The quality of school-led tutoring delivered through the government’s flagship catch-up scheme could be improved through greater Ofsted inspection, according to a new report.
The quality of tutoring provision since the National Tutoring Programme (NTP) pivoted to a school-led tutoring approach last year remains “unclear”, according to the report by the Sutton Trust, Tutoring: The New Landscape.
There is “clearly a need for additional checks and balances” on how schools are using the scheme’s funding, the report says.
The total proportion of pupils accessing any form of tutoring (both private and in-school) is now almost level between the most and least deprived, thanks to the growth of in-school tutoring, according to the Sutton Trust analysis.
It finds that 39 per cent of those from the most well-off households now have access to tutoring compared to 37 per cent of those from the worst-off.
However, setting up the NTP at speed led to “major issues” in delivery and it is ”crucial” that the quality of provision is now put under the microscope, concludes the report.
Extra quality checks would “ideally” involve making any tutoring carried out in schools “accountable to Ofsted as a part of the inspectorate’s overall assessment of a school’s quality of teaching”, the Sutton Trust said.
The report also calls for the NTP to be subsidised at the same level next year as currently, at 60 per cent, rather than dropping to 25 per cent as planned by the government.
It should also be established long-term, and there should be stricter targets for uptake by those eligible for the pupil premium, the report recommends.
Currently, Ofsted looks at whether tutors support the aims of the school curriculum but not at wider judgements on the quality of tuition being offered.
But as part of a review last year, it said most schools “lack a system” to properly assess tutoring and so do not know if it is working.
Geoff Barton, general secretary of the Association of School and College Leaders, warned that more oversight from Ofsted was “not the answer to improving school-led tutoring”.
He said the “major constraint” was the need for schools to top-up tutoring funding from their own budgets, something that would “only become more of an issue as the government subsidy is reduced”.
Sir Peter Lampl, founder and chair of the Sutton Trust and chair of the Education Endowment Foundation (EEF), said the NTP had been an “exciting development”, although “there have been issues with delivery”.
He said: “It has changed the landscape of tutoring, giving young people the opportunity to receive tuition who would never have been able to afford it.
“Rather than treating it as a short-term catch-up programme, it should be part of an ongoing national effort to tackle the attainment gap.”
Paul Whiteman, general secretary of NAHT, said the report’s findings showed the NTP was “beginning to level the playing field” on tutoring, but that the government should avoid thinking “short term”.
He said: “Unfortunately, the government will be reducing the subsidy for tutoring to just 25 per cent next year, leaving schools to pick up the rest - something many will struggle to do, given how tight budgets are, especially given rising costs.
“The government must not think short term when it comes to tutoring. The NTP has a real possibility to help with levelling up if it is invested in properly.
“But if subsidies are left as they are, the government could end up destroying its own initiative just as it begins to do some good.”
From this academic year, all £349 million for the NTP has gone directly to schools, with the DfE saying the move would “simplify” the system.
Currently, government NTP funding can be used to pay for 60 per cent of the total cost incurred by a school to deliver catch-up tutoring, but the DfE has been told by the EEF previously that raising this proportion ”would allow more schools to access tutoring for more of their socioeconomically disadvantaged pupils”.
The subsidy is due to fall further to just 25 per cent next academic year.
The DfE has been contacted for comment.
