So, the government is handing out £1bn in “catch-up” money to schools to ensure the period of partial school closures has no lasting impact. Out of that sum, £350m will go on tutoring those most in need, but the government has strongly hinted the additional £650m “general pot” that schools will receive should also go into tutoring (though heads have been given a choice on that).  

It sounds good on paper but, as William Stewart, Tes news editor, has pointed out, should they have not tried to work out the size of the problem before allocating the size of the budget?

And I have a few further questions of my own:

1. Pupils have spent months off school, and it will take a huge effort to reintegrate them into working through a normal school day - particularly if restrictions remain on school numbers and what can happen in schools. Interventions of any description will need to be introduced extremely carefully - as Ed Vainker, executive principal at Reach Academy Feltham, pointed out on Twitter, should we not get the reintegration and mental-health triage done first, then focus on academic interventions only after that work is done?
2. As Will mentioned in his blog, we have no real idea of the scale of the problem we are dealing with. There will not just be variance within schools, but between schools. A blanket sum of cash distributed to schools to spend how they wish seems a little haphazard. Would it not have been better to use assessment to identify gaps, severity of gaps, long-term impact of different gaps, and where they are, and distribute that money accordingly with advice on how best those particular gaps can be addressed?
3. The explanation for the approach from government stresses that this is money for approaches we know “work” for closing the attainment gap - if we know it works, why have we not been funding it and using it for the past few decades?
4. The evidence from the EEF on tutoring will be concerning for headteachers - it is reliant on teachers overseeing the process, it requires frequent (three to five times per week) sessions over at least half a term, and it works best when additional to classroom instruction. Can we expect a classroom teacher to co-ordinate tutoring alongside teaching a class of 30? How do heads make the sums work to provide the optimal tutoring experience for those who need it? How can heads tell parents of children who don’t get the tutoring that, actually, they’re not behind “enough” to need it? How can we reconcile the evidence of what works with what will likely be possible in schools - the scale of the number of children in need of intervention (if predictions are correct) and the pot of money being offered, as well as the already perilous position we find ourselves in with teacher recruitment, suggests it will be a tough ask.
5. How do we avoid this becoming a badge of dishonour? As with all intervention, there is a risk that singling out children and young people identifies them with negative labels. This is why those involved in special educational needs and disabilities push so hard for whole-class scaffolded teaching - othering of pupils by giving them different treatment separate to the class can cause long-term issues both in terms of self-efficacy but also socially. There is a danger the tutor pupils become “those that did nothing in lockdown” - a damaging label for families that could permeate into a teacher or school’s general view of a family.
6. How voluntary is this scheme? To be effective, as mentioned above, this has to be in addition to normal classroom work. So, if we are to do this, the tutoring has to take place outside of classroom hours. Are we going to take break times away from children? I hope not, for so many reasons. So, are we going to make them stay after school? A better question is can we make them stay after school? What about transport, parent commitments, a mismatch in sibling pick-up times, extracurricular commitments, parental choice? Do we know that the students the government wants to reach will have the means or logistical capacity to be reached?

These are just some initial thoughts. That the government is doing something should be applauded, and the sums involved are not insignificant. But we know from decades of experience that interventions are hard to get right and interventions to close the attainment gap are among the hardest.

As such, plans need to be properly scrutinised, and teachers need to be properly consulted. If that does not happen, parents will be led to believe something can happen in schools that simply isn’t possible.