By Gavin Mackintosh-
The Early National Tutoring Programme “failed” pupils from poorer homes when it came to achieving their intended purpose of helping disadvantaged pupils catch up, a long-awaited evaluation has said.
The independent study of the £350 million first year of the NTP has been published today – nearly two years since its launch in schools across the Uk. The underlying idea of supporting pupils affected by the pandemic is brilliant, and ranks Britain amongst the very best in the world with respect to its support for its young citizens. How widely it was implemented and the extent of its benefit was the subject of the research undertaken with regards to its utilisation, particularly among disadvantaged pupils.
It examines the performance of students eligible for pupil premium through the two pillars in the 2020-21 academic year – tuition partners, run by the Education Endowment Foundation and academic mentors, run by Teach First.
The programme which was focused on disadvantaged pupils was used flexibly by schools when targeting those who should benefit from it, and a wide percentage of pupils were left out of the scheme, according to researchers. But many parents also failed to actively seek to benefit from the programme, other research revealed.
Although publicly announced in the media, about 60% of primary and secondary school parents asked during a survey, said they were unaware of the scheme. The claim has surprised professionals informed about this lack of awareness of some parents, but research shows that even parents who were aware of the programme, did not often make efforts to secure tuition for their children.
The National Foundation for Education Research said its “limited reach” across pupil premium pupils meant benefits were “difficult to detect”.
NFER compared pupil premium students in schools that were allied to tuition partners against those that did not use it.
The Researchers found that better teacher assessed grades (when exams were cancelled) at year 11 in English and in maths where associated with higher mounts of tuition through tuition partners.
Schools where 70 per cent of GCSE students benefited from tutoring, showed an additional progress in maths and English.
Precise details regarding the gap in progress are yet to be established, and are still being probed.
The National Foundation for Education Research also said that analysis was based on small samples of tuition partner schools.
They also cited other factors such as these schools which were more likely to be rated “outstanding” by Ofsted.
Methodological Challenges
“Methodological challenges” in the study also mean there should be caution on interpreting the findings, researchers added.
At primary schools, NFER found a 12-hour block of tutoring had an eight-point increase in final English assessment for students. The same month-equivalent comparison could not be made.
There was no pupil premium target for tuition’s partner’s inaugural year, and schools had discretion on who needed tutoring the most, but with a focus on disadvantaged pupils.
It found that just 46 per cent of 184,000 pupils receiving tutoring through this pillar – run by the Education Endowment Foundation – were pupil premium students.
An additional 48,000 pupils had missing or withdrawn data on pupil premium eligibility for the evaluation.
Lack of Clarity
NFER said: “The lack of clarity in the pupil selection guidance for the TP programme resulted in failure to achieve the intended focus on socioeconomically disadvantaged pupils.”
Future programmes should have clearer goals and guidance on pupil selection or acknowledge that schools may have different views about which of their pupils most need the intervention.
They acknowledge delivery of the NTP took place “under extreme and unprecedent circumstances” due to the pandemic and January 2021 lockdown.
They add that while pupil premium targeting was “below expectations”, these pupils were still “overrepresented” in tuition data compared to the national average of 24 per cent eligibility.
School leaders were most likely to use teacher assessment to identify students needing tutoring (78 per cent) above pupil premium eligibility (74 per cent).
Nick Brook, deputy general secretary at heads’ union NAHT, said: “The achievement gap between poorer pupils and their more affluent peers is at a ten-year high. If the NTP is to help narrow the gap going forward, it is essential that it is precisely targeted at those that need it most.”Just over half – 56 per cent – of pupils attended 12 or more hours of tutoring. NFER said that by the end of year 1, a “substantial minority” of pupils – 35 per cent – did not receive a full block, with another eight per cent having “missing data”.
On average at pupil level, primary school pupils had received 8.8 hours of tuition in English and 8.9 hours in maths prior to assessments around June and July.
In year 11, this was 7.6 hours in English and 8.4 hours in maths by the time TAGs were submitted in June.
NFER said attendance was felt to be higher “where schools had the capacity to proactively monitor it and encourage it” and seemed to be easier in primary schools and smaller schools.
Some schools incentivised attendance by “offering raffle tickets for each session attended” or “providing drinks and snacks”.
EEF’s evidence said effective tutoring should be additional to classroom teaching. But NFER’s data shows 63 per cent was booked to take place during lesson times only, followed by 19 per cent outside lessons times. Another 18 per cent had a mix of both.
Almost two-thirds of school staff reported that reduced time spent by pupils in lessons was the most common challenge for the programme.
Over a quarter – 26 per cent – of 777 staff said that tuition had led to pupils falling behind in lessons.
But researchers found that for primary English, sessions during school hours were associated with better English scores than a mix of both.
No Conclusion Academic Mentor scheme
NFER was unable to conclude whether academic mentoring – run by Teach First – had an impact due to the low number of pupil premium students taking part.
They said there is a “degree of uncertainty” on results showing that it gave pupil premium students one-month additional progress in maths in year 11.
Ben Style, NFER’s head of classroom practice and workforce, said: “As schools now receive funding to spend on whichever model of tutoring they choose, it is vital that the research community provides them with the evidence they need to guide decisions.”
6. Do more to target poorer pupils, DfE told
NFER said “more should be done” to target support at disadvantaged pupils.
But this year, under Randstad, a new 65 per cent pupil premium target was ditched – with no target publicly announced for year three either.
Researchers also said schools need “greater clarity” about the expectations of their role in managing and delivering different kinds of tutoring. They should also be given additional support where necessary.
Schools and tutors need to “work together” on to ensure tutoring is aligned with, and additional to classroom teaching, tailored to pupils’ needs and that pupils complete their tuition.
Finally, NFER said an evaluation programme should explore which models of tutoring are most effective for which pupils, and when. They suggest this could be done through randomised controlled trials (RCTs).
A DfE spokesperson said: “We have taken on board feedback from schools and stakeholders, which is why this year we have provided £349 million of tutoring funding directly to schools to give them greater autonomy and flexibility.”