Ofsted has published phase 2 of its independent review of the
government’s tutoring programme in schools and 16-19 education
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 find that in secondary schools and 16-19 education
providers there has been a shift in those who are receiving
tuition, with much of the time being used for learners about to
sit exams.
The review draws on evidence from 51 schools and 34 further
education and skills providers.
The shift to focusing on exams comes despite many secondary
school leaders acknowledging that pupils in key stage 3 needed
the most support with catching up.
Ofsted Chief Inspector, Amanda Spielman, said:
“Tutoring, when used in the right way, can have a positive effect
on the learners using it. But tutoring is an expensive
intervention and should be aimed at the right students, and not
just for exam preparation.
“It’s important that the pupils who most need help to catch up on
lost learning get that opportunity.”
Schools
The report found that in schools, tutoring continued to be
effective when it was well planned, delivered in small groups and
aligned with the school curriculum. Schools where tutoring was
strong also built on pupils’ prior knowledge.
In secondary schools, leaders tended to use qualified teachers,
often offering tutoring opportunities as additional paid
responsibilities to internal teaching staff. This meant some
tutors already had strong relationships with pupils and were able
to establish a clear link between the content of tutoring
sessions and the school curriculum.
In primary schools tutoring was more likely to be delivered by
teaching assistants. However, Ofsted found a clear difference
between sessions with a qualified teacher and those with teaching
assistants, who often lacked the subject knowledge to address
pupils’ misconceptions quickly.
Ofsted found remote tutoring through tuition partner routes was
the weakest form of tutoring. In some cases, poor communication
between tutors and staff was a concern and schools had little
involvement in the content of the tutoring sessions.
Generally, the views of leaders, tutors and pupils on the
perceived impact of tutoring have remained positive. Most of the
pupils we spoke to said that they enjoyed tutoring and found the
extra support helpful.
16-19 providers
Tutoring in 16-19 providers was most effective when it aligned
with the subject curriculum. The strongest providers assessed the
gaps in learners’ knowledge and skills before and during
tutoring. This meant they could adapt their teaching to ensure
that learners developed their knowledge and skills securely and
quickly.
There was a noticeable difference in the quality of sessions
taught by qualified teachers and non-qualified teachers. Tutors
from external agencies weren’t always given the training needed
to deliver high-quality sessions and sometimes had limited
communication with the provider to monitor and identify gaps.
Tutoring continued to be used for a variety of purposes in 16-19
providers. Where leaders chose to use it for exam preparations,
most chose to select learners who were re-sitting maths or
English GCSEs.
The view of leaders, tutors and learners was that the impact of
tutoring remains positive. Learners found the tutoring
environment to be supportive and praised the safety they had to
make mistakes and learn without judgement.
