Talk:National Tutoring Programme

Attempted change to this article by an IP address

Just before lunch, I undid this edit by the IP address 51.6.71.80, which this link tells me belongs to the UK Government Department for Work and Pensions. The edit made substantial factual and phrasing changes to the article with, it seems, inadequate sourcing.

The edit changed "The companies charge the government between £72 and £84 per hour" to "The companies charge the government between £18 and £84 per hour" without changing the sources. Looking again at the cited source, it says "some private tutoring companies hired are charging between £72 and £84 per hour". The edit removed references to children being used in tutors for the scheme, replacing it with tutors that are "potentially as young as 17". A reference to tutors "paid as little as £1.57 an hour" was replaced by "paid as little as £1.57 for cancelled sessions". The "cancelled sessions" proviso is not present in the cited source, which describes "pay per tuition session as low as 425 Sri Lankan rupees, the equivalent of £1.57, rising to an average of £3.07."

The additional source added by the anonymous editor is this document (archived at https://archive.is/YQNTl ) which itself looks like it could be official, but is hosted on a non-official site and doesn't constitute an official publication. Page 60 of this document does mention a provider charging £275 for 15 hours of tuition, which would work out to just over £18 per hour. That figure does stand out as much lower than the other tuition costs in the document, but if this is true information it does change the lower bound of the range from that stated in this article's other sources.

Two references to "tutors receiving a maximum of £15 per hour" were deleted, and actually I think this was right to do. Looking at the source, it says tutoring jobs have been advertised at 15 per hour, that there are tutors who "may be paid no more than £15 per hour", but not that is a maximum applying across the whole programme. I'll reinstate this change.

There may well be factual inaccuracies or wording in this article that need correcting, but the changes need much better justification. The claims in a Wikipedia article should never contradict the sources on which the article is based. I invite the DWP member and other Wikipedians to discuss here on this talk page how any inaccuracy in this article can be corrected. MartinPoulter (talk) 13:54, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

Good catch, Martin. I've left a COI notice on the IP's talk page.

However from what you say, the claim "The companies charge the government between £72 and £84 per hour" does not seem to be supported by the cited source. Perhaps "The companies charge the government up to £84 per hour" would be better? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:28, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

@Pigsonthewing: Yes, I think that would be an improvement. MartinPoulter (talk) 14:50, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

Hi @pigsonthewing @martinpoulter apologies, I am the person at that IP address making the edits. I am nothing to do with DWP but I am connected with the NTP. I am also brand new to editing wikipedia so sorry if I am not using the talk page correctly!

Apologies if I am not citing sources properly - the NTP tuition partners guide which I added as a source has all the prices in, which range from £18 per hour up to £84 per hour. It is hosted on the NTP website and the pdf can be accessed at this link: https://nationaltutoring.org.uk/resources/guide-to-approved-tuition-partners-2020-21. It is an official publication.

The reference to using children is a bit misleading - the guardian article currently cited says "Research by the Guardian revealed that TSL, which works with one tutor centre in Sri Lanka, as well as two partner centres in India, had a minimum age requirement of 17" so I feel this change is supported by the existing source. Further down the article it also says "Hooper said £1.57 was the guaranteed minimum pay per session booked, whether the session takes place or is cancelled" so again I felt the change was supported by the existing sources. There is an official response that could also be cited if helpful here. https://nationaltutoring.org.uk/news/using-overseas-tutors-to-deliver-ntp-tuition.

More than happy for you guys as expert wikipedia editors to lead on changes, but very keen to make sure the factual inaccuracies are corrected! Do let me know if/how I can help. Are you happy for me to redo some of my earlier changes? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 51.6.71.80 (talk) 16:24, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for responding and welcome! Take a look at the message that Andy has put on your Talk page. Because of Wikipedia's Conflict of Interest rule, you're advised not to make big changes directly to articles about yourself or your employer. If you're being paid to edit (not assuming that you are), the terms and conditions of the site require you to declare the employer. It's a good idea to create an account so that you can more easily be contacted. The account doesn't have to have any personal identifying information. The additional links are very helpful, thanks. MartinPoulter (talk) 21:00, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

Thanks @MartinPoulter. Very keen not to make big changes for precisely that reason. I think the page as it stands looks reasonable, although to flag, I would just say that the national tutoring programme consists of two strands. What the page covers is exclusively "tuition partners". There is also an "academic mentors" strand, which is full time paid staff members for the schools with the largest numbers of disadvantaged pupils, with the salaries fully paid. There's more detail on that here, if helpful: https://nationaltutoring.org.uk/ntp-academic-mentors/academic-mentors-faqs. The enrollment figures are obviously correct for the time of publication, I'll let you know when there is an updated data release. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 51.6.71.80 (talk) 14:44, 24 March 2021 (UTC)