Asked by
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of
the progress of the National Tutoring Programme.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for
Education () (Con)
My Lords, more than 300,000 tutoring courses began last term,
nearing the total figure for the whole of the previous academic
year. We remain confident that the National Tutoring Programme is
on track to deliver the ambitious target of 2 million courses
this academic year. We are particularly pleased with the uptake
of the school-led part of the programme, and we are working
closely with Randstad to address the challenges in the tuition
partner and academic mentor elements.
(Con)
My Lords, has something not gone wrong with this immensely
important programme? Is it not attracting criticism from experts,
many of whom regard it as unduly bureaucratic and insufficiently
resourced? Why have the Government not done more to involve
independent schools? They want to play their part in this
programme, in the spirit of the partnership between the two
sectors of education which we all want to encourage. I declare my
interest as president of the Independent Schools Association.
(Con)
My noble friend makes a fair point about ensuring that the
programme is as unbureaucratic as possible. I know that
colleagues are working very closely with Randstad to try to
simplify elements of the programme, and that work is happening at
pace. I am also aware that a number of partnerships already exist
between the independent sector and state-funded schools. We have
very much followed the advice we were given by state-funded
schools about structuring the programme.
(Lab)
My Lords, Neil Armstrong, the astronaut, was once asked what
frightened him most about going into space. He said it was the
idea that a thousand different component parts had been put out
to the lowest possible tender. This is what has happened with the
National Tutoring Programme. Is it not time to stop the
complacency, put children first and cancel the contract?
(Con)
I had not thought about Neil Armstrong for a while. I thank the
noble Lord for the reminder, but I do not think that that is an
accurate reflection. There is absolutely no complacency in the
department about this contract. We are committed to delivering 2
million courses, and we are working extremely closely with
Randstad to make sure this happens.
(LD)
My Lords, what would the Minister say to Garry Ratcliffe, the
chief executive of an academy trust of primary schools in a
deprived community in Kent? One Saturday morning, 20 or so pupils
were gathered together for their tutoring session and 10 minutes
beforehand, it was cancelled. We hear from school leaders up and
down the country about the poor quality of tutors, their lack of
punctuality, “no show” and lack of specialist knowledge. Surely
it is time that the financing of this programme be given directly
to the schools. Independent schools could be involved to make
this a really successful programme.
(Con)
I remind the noble Lord that the bulk of the programme is being
directly delivered by schools; that is what they recommended to
government, and we listened. Some 230,000 tuition courses started
through the school-led pillar, 52,000 through tuition partners
and 20,000 through academic mentors. There is a reason for the
blend of approaches. It is clearly unacceptable for a tutor not
to turn up, and I hope that Mr Ratcliffe has been able to resolve
that.
(CB)
My Lords, the government figures are for courses which have
started, but as the noble Lord pointed out, many of these courses
cannot be completed because of no shows by tutors. Does the
Minister have any figures for how many courses have been fully
completed?
(Con)
It is relatively early days. I do not have those figures with me,
but I am happy to share them with the House if they are
available. We will obviously be evaluating the programme, but I
reiterate that the vast majority of the courses have been
delivered in schools by school staff, so I am surprised at the
suggestion that they have not been completed.
(Lab)
My Lords, what monitoring of outcomes and attainment has taken
place with the current scheme? If this has happened, has it been
broken down into categories, such as black and minority
ethnic—including Gypsy, Traveller and Roma—disabled, girls and
boys, so that we can see the real picture?
(Con)
As I say, it is relatively early in the academic year. The
programme started in September and if the noble Baroness looks at
last year’s data, she will be aware that, even though there were
no exams, the numbers taking these courses picked up very
strongly ahead of the summer term. As I mentioned, we will be
publishing the first stage of the evaluation in autumn 2022.
(Lab)
My Lords, can the Minister be sure that wherever the programmes
are being delivered, there is sufficient emphasis on oracy—on
speaking and listening? In many communities, particularly
deprived ones, there may well have been a loss of confidence in
speaking and even much slower language development. Of course,
this underpins literacy and numeracy. It is clearly important
that oracy should figure significantly in these tutoring
programmes.
(Con)
I absolutely agree with the noble Baroness about the importance
of oracy. My understanding is that there is some discretion, so
that tutoring can be tailored to the individual needs of the
child.
(LD)
My Lords, can the Minister give us some indication of the
bureaucratic costs of delivering these courses outwith the
schools? Surely, it would be better if the schools were
co-ordinating these from their own resources?
(Con)
To repeat myself, 230,000 out of almost 300,000 tuition courses
are being delivered by the schools themselves.
(Lab)
My Lords, the Minister’s bold attempts at boosterism cannot
disguise the fact that the element of the National Tutoring
Programme entrusted to Randstad is a car crash. I take no
pleasure in saying that Labour warned of this last June, when the
contract was awarded to a foreign company with little tutoring
experience and no knowledge of our education system. The real
tragedy is that the pupils who need it most are those who, in
many cases, are being denied it. This was made clear by school
heads when they gave evidence to the Education Committee last
month, when they described the bureaucratic nightmare involved in
trying to access the scheme. In words rather lengthier than those
of my noble friend , will the Government now
accept that this element of the National Tutoring Programme is
failing and redirect its resources direct to schools, so that
they can buy in resources to bolster their pupils’ recovery?
(Con)
To reiterate, the Government are absolutely committed to this
programme—the tuition and support should go to the children who
need it most. We are working on a weekly basis with Randstad to
address these issues. We have already made some changes, and
improvements are coming through. We will not shy away from our
responsibility to these children.
(GP)
My Lords, the Government like to talk about being “world
leading”. However, a survey by the National Association of Head
Teachers found that one-fifth of those questioned rated the
quality of tutors in the Randstad programme as low or very low,
and 39% rated them as average. How can we possibly be achieving
world-leading standards of education with such a low base, based
on this privatised Dutch company?
(Con)
I am surprised at the implicit criticism of a company being
Dutch; the last time I looked, I think Randstad was pretty
global, and I am sure that the noble Baroness would support a
global outlook. I can only repeat that we are working with it on
a weekly basis, and we are not going to accept second best. This
contract, as is normal with many government contracts, is on a
one year, plus one year, plus one year basis, with break clauses
for both sides. Our priority is delivering for children.
(LD)
My Lords, global companies are not always best placed for local
delivery. I recall that one of the major outside contractors for
test and trace was a company headquartered in Miami, whereas
local health officers might well have known what they were doing
much more quickly. The Government seem to have an overall bias in
favour of outsourcing rather than insourcing, despite the clear
evidence that outsourcing very often ends up more expensive and
less effective. Is it not time that we began to look at the
public sector, particularly local authorities, can deliver
services, rather than constantly outsourcing them to more
expensive external providers?
(Con)
I just cannot agree with the noble Lord in this case. If we step
back and think about what children need, there is more capacity
in some schools and less in others to deliver tutoring support,
which is happening incredibly effectively, but it is also clear
that, in some areas, additional support is required, for example,
where there are particular requirements for special educational
needs or a particular intensity of this support. This programme
was designed to be flexible and to address those needs. We are
working with the provider to ensure that happens.
