Ofsted has today published the first of 2 independent reviews of
the government’s flagship tutoring programme in schools and
further education providers.
The reviews find that most schools prioritised English and maths
tuition, while further education providers offered English and
maths alongside a range of other subjects. Teaching staff and
pupils were positive about their tutoring programmes. However,
the quality of tuition varied greatly depending on the school or
provider, and most teachers did not know the extent to which
tutoring was having an impact.
Read the Independent review of
tutoring in schools and 16 to 19 providers.
Ofsted was commissioned by
the Department of Education to look at the overall quality of
tutoring provided, how it was integrated into schools’ curriculum
planning and delivery, and the likelihood that it will help
pupils catch up.
The reviews draw evidence from visits to 63 schools and 21
further education and skills providers.
Ofsted Chief Inspector, Amanda Spielman, said:
Tuition is an expensive intervention, but used well it can help
pupils who fall behind. The government’s tutoring programme is
potentially an important part of helping pupils catch up after
the pandemic. There is evidence of tuition working effectively,
but most schools and colleges lack a system to assess it properly
and so do not know if that’s the case.
I hope these reviews help the government develop its tuition
programme and help school leaders implement tutoring better.
Schools
Most leaders in the 63 schools visited had chosen to use existing
staff to tutor pupils through a school-led route, rather than
external tutors or academic mentors, because this gave them
greater control and oversight of quality.
Schools that had strong tutoring in place used assessments,
supplemented by teachers’ knowledge, to identify the pupils who
could benefit most from tuition. Ofsted found that sessions
taught by qualified teachers tended to be of higher quality than
those taught by other types of tutors.
Nevertheless, inspectors saw that tutoring cannot really work
without a well-considered and constructed curriculum in place. In
the stronger schools, teachers and tutors were able to use the
curriculum to identify the core knowledge that pupils had either
missed, or did not fully understand, and made sure this could be
covered in tutoring sessions. Tutors and class teachers
collaborated to keep one another informed of a pupil’s progress.
In a minority of schools, the tuition provided was haphazard and
poorly planned. These schools had not understood the purpose of
having small tutoring groups and frequent sessions. Most schools
had not yet found a good way to assess pupils’ progress and to
decide when to stop tuition for individual pupils.
Some leaders found it difficult to extend the school day for
tutoring, leading to many providing tutoring during school hours.
Some schools had mitigations in place to minimise the impact of
tuition on other lessons and extra-curricular activities.
However, leaders in one fifth of the schools visited had not
thought through the risks of disrupting children’s learning by
taking them out of regular classes.
Despite some of the issues, leaders, staff and pupils were
positive about the tutoring provided, and overall, the national
tutoring programme, particularly the school-led tutoring route,
has been well received by schools.
Further education and skills
The review found that 16 to 19 providers used the funding
differently and had interpreted ‘tuition’ activities in a variety
of ways.
In the stronger examples, tutors used regular assessment to
understand learners’ progress and identify specific subject areas
where they needed further assistance. Collaboration between
teachers and tutors was strong.
Tutors were often recruited from existing teaching staff, which
meant they already knew and taught the curriculum well. Sometimes
there were challenges in recruiting specialist teachers, with
some providers commissioning industry experts to deliver
vocational tutoring sessions.
Learner groups were too large in some cases, which limited the
ability of the tutor to tailor sessions to specific learners’
needs.
In a minority of cases, tutors did not set clear goals for
learners, there was poor collaboration between tutors and
teachers, and tutors did not refer back to the core knowledge in
the course curriculum. This meant they did not always address an
individual’s learning gaps.
Overall, leaders, staff and learners saw the value in the
tutoring provided. Many suggested that tuition had re-engaged
learners, increased their confidence and resilience, and changed
their attitudes to learning. However, many providers acknowledged
that they had not fully developed arrangements for overseeing and
monitoring tuition.
