Most headteachers don’t know if tutoring of pupils through the government’s flagship catch-up scheme is working, an Ofsted evaluation has found.
The inspectorate has published an independent review of the second year of the National Tutoring Programme, when it was run by Randstad.
After visits to 63 schools last academic year, it has shared emerging findings with the Department for Education. But inspectors previously insisted it would never be “tuition compliance police”.
It follows an evaluation of NTP year 1 which found it “failed” to achieve its “intended focus” on helping disadvantaged pupils catch up.
Chief inspector Amanda Spielman said while there is evidence of tuition working effectively, “most” schools “lack a system to assess it properly so do not know if that’s the case”.
A DfE spokesperson said evidence “highlights the positive impact that tutoring is having on both pupils’ attainment and confidence”.
Here’s what you need to know…
1. Tutoring progress not being assessed
Ofsted said that although teachers suggested pupils’ confidence had increased, they found schools “generally had not yet developed efficient means to assess pupils’ progress” from tutoring.
Although assessment was “still in its infancy” during Ofsted’s research, 13 of the schools had not considered methods of measuring its effectiveness at all.
Instead they relied on “individuals’ perceptions” to determine whether it is having an impact. Also, changes to the NTP meant some tutoring was only just starting in summer 2022.
Ofsted said in schools with “weakest” tuition provision, assessment was often “an afterthought” due to the “lack of contact time” the school had with the tutor.
The inspectorate said that “leaders do not really know if tutoring is working”.
But some schools were using existing summative tests to monitor progress. Others with clearer assessment systems were often those with a “strong curriculum offer”.
2. Haphazard and ad hoc ‘bolt on’
Overall, the schools Ofsted visited tended to follow DfE’s guidance when planning their tutoring strategy. Tutoring was “strong” in over half of the schools.
But in 10 schools, tutoring was “haphazard and poorly planned” with “no systemic approach” to tutoring, resulting in “poor implementation”.
Ofsted said sometimes this led to tutoring resembling other types of intervention or simply seen as a “bolt-on” to classes. Workload was also a barrier but Ofsted said there was a “fundamental misunderstanding” of how to make tutoring successful.
For instance, in 17 schools it was common to have tuition groups of eight pupils or more, despite evidence saying the threshold should be six or seven before it starts to be ineffective.
Schools with the weakest tutoring provision kept pupils in sessions for above the recommended 15-hours “often with little idea of whether attending was helping them”.
3. Ofsted: Tutoring can’t work without ‘well-considered curriculum’
Inspectors said that tutoring “cannot really work without a well-considered and constructed curriculum in place”.
Two approaches were usually associated with schools that already had a strong curriculum offer in place. These were teachers spotting concepts that pupils had not learned and were blocking them from catching up in class or identifying the right place in the sequence to start building the knowledge, rather than specific holes.
Some were using tutoring as a “short-term fix” to help improve pupils’ immediate exam outcomes, but these were more “generic in content” to help students to “pass tests”.
If the quality of tutoring was poor, this could “potentially lead to pupils maintaining misconceptions that may have longer term consequences”.
Inspectors found the most effective tutors regularly collaborated with teachers to make sure sessions “were purposefully planned and aligned with the school’s curriculum”.
4. Qualified teachers enhance catch-up
Ofsted said the quality of tutoring was better where qualified teachers were involved.
The weakest sessions were where training for non-qualified tutors had not been sufficient enough to “prepare them for the demands of teaching small groups”.
But inspectors said due to the recruitment crisis, it wasn’t surprising that secondary schools opting to use the school-led tutoring route tended to use qualified teaching staff already in post.
Often in schools with a “strong culture” among staff that “all pupils would catch up”, teachers volunteered their time to provide tuition.
In primary schools, it was harder to recruit teachers from internal staff because more tutoring happened during the school day – rather than after school.
A third had recruited teaching assistants for these roles, but often alongside recruitment of qualified teachers.
But Ofsted said while TAs knew pupils, the subject knowledge of non-qualified tutors “was sometimes limited”.
5. ‘Concern’ on tutoring during school day
Three quarters of schools held tutoring sessions during regular lesson times, which was more common in primary schools. Sessions before and after school, and at weekends, were more common in secondaries.
Ofsted said it was “concerned” that holding tutoring sessions during the school day could mean pupils fall further behind elsewhere. Leaders in a fifth of schools had not “thought through the risks of disrupting children’s learning by taking them out of regular classes”.
But primary school leaders said they had no other option. Reasons included staff workload and pressure from parents about school pick-up times.
At secondary, leaders said getting students to attend morning or weekend sessions was “not straightforward”. Ofsted said a few leaders were “more forthright in their communications”.
“They stated that ‘tutoring is the type of additional support that rich kids get’ and were clear in highlighting to their pupils (and their parents) that they ‘were getting it for free’.”
6. Randstad issues pushed schools to direct route
The two original arms of the NTP – tuition partners and academic mentors – were overseen by Randstad in year two.
Ofsted said issues with these routes “prompted most leaders” to select the new school-led tutoring approach.
As Schools Week has reported, schools said the “administrative burden” in sourcing tutoring was challenging. Leaders also felt “distanced” from the recruitment process and concerned about tutoring quality led schools to change their approach.
In a few cases, tutors had started sessions but their employment was terminated after only a couple of weeks. This was because leaders’ internal quality assurance checks had highlighted the tutor’s work was not up to their required standard.
But where schools were using tuition partners when inspectors visited, staff tended to be more positive.
Schools criticised the availability and quality of academic mentors.
For instance, in one school, leaders said that the tuition given by one academic mentor was of such poor quality that they had to instruct other staff to re-teach the pupils involved.
Your thoughts