leaders are making decisions on tutoring now. Next year, the DfE subsidy drops down to 25 per cent, meaning this is the last year schools can try tutoring without big budget implications.
This comes as the reputation of, and demand for, NTP tuition has been damaged by last year’s mismanagement. So, the absence of more positive and compelling evidence of impact means many schools might decide tutoring is too risky or too resource-intensive.
The EEF’s year one evaluation can’t come soon enough, and the DfE must also commission proper follow-up evaluations of subsequent years. Practical insights on best practice must be extracted and resources must be put behind communicating the findings to the sector.
If we are to reverse the narrative on the NTP and realise its potential for transformative and long-lasting change, we urgently need to see progress on evaluating its impact.
Your thoughts