Letter to Nadhim Zahawi regarding The National Tutoring Programme

Please note, you can find a summary of some of our asks put forth by one of the chairs of our Tuition Advocacy Working Group, Action Tutoring CEO Susannah Hardyman, on the Schools Weekly website here, and coverage of the specific focus on disadvantaged pupils here.

Dear Secretary of State, 

We are writing to you as a collective of organisations passionate about the potential of the National Tutoring Programme to help narrow the attainment gap, with several of us accredited Tuition Partners for the last two years. We wholeheartedly commend the Government for introducing the National Tutoring Programme and are pleased that feedback has been taken on board to make changes to improve the programme further for the next two years. Our staff and tutors have worked incredibly hard this year to make NTP a success, despite the challenges of working with Randstad. 

We also warmly welcome your plans for a positive and permanent role for tutoring in achieving the aims set out in the Schools White Paper and SEND Review, including the Parent Pledge. We are committed not just to the success of the NTP but also to creating a strong legacy from it. 

As the second year of the programme draws to a close and the tender process for the third year is underway, we write to you at this critical juncture to urge you and your department to ensure that the core, original focus of the NTP is not lost; namely to close the attainment gap for disadvantaged pupils, who have been most affected by lost learning and for whom a large attainment gap already existed pre-covid. In an opinion piece last week in Schools Week, education charity Impetus’ Head of Policy and Research Ben Gadsby wrote, “The national tutoring programme has the potential to be a game-changing, once-a-decade reform in terms of closing the attainment gap.” However, he expressed concerns that it risks forgetting its original focus on cold spots and those eligible for the pupil premium. 

As a collective, we wholly endorse this view and have serious concerns that if the NTP does not reach those for whom it was originally intended, and if the interventions provided are not impactful, it actually could stand to widen the attainment gap, which would surely be a travesty.  

At this critical juncture, there are a range of challenges that threaten the effectiveness of the NTP. First, the disadvantage targets the new provider will be accountable to are yet unclear. We ask that your department ensure that high-quality tuition is targeted at the pupils who need it most, including through ambitious pupil premium targets. The considerable investment being made here must be based on evidence of what will narrow the attainment gap. We also urge the department to publicly track the impact the NTP as a whole is having on the attainment gap to build schools’ confidence in the programme. Schools must be persuaded of the value and moral imperative of channeling the NTP funding towards those eligible for the  pupil premium, and of choosing high-quality providers with proven impact. 

Second, the brand of the programme has been damaged by the complexity and mismanagement of the last year. We recognise, as you do, schools’ desire for freedom in the choices they make and their frustration with prior experiences of engaging with the NTP. We also hear their concerns over accountability in the form of league tables. We urge the department to work collaboratively with schools, including through a campaign to win the hearts and minds of the teaching profession back to tutoring. This outreach effort will take resource, but without it we fear that the investment being made in the NTP will fail to live up to its potential.  

Third, high-quality tuition is still unavailable in many parts of the country. We hope your department will work with providers with demonstrated impact to expand into cold spots, to ensure that every disadvantaged child in the country, regardless of where they live, can access high-quality tutoring.  

As a collective, we have significant experience in engaging schools, working collaboratively with them and on focusing our tutoring efforts on those from disadvantaged backgrounds. Many of us support pupils at rates well above the original 65% pupil premium requirement for tuition providers. We are committed to supporting the Government to ensure that the NTP is a successful, game-changing programme and enjoys a positive legacy once the subsidies end in summer 2024.  

None of our organisations are bidding for contracts under the new NTP procurement, yet we are eager to engage personally with you and the Minister of State for School Standards, Mr Robin Walker, about the plans for 2022/23 and to share our frontline experiences with you. We would like to meet with you at your convenience and we look forward to hearing from you about possible dates for this dialogue. 

Yours sincerely,  

Eleanor Harrison, CEO, Impetus  

Susannah Hardyman, CEO and Founder, Action Tutoring (Tuition Provider)  

Nick Bent, Co-CEO and Founder, Tutor Trust (Tuition Provider)  

Gina Cicerone, CEO, Fair Education Alliance  

Adam Alagiah-Gomseth, CEO, TalentEd (Tuition Provider)  

Emma Bell, Executive Director, Innovations for Learning UK  

Robin Chu, CEO and Founder, CoachBright Charitable Trust (Tuition Provider)  

Nathan Sansom, CEO, The Access Project  

Aisha Washington, CEO, Get Further  

Paul Singh and Kim Rihal, Co-Founders and Co-CEOs, Equal Education (Tuition Provider)  

Susie Whigham, Interim CEO, The Brilliant Club (Tuition Partner) 

Response from Rt Hon Nadhim Zahawi MP, 19th June 2022 

Dear Susannah, 

Thank you for your letter of 26 May about the National Tutoring Programme (NTP). I would be grateful if you could share a copy of this response with your co-signatories. 

I welcome your passion for tutoring, and I am delighted that you share my vision for tutoring as a permanent, valued part of our school system. I have responded to each of your three points here in turn.  

I was pleased that your letter included such a firm endorsement of the priority we place on disadvantaged pupils. Since its launch, the programme has been aimed at pupils who need most support to catch up. For example, Randstad’s contractual target that 65% of tuition partner tutoring should be delivered to pupil premium-eligible pupils. As you know, we allocated this year’s school-led tutoring grant on the number of pupil premium-eligible pupils in each school. Next year all tutoring funding will be allocated directly to schools on the same basis. I am sure you will be aware that we have been clear in our messaging to schools that the unsubsidised element of tutoring costs should be met from core funding streams, specifically pupil premium. Complementing this, tutoring appears prominently in the list of academic uses in the pupil premium conditions of grant.  

I agree that growing the evidence base behind tutoring is important. We are undertaking an evaluation of the programme to understand the impact of tutoring on pupils. The evaluation will present the process and impact findings for each year of the programme, including a focus on disadvantaged pupils. We will publish this academic year’s findings in 2023, and next year’s in 2024. We are also gathering case studies that show the programme at work in a range of school settings. 

Your letter refers to rebuilding the programme’s reputation with schools. This is something we take very seriously. We have listened to feedback and are working closely with schools to understand their needs. 

Our arrangements with the suppliers currently being procured will take account of sector feedback to make it as easy as possible for schools to arrange high quality tutoring. With two thirds of schools engaged in the programme, we think the value of tutoring is starting to be understood. We want the NTP to be available to every child that needs it, and we will keep listening to schools as we move into next year.   

Reaching cold spots and those children most in need is a top priority for the rest of the programme. I have been pleased to see the strong take-up across the North and in the West Midlands; there are pupils everywhere needing this extra support and I am aware there are still places with low coverage. We have taken this into account in our planning for next year and are making sure there will be enough tutors to support all areas, whether online or in person.  

I was grateful to receive your kind request for a meeting. Whilst unfortunately diary pressures preclude such a meeting in the immediate future, I shall keep your offer in mind in the event that I bring together tuition partners next term to hear about their experiences.  

Thank you for all you and your co-signatories are doing to help our disadvantaged pupils to catch up. This programme is a unique opportunity to foster a permanent shift in the way schools fulfil their core academic mission. I am confident that together we can make this a reality.  

Yours sincerely,  

Rt Hon Nadhim Zahawi MP, Secretary of State for Education 

Youth Steering Group's Response to 'Child Q'

Like so many in the education, youth and child protection sectors, The Fair Education Alliance Youth Steering Group have been reflecting over the last month on the horrendous abuse that Child Q experienced in what should have been a safe space.

Following a discussion about how they felt reading the news and what they want to see change, they are calling for a number of changes to tackle racism and failings in child protection including: 

• Improve safeguarding in schools and ensure child wellbeing is always prioritised. 

• Include anti-racism and bias awareness as mandatory in all teacher and police training.  

• Have clear escalation processes which include parents, social workers and mental health support workers first, and only ever include the police as an absolute last resort.  

• Remove all police presence in schools. 

• Hold government, social media companies and other organisations accountable for racist content. 

• Support all children to know about their rights including in relation to interactions with the police. 

Read more detail about the group’s reflections below:

The UK Government has failed keeping children safe from traumatic events such as what happened to child Q. Laws and regulations need to be implemented to protect children and their safety, most importantly also teaching children their rights in all sorts of scenarios. Most students are not aware of their rights, and this needs to change. No child should not be given a say as to what happens to them. 

 Steps of situations such as the suspicion of a child carrying drugs needs to be created. In child Q’s case, the police quickly conducted a strip search after a subtle search of her bags and pockets. This was too much of a drastic measure to take, especially since no drugs were found. Race must have been a factor influencing this, and these adults need to be held accountable for their actions. To prevent this from happening in the future, police should be trained on what steps they should take if a child is presumably carrying drugs. Such as doing a drug test or having sniffer dogs try and suspect any illegal substances. Adults that are meant to keep children safe are abusing their rights, and it’s time children knew their own rights to keep themselves safe.

Jumi

After reading about the Child Q case I felt disgusted but not entirely surprised. This is a feeling I have unfortunately become used to. It is easy to become cynical and apathetic after reading about the lack of care and misuse of power that appears to be present in our institutions towards marginalised groups, yet, I ask myself what needs to change?

I believe tackling racism is a deeply complex task and I will never have all the answers regardless of how many books I read or because of my experiences due to the politicisation of my identity as a black Muslim woman. Despite this, I believe the prerequisites for tackling racism in institutions are the analyses of how the current procedures in institutions may intentionally or unintentionally discriminate against marginalised groups, the involvement of marginalised groups in reform, and accountability from external bodies.

An analysis of how institutions could be biased against certain groups will allow us to investigate and reflect on why certain procedures exist and how they can harm the people they should be protecting. This is a starting point that will allow us to modify procedures to be accommodating to marginalised groups. Following this, I believe marginalised groups should be involved in the reformation process. Through research methods such as interviews, data can be collected from the experiences of marginalised groups which can be used to inform new policies that take into consideration historical prejudices. Lastly, ensuring institutions are held accountable is a crucial step to ensuring that they also face consequences if they misuse their power. I believe this is important as it acknowledges the power imbalance between the individual and the institution as well as our moral responsibility to not abuse those in vulnerable positions.

Whilst this may not fix racism entirely, it is an opinion that takes into consideration marginalised groups, institutions, and external bodies of accountability.

Nana

If you’d like to stay up to date with The Youth Steering Group’s work and receive notifications for youth engagement opportunities, please sign up to our Youth Bulletin here.

The Fair Education Alliance commends the overhaul of the National Tutoring Programme, and urges a re-focus on the programme’s purpose

We applaud the Secretary of State Nadhim Zahawi for acknowledging that the National Tutoring Programme needed an overhaul.

This National Tutoring Programme presents a huge opportunity to level up those children who have fallen the furthest behind, and we must get it right. The programme has been falling far short of its target of reaching two million pupils, and it is crucial that it be easier for schools to access. As we develop an improved iteration of the programme, its original purpose -- to narrow the educational attainment gap using a proven intervention – must also be at the core of what we do. The substantial resource allocated to this programme could have a real impact for children who have lost the most learning in the pandemic; we have a duty to get them the support they need.

We hope lessons were learned from the past school year to ensure that the next version is:

·       Workable for schools, simplifying processes while maintaining quality; and

·       Run by an experienced provider driven by the purpose of the NTP.

We look forward to working with the Department for Education to deliver on the promise of the National Tutoring Programme.

The Fair Education Alliance supports a vision where all children achieve, but calls for more resource for impactful solutions

The Fair Education Alliance supports the vision of “Opportunity for all: Strong schools with great teachers for your child”, which is ambitious in the targets it sets for pupils. However, the White Paper fails to recognise the severity and complexity of the challenges children and young people are facing.

Gina Cicerone, Chief Executive of the Fair Education Alliance, said, “We are living in a time of growing inequality and rising poverty, with poorer children across the country experiencing deteriorating mental health, food and housing insecurity, and a widening educational attainment gap versus their wealthier peers. The government’s White Paper sets high ambitions, but to have a hope of reaching them, we need more funding and an understanding of the complexity of the problem. Today’s SEND Green Paper proposed welcome plans for cross-agency local solutions and new funding for SEND and alternative provision – we need joined up action and investment for children without SEND diagnoses as well.”

We are working toward a collective vision for a fairer and more inclusive education system, and our member organisations from across businesses, charity, social enterprise and educational institutions are already testing and scaling successful solutions. The focus areas of “Opportunity for all” overlap significantly with our four priorities:

·       Developing the whole child including wellbeing, skills, and attainment

·       Engaging parents and communities of all backgrounds in education

·       Preparing young people for accessing employment, education, and training

·       Supporting teachers and leaders in the most disadvantaged areas

However, the White Paper fails to acknowledge the complex work needed to address the root causes of inequality across these priorities. It is ultimately a missed opportunity at a time when children, young people and schools need real investment from the government.

·       It fails to consider the extremity and complexity of the challenge. Before the pandemic, disadvantaged children were 18 months of learning behind other children and the pandemic has significantly widened that gap. Further, disadvantaged pupils are at greater risk of poor mental health due to rising poverty and growing inequality. Addressing the growing chasms of mental health, wellbeing, housing and food insecurity takes a community beyond the school. While the recently published SEND Green Paper makes welcome proposals for partnerships between education, health, and local government, there hasn’t been enough consideration of the complex needs of children without an Educational Health Care Plan. Cross-sector and cross-agency work is needed to improve outcomes for all disadvantaged children.

·       It fails to allocate funding to solutions that will support its ambitions. “Opportunity for all” continues to increase school accountability – for both attainment and attendance – with hardly any additional resource, especially once inflation is taken into account. Schools have been instructed to deliver targeted intervention including tutoring, and to keep parents informed, without additional funding to pay for that support or to engage with families in a deeper way. On the other hand, the White Paper puts energy and funding into academisation, when there is no evidence that MATs lead to better outcomes. The £86 million pledged for trust capacity building would have more impact elsewhere.

·      It takes an unnuanced view of how children become literate and numerate. We need more acknowledgement of the wider factors that impact literacy and numeracy progress– such as parental engagement, wellbeing, a rounded curriculum, and funding for resources. Our Literacy Advocacy working group has produced a manifesto laying out the scale of change needed to achieve true literacy for every child; they will soon be publishing a National Literacy Strategy with detailed recommendations.

We do welcome some proposals in the White Paper. These include:

·      The commitment to make no changes to the National Curriculum for the remainder of the Parliament to give schools stability

·      Plans to support sport, music and cultural education as part of a broad and ambitious curriculum; and

·      Acceleration of the introduction of Mental Health Support Teams

We recognise the White Paper’s ambitions. However, it fails to deliver the support needed to make them a reality.

Youth Steering Group's Reaction to The Augar Response

Earlier this month The Government announced its response to the Augar Review as part of The Department for Education’s higher education proposals. The Fair Education Alliance Youth Steering Group came together to review the proposals that impact young people who want to go university. They concluded that:

“The changes proposed in the Augar Response are not adding opportunities or helping the students who need it most”

Youth Steering Group members Olia and Joe have summarised their more detailed reflections on three key proposals they believe will have the biggest impact on disadvantaged students:

1. Introducing minimum GCSE grades in English and Maths to be eligible for student finance at University.
   The government has proposed introducing minimum GCSE grades to apply for student loans. This will bar students who do not achieve at least a ⅘ in English and Maths from gaining financing. This is regardless of whether the degree has anything to do with either subject.

   Olia believes that the changes in the Augar Review will hit disadvantaged young people particularly hard, ‘especially with the minimum requirements of 4 in English and Maths for student finance. The wider Youth Steering Group stressing that introducing minimum grades for financial support at university is a big barrier for young people, particularly those with English as additional language.

   
   Joe raises the important question, that given only 5000 students entered university last year without passing English or Maths - how effective would this strategy be compared to the impact on the disadvantaged young people this would affect?
   
   2. Reduce the number of places on degree courses the Government class as 'low value'.
   The government intends to decrease the university placements for subjects that don’t directly lead to high paid or strategically important employment. This will create a deficit in arts degrees, for instance. This is a particular concern for Olia who says 'non-STEM subjects and humanities being described as ‘low value’ will prevent students from following their passions and interests’. She believes that ‘instead of focusing on careers, there should be a focus on student’s pursuing what interests them, regardless of whether it is considered a ‘low value’ course.’
   
   3. Make University more expensive by increasing the number of years you pay back the loan to 40 and reducing the amount you need to earn to start repaying.
   Joe has been researching the proposal to prioritise reducing government spending on tuition fees. This could mean that postgraduates spend the majority of their lives paying back student debt. It is expected that those in low-paid jobs, which have already been hit hardest by the pandemic, will be the worst affected.

In conclusion, the Youth Steering Group agreed that there are already so many prospects for high achieving and more privileged students, thus the changes proposed in the Augar Response are not adding opportunities or helping the students who need it most.

To see the The Fair Education Alliance’s response please see this post.

If you’d like to stay up to date with The Youth Steering Group’s work and receive notifications for youth engagement opportunities, please sign up to our Youth Bulletin here.