The advice has been published in a research report collating the findings from phase 2 of Ofsted’s on-going review of the government’s National Tutoring Programme (NTP).
Inspectors warned, however, that remote tutoring through NTP tuition partners route was “the weakest form of tutoring” due to poor communication between tutors and staff, and schools having little involvement in the content of the sessions.
Having said this, a second review of NTP provision, published this week by the National Foundation for Educational Research (NFER), found “high satisfaction” for the programme overall across all three NTP routes (Lynch et al, 2023).
Both the Ofsted and the NFER reviews sound clear warnings about schools’ intention to cut NTP provision when the government subsidy is axed next year.
The NTP is a core strand of the DfE’s £3.5bn Covid recovery programme and has been allocated £1bn over four years.
It consists of three routes – tuition partners (tutors from external tutoring organisations), academic mentors (staff employed by schools to deliver intensive support), and school-led tutoring (interventions led by school staff).
The NFER report finds that 85% of more than 1,000 schools surveyed were delivering tutoring via the school-led tutoring route compared to 24% using tuition partners and 12% academic mentors.
And the focus on supporting disadvantaged pupils remains important (cited by 87% of school leaders), although other cohorts being targeted include "those who had fallen furthest behind during Covid-19, vulnerable pupils, those below expected progress, pupils who would be motivated to attend and engage, and pupils with SEND”.
Effective tutoring provision
Ofsted’s report is clear on what makes for effective tutoring: “Schools with strong tutoring provision had ensured that tutoring was linked to the school’s curriculum and that they used sessions to build on pupil’s prior knowledge.
“It was clear that tutoring was embedded in school systems and was positioned to supplement the learning of pupils most in need of catching up. Leaders ensured that all staff, pupils and parents accepted tuition as a positive addition to the school.”
Its report adds: “Small group sizes, frequent sessions and consistent tutors were commonplace. Indeed, securing a high-quality tutor was a critical factor.”
The NFER study reports a variation in group sizes being used, but mainly ranging from three to six pupils per-tutor. Only 12% of more than 1,000 schools surveyed by the NFER research team were delivering one-to-one tutoring – the most common group size was three (32%).
Qualified teachers?
Ofsted’s report found that secondary schools were more likely to source tutors with qualified teacher status (QTS) “as a priority”, including offering tutoring opportunities as additional responsibilities to existing teaching staff.
It adds: “As staff often knew the pupils receiving tutoring, they frequently forged strong relationships with pupils to secure their engagement. They also made clear links between the tutoring sessions and the curriculum.”
It was more common for teaching assistants to deliver tutoring in primary schools as these staff were seen as having the necessary expertise and relationships with pupils.
But Ofsted frowns upon this practice: “We saw a clear difference between sessions with qualified teachers and those with teaching assistants. Teaching assistants often lacked the subject knowledge needed to address pupils’ misconceptions quickly and with precision.”
The NFER study, meanwhile, finds that “most” seniors leaders said they were using qualified teachers to deliver tutoring, although a third of staff surveyed by researchers reported tutoring being delivered by teaching assistants who did not hold QTS.
Sole focus on exams criticised
Secondary schools are criticised in the Ofsted report for allowing the reintroduction of exams post-Covid to “shift” the focus of tuition provision.
The report adds: “In secondary schools, there has been a shift in who is receiving tuition. Typically, more year 11 pupils were being selected, particularly those who were borderline GCSE grade 3/4/5. This was despite many leaders telling us that pupils in key stage 3 had the most significant gaps in their knowledge and were most in need of catching up.
“Consequently, the focus on exam revision has resulted in some schools overlooking some of the quality features of tutoring. For instance, these schools tended to use larger group sizes … Larger group sizes tended to cover more generic content that was not aligned to the schools’ curriculum.”
The NFER also finds examples of schools using tutoring to improve exam results and reports that 29% of senior leaders considered whether a student had upcoming exams as an important factor when selecting pupils for tutoring.
The NFER also found that most tutoring provision was in English and/or maths – with 85% and 83% of senior leaders confirming this respectively.
Tuition Partners
Inspectors were damning about sessions delivered under the tuition partners NTP route, saying they were among the “weakest tuition provision we saw”.
Ofsted’s report states: “Sessions mostly took place after school and were seen as a ‘bolt-on’ to classroom lessons. In these circumstances, poor communication between tutors and school staff was a concern.
“Schools had little involvement in the content of the tutoring sessions and/or the tutors offered by tuition partners. Consequently, tutoring was rarely linked to the school’s curriculum, and pupils decided the topics they covered rather than sessions being targeted towards significant gaps in their knowledge.”
However, the NFER’s study reports “high satisfaction” for the NTP overall, across its different routes. It adds that there “was a strong perception among school staff of impact of the NTP on pupil self-confidence, attainment, and on them catching up with their peers”.
The NFER finds that “most leaders who worked with tuition partners were satisfied with communication … Similarly, most leaders described an on-going dialogue with tuition partners, including seeking feedback from the school, and discussing any issues with pupils.”
Funding cut
Both studies sound a warning over the future of tutoring provision due to the reduced government subsidy.
The NFER said that a majority of school leaders want to continue with the NTP, but that “its future sustainability was considered questionable given the funding subsidy was reducing in 2023/24 and then ceasing in 2024/25”.
Earlier this year, the DfE was warned by the National Audit Office that its plan to slowly reduce and then remove the subsidy would put tutoring interventions under threat.
The DfE had been due to reduce its tutoring subsidy from 60% to 25% from September this year, but decided in light of the concerns to reduce it to 50%. However, it is still due to be cut completely next year.
The NFER reports: “School staff and NTP providers were concerned about future NTP funding, with many schools already decreasing the scale of provision and providers experiencing a decrease in demand for tutoring. School staff also experienced challenges with restrictions on the use of NTP funding, reporting and funding clawback.”
Ofsted’s report echoes these concerns: “In general, despite valuing the NTP offer, particularly through the school-led route, most school leaders said they would be cutting or reducing their tutoring programmes next year due to the reductions in NTP funding and increasing school costs.
“This suggests that, while tutoring can be a good short-term fix to supplement some pupils’ catch-up, as seen across the evidence collected during the review, it remains an expensive intervention to maintain.”
- Lynch et al: Evaluation of the National Tutoring Programme Year 3: Implementation and process evaluation, NFER, 2023: gov.uk/government/publications/national-tutoring-programme-year-3-implementation-and-process-evaluation
- Ofsted: Independent review of tutoring in schools: Phase 2 findings, 2023: gov.uk/government/publications/independent-review-of-tutoring-in-schools-and-16-to-19-providers