By Atinuke Olayinka (BSc Economics With A Placement Year)
[This piece is one of the top-scoring submissions from the “Government, Welfare and Policy” module for third-year undergraduates. It exemplifies the best of student work, showcasing their ability to engage and inform with standout blog-style writing. Enjoy one of this year’s top-marked essays, a testament to the students’ passion and creativity!]
Mind the Gap!
The UK’s education sector, like many others worldwide, faced significant challenges due to the coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic(1). Lockdowns halted in-person education and most students transitioned to online learning almost overnight(2). This sudden change left numerous pupils struggling to adjust, especially disadvantaged students and those in deprived areas(3)(4). Gaps in the access and quality of remote learning(5) made existing educational inequalities worse. Compared to their higher socioeconomic counterparts, disadvantaged students faced many hurdles, such as lower levels of technology access, shorter learning times, lower teaching quality, as well as reduced support from parents/carers (intergenerational effects) (5). As a result, the pandemic left a profound mark on educational equity, as evidenced by the widening attainment gap(6).
The attainment gap, which measures the difference in educational outcomes between students from disadvantaged backgrounds and their peers (7), is a key indicator of how well the government tackles educational inequalities. Prior to the pandemic, progress had been made in narrowing this gap over the last decade. Figure 1 shows that from 2009 to 2019, the attainment gap between disadvantaged primary school students and their classmates had reduced. Going from being 11.5 months behind in learning compared to their non-disadvantaged counterparts, to 9.2 months(8). However, as of 2022, the gap has increased to approximately 10.3 months(3).
As seen in Figure 2, this gap develops as early as Reception and widens throughout an individual’s life. Given that educational inequality plays a critical role in future opportunities, recent reports of this widening attainment gap are alarming(2).
In response, the UK government and educational institutions have implemented various policies aimed at bridging this divide. This blog entry evaluates one such policy: the National Tutoring Programme (NTP). But is this initiative sufficient to recover the lost pre-pandemic progress made to narrow the gap?
The National Tutoring Programme
Launched in November 2020, the National Tutoring Programme (NTP) has a clear objective: to address the learning loss caused by the Covid disruptions and support educational recovery through subsidised small-group tuition(9). The programme is a vital component of a comprehensive education recovery package, with £310 million allocated directly to schools for the 2020/21 academic year and £350 million for the 2022/23 academic year. In the 2023/24 academic year, the DfE plans to provide £150 million directly to schools(10). With a focus on students aged 5 to 16 (Years 1 to 11), the NTP prioritises those most affected by the pandemic. In the initial year of implementation, solely disadvantaged students were prioritised(11). The government identifies disadvantaged students as those who have been eligible for Free School Meals (FSM) within the past six years and those considered “vulnerable”, such as individuals with an Education, Health, and Care plan, under the care of a social worker, or otherwise identified by local authorities as “vulnerable”(12). However, student prioritisation was expanded in the following years to include pupils with attainment below the required average level(11).
Approximately 240,000 students signed up to the NTP in the first year of launching(13). By January 2023, midway through its third year, the NTP had funded a total of 3.3 million tutoring courses in primary and secondary schools across England(14), with 87% of schools participating in the 2020/21 academic year(2).
Schools can access tutoring through three channels(15):
- Tuition Partners – Approved organisations that provide small group or individual tuition.
- Academic Mentors – Trained teachers and graduates are deployed directly to schools.
- School-led Tutoring – Allowing schools to manage and deliver their tutoring sessions.
The programme is set to run for four years, with funding scheduled to end after the 2023/24 academic year. Over time, funding provisions to cover the cost of the tutoring programme have been gradually reduced, with subsidy rates decreasing from 75% in 2021/2022 to 50% in 2023/4 (2). Schools cover the remaining tuition costs(11).
There have been calls to extend the programme further. But should this be the case? To assess whether this is a rational request, we can evaluate the (ex-post) estimated impact of the policy, considering the costs, since its implementation in the next sections. The benefits must outweigh the costs to justify the policy as beneficial and efficient in addressing the attainment gap.
Has the Programme Been Beneficial?
Numerous studies have found that one-on-one or small group tuition (one tutor with three students) can lead to an average of four months’ additional progress over a year (3)(16)(13). However, early evaluations of the success of the NTP suggest mixed results. According to a survey, 81% of schools that participated in 2021/22, claimed that tutoring had improved pupils’ attainment(13). However, in the same academic year, a recent report revealed that disadvantaged students who took part in the NTP made, on average, slightly less than one month of additional progress in both mathematics and English compared to their peers who did not participate in the program at similar schools(13). Although the progress may seem modest, the data shows that students involved in the program achieved some academic attainment gains. Teachers have also reported an increase in student’s self-motivation and confidence, which are beneficial drivers of academic achievement(2).
The government adopted a Rawlsian approach by mandating schools to prioritise selecting disadvantaged students for the programme initially. If you woke up tomorrow and became the least well-off member of society, you would hope that the policies already in place would protect and benefit you? Rawlsian policies are determined by aiming to maximise welfare for the least well-off members of society to ensure equal opportunities to prosper(17). In this case, this intervention likely stems from the understanding that disadvantaged students often lack access to private tutoring due to limited disposable income and less awareness of the future importance of education(7). This imperfect information means that the First Best Economy assumptions are violated, so intervention is precedented. The First Best Economy is a hypothetical ideal economy, in which everyone has complete information, there are no market failures, resources are allocated efficiently, and competition is perfect(18). In this scenario, outcomes for everyone in this economy are optimal, meaning no intervention is needed. However, students from these backgrounds may be less likely to engage in tutoring on their own accord, so intervention is justified. By mandating the selection of these students, the government ensures they receive equitable access to small-group education, which is typically reserved for those from higher socioeconomic backgrounds(19). Statistics from Sutton Trust reveal that 34% of parents of children from high-income households are more likely to invest in private tuition to reduce the impact of school closures, compared to only 20% of parents of poorer households(7)(19). In 2023, 27% of students who receive free school meals reported that they received tutoring from their school, support that may have been inaccessible otherwise(16).
However, challenges have emerged, including large group sizes in schools with larger populations of disadvantaged students, low attendance rates, and varying teaching quality. This has reduced the program’s effectiveness(13) and diminished the potential benefits of small-group tutoring. Also, the NTP has potential long-term economic benefits. According to Human Capital Theory (HCT), increasing education levels can boost future earnings and economic productivity. Therefore, the improvements from the NTP could lead to higher earning potentials for students. This theory is supported by real-life data showing that disadvantaged students are typically less likely to attend university and more likely to have lower-paying jobs(19). In other words, the programme may help reduce long-term socio-economic inequalities and boost the economy.
Although, while the short-term academic gains are promising, the long-term impact of the NTP on educational attainment remains to be seen.
Costs
The cost of funding the NPT is relatively high, with over £1bn spent throughout the four-year implementation(13). Despite the significant initial set-up costs, funding has decreased as the government has reduced the subsidy size over the years.
Additionally, hidden costs must also be considered, such as the opportunity cost — the value of the next best option forgone(18). What alternative measures could the government have taken to close the attainment gap with the allocated funds? Many studies suggest that high-quality teaching is the best way to improve student attainment(20), Therefore, the government could have invested in improving the quality of teaching. Given that disadvantaged pupils often have fewer teachers with relevant qualifications(7), and the quality of the tutoring programme is frequently questioned, enhancing teacher skills might have been a more effective approach to addressing learning gaps. But how much would this of closed the attainment gap? Sutton Trust indicates that with high-quality teaching, students can gain about 18 months of learning in an academic year, whereas poorly performing teachers only contribute to about 6 months of progress(21). Considering the stark differences in outcomes and the current issues with teacher recruitment and retention(7), investing in teacher quality could potentially have been a more efficient allocation of resources to close the attainment gap.
Moving Forward…
Disadvantaged students have been most affected by the pandemic and are most likely to suffer the most from its future implications. Despite its positive effects, the NTP has not shown significant signs of improvement in addressing the wider attainment gap, especially when considering the costs. Therefore, it may be more effective for policymakers to invest in higher-quality teaching, specifically allocating more funds for schools with a high population of disadvantaged students. Although, long-term spending may be required to close the gap significantly.
Bibliography
1. World Economic Forum. This is how we make education fit for the post-COVID world. World Economic Forum. [Online] 15 September 2020. [Cited: 14 May 2024.] https://www.weforum.org.
2. House of Commons Committee of Public Accounts. Education recovery in schools in England. 2023.
3. EFF. The Impact of COVID-19 on Learning: A review of the evidence. 2022.
4. DfE. Understanding progress in the 2020/21 ‘Understanding progress in the 2020/21 Academic Year: Extension report covering the first half of the autumn term 2021/22. 2022.
5. Post UK Parliment. Rapid response: COVID-19 and the disadvantage gap. Parliment. [Online] 1 September 2020. [Cited: 14 May 2024.] https://post.parliament.uk.
6. COVID-19 and literacy: The attainment gap and learning loss. National Literacy Trust. [Online] [Cited: 14 May 2024.] https://literacytrust.org.uk.
7. Sutton Trust. General Election Policy Briefing: Closing the Attainment Gap. [PDF] 2024.
8. EEF. Remote schooling: new EEF evidence review highlights core features that can unlock its potential. Education Endowment Foundation (EEF). [Online] 22 April 2020. [Cited: 15 May 2024.] https://educationendowmentfoundation.org.uk.
9. House of Commons. Tutoring provision. House of Commons Library. [Online] 18 March 2024. [Cited: 14 May 2023.] https://researchbriefings.files.parliament.uk.
10. UK Parliment. 16 to 19 Tuition Fund and National Tutoring Programme. UK Parliment. [Online] 16 October 2023. [Cited: 15 May 2023.] https://questions-statements.parliament.uk/written-questions/detail/2023-10-16/202768/#:~:text=This%20has%20included%20providing%20%C2%A3,150%20million%20directly%20to%20schools.
11. GOV.UK. Guidance: Catch-up premium. GOV.UK. [Online] 27 April 2021. [Cited: 13 May 2024.] https://www.gov.uk.
12. DfE. Supporting the attainment of disadvantaged pupils. [PDF Document] 2015.
13. GOV.UK. Independent review of tutoring in schools: phase 2 findings. GOV.UK. [Online] 31 October 2023. [Cited: 14 May 2024.] https://www.gov.uk.
14. NAO. Education recovery in schools in England. 2023.
15. NFER . Independent Evaluation of the National Tutoring Programme Year 2: Impact Evaluation. National Foundation for Educational Research. [Online] 19 October 2023. [Cited: 14 May 2024.] https://www.nfer.ac.uk.
16. EEF. National Tutoring Programme: NTP Tuition Partners. 2022.
17. Veil of Ignorance. Ethics Unwrapped. [Online] [Cited: 22 May 2024.] https://ethicsunwrapped.utexas.edu/glossary/veil-of-ignorance.
18. Barr, N. A. The economics of the welfare state. Oxford, United Kingdom; New York, NY : Oxford University Press, 2020.
19. Clough, M. The Impact of COVID-19 on Educational Inequality and the Attainment Gap. 2020.
20. EEF. High-quality teaching. Education Endowment. [Online] 17 May 2021. https://educationendowmentfoundation.org.uk/support-for-schools/school-planning-support/1-high-quality-teaching.
21. The Sutton Trust. Improving the impact of teachers on pupil achievement in the UK – interim findings. 2011.
22. EPI. Disadvantage. Education Policy Institute. [Online] [Cited: 14 May 2024.] https://epi.org.uk/disadvantage/.
23. Dworkin, Gerald. Paternalism. [book auth.] Edward N. Zalta. The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. 2020.
Banner Image by Annie Spratt on Unsplash