
Sign up to save your podcasts
Or


We published an independent research report into our findings about the tutoring programme in October 22, and we will be publishing a follow-up in the autumn of 2023. Our podcast spoke to some of the teachers and the researcher involved.
Part 1 of the report can be read here: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/independent-review-of-tutoring-in-schools-and-16-to-19-providers/independent-review-of-tutoring-in-schools-phase-1-findings
Shreena: So with us today we have two people from Bishop Thomas Grant school in Lambeth, Laura Waterman who's the assistant headteacher and Michael Todd who is deputy head. With us we also have Alan Passingham, one of Ofsted's senior research leads. So if we could start with Alan, could you tell us about overall, what you found out about the quality of tutoring?
Alan: The starting point should be to define the quality of tutoring, the purpose of the work we did needed an appropriate lens in which to kind of look at what school leaders and staff and shooters were actually doing to make sure of what is quality in that sense sort of thing. So our starting point was to go back to the literature and have a look at what that was saying you know, and from there, we've got a sense of and this is in DFE guidance as well, that there's a need for it to be bespoke, small group size is more effective. It needs to be frequent, consistent, delivered by somebody with expertise, something to lead on, because one of the things we were going to struggle with was one thing that is difficult to determine, is identifying the direct impacts of tutoring on pupils outcomes, you know, there's there's just far too much noise in schools. They will be doing lots of other interventions. There'll be routine class teaching, you know, they'll be having an effect there will be things happening outside of school that will probably be impacting on. So there's just far too much noise to identify whether a single intervention is having that kind of improvement desired. So by going back to the research, it gives us a lens to determine and give us some degree of assurance that the schools we were looking at whether they were whether they were aligned to what good quality tutoring or more effective, that there's a direct line of causation, essentially.
With that in mind, and having got that criteria together, what did we find? It was a variable picture, but one with some genuinely positive aspects, you know, so many of the schools were following the guidelines with tutoring. So it was bespoke. It was small scale one to one, or at least one to three, one to four pupils per session. It was being delivered frequently, and it was being delivered by the same tutor on a regular basis. It was fairly quick and punchy, and pupils were not on it for a very long duration.
You know, there was a good thinking around when to take pupils off, that other pupils would then get the opportunity to experience tutoring. It wasn't all positive. There were a minority of schools where it was a bit more haphazard and they weren't giving it the same level of consideration which so you did get some schools that would deliver it into a much larger group of pupils in a session so 10 to 15 pupils, which isn't bespoke, you lose that element of tutoring that I think is most important and the bespokeness of individual pupils, but also for tutors you know, they can see where a pupil may not be getting something right, almost immediately, and then can react to that and say, Okay, I can see where you're going wrong here. And do the level of scaffolding required to get the pupil back on track sort of thing. You know, so there's, there's immediacy to it. You've got a class with 10-15 pupils, it's much, much more difficult to do that, you know.
So there was there was a bit more some schools that just weren't it wasn't just quite clicking, but I don't think that was a result of them, not necessarily misunderstanding what tutoring is. The sense I got from a lot of school leaders is they wanted to make a difference for their pupils. And so their their rationale was, we need more pupils to be accessing tutoring, sort of without realising that in some ways, that dilutes the impact, because it is very specific to individual needs, small group that kind of practice you know, so, so there was a desire to make a difference there, which is which is credible, but wasn't quite working with this particular intervention.
What else did we find? Those schools that were stronger in this space had strong processes of pupil identification, so they identify pupils that had the biggest gaps in their learning, post pandemic, you know, getting those sorts they weren't necessarily just identifying a disadvantaged cohort, they were actually doing it a bit more rigorously than that to to really identify other pupils that, you know, had really suffered during the pandemic and needed that additional support. And the curriculum planing was strong, so there was good alignment between what was being delivered in in classes and what was also being delivered in tutoring so there was a moment there so when a pupil would completed their their tutoring sessions, they could then go back into the classroom and were studying the same kind of areas, you know, it wasn't they weren't going off and doing something completely different.
Teachers and their pedagogy, or tutors and their pedagogy was really important groups really considering who should be the tutors, making sure that they were getting the right people involved, and they can build strong decisions on that. Which kind of leads to the last point I think I'll make here which is a lot of leaders preferring that, do it yourself kind of model rather than going through the National tutoring programme, which which did have some barriers, you know, particularly around the workload burden of managing that and getting a specific tutor or academic mentor in post and then not always delivering on that ie the actual tutor actually arriving as expected didn't always happen. And then sometimes the quality of the tutors that they found through the national tutoring programme, were not good enough. So the decisions that a lot of leaders leaders made was, we can do this ourselves, we can find tutors to do this. Typically, it was also teachers within the school. But some schools were also looking further, such as good examples of retired teachers, you know, coming back and doing a couple of hours work a week. They've got the expertise, they've got the experience, looking at good staff that would normally be there to provide support and cover and bring in those individuals in again with qualified teachers, but not necessarily full time teachers at that point. So schools were thinking about this in various ways of how they can deliver.
Of course, the national tutoring programme features three routes, tutoring partners, active mentors, and the school-lead routes where national tutoring programme, and where schools have rebuffed elements of the national tutoring programme is largely been along the lines of the tutoring partners and academic mentors. There is very much a preference for the school-led route, managing the provision and tutors for themselves.
Shreena:
Michael:
So we did try a few groups of students with tutors who were working with us remotely. We had problems with that. It was difficult, and I think you know, a lot of these things were common to all schools who had a go to make it work because as Alan said, the need was there, the desire, the motivation, it just became quite a complicated process to make it work. We linked up with Connects Education. We had some students in small groups connecting with staff that we'd never met. So all sorts of safeguarding and quality assurance, issues with that. Students, if they've never met someone, they're not going to be as forthcoming with sharing their issues. That could work the other way as well, that somebody that they don't know they might they can connect with and may be a little more forthcoming with sharing where they're finding things difficult.
So we'd limited success with that. Interestingly at that point, we trialled our own what became school-led tutoring. We have some of our staff and were able to start working with students in small groups. And we can see well, I don't think it's a big reach to understand that concept that if you know who your tutor is, and they're working with you in the classroom that you usually work in, and there's already a connection and the expectations of how school works. So we had a lot of success with that.
When the tutoring programme changed, we could use our own staff, everything seemed to fall into place. Because we had the quality assurance, there was some training offered. We made good use of that with staff and Alan said, this was different. One of the first questions where we spoken to Alan before was how we define tuition. How is it different than a lesson? And Laura and I actually last night met with parents to launch a year 10 summer tuition programme again this year using the national tutoring programme funding and programme structure we went through the same thing with them. This idea that you've got staff here, free, they are willing, motivated, have been through the training. We understand the difference between tuition and teaching, we know the parents, know their expectations, parents are on board and that changed into a model that we did last summer, which we had huge success with. We've since done something different since September, with other yeargroups. And Laura, you probably want to here because certainly we've worked long and hard. You talked, Alan, again about the investment in schools in order to make it work. But that's so much more motivating and so much more palatable when you know you're doing this work.
Laura:
And we've realised quite quickly that that hasn't worked. That hasn't been the best way. But we wanted to get the scheme up and running quickly last year. So we based the selection of students on tracking data that at that point, wasn't the most up to date. We have new tracking data that was going to be out about two weeks or three weeks later, and we had a discussion whether to wait but we wanted to get this the tutoring programme up and running. So we based it on Spring Data, only to find that two or three weeks later, new data had come out and different students were then highlighted as being more in need, and the sort of timetables and the cards we give to our students with their timetable lessons on or tutoring sessions on all had to be reprinted and changed. But I mean, I suppose the basic rationale is the obvious one, we look at their performance on their on their tracking on assessments against their, you know, target grades, their end of year 10 Target grades, and that that does form a big basis of it and obviously, we look at students that are furthest away from their target grades, but I know Alan mentioned as well. We do have to factor in although it's not the the only thing but we do factor in what we call our students that have got sort of barriers to learning. I know it was mentioned sort of EAL, SEND, Pupil Premium. As a school every child has a profile and they are given a score. They get sort of certain points for different barriers to learning, potential barriers to learning. So we do sort of try and make sure that our tutoring programme also considers our sort of perhaps most vulnerable or the students that have these potential barriers to learning. And that can also you know, cover things such as sort of home factors, our school data on ethnicity and performance. That forms the premise, but alongside that is it's important to have confersations with the staff and the heads of department.
What I found with selecting the students for this summer programme that is about to start, those conversations were really important because there was some students who if we just purely based on tracking would have been selected, but upon having conversation with heads of department, they were saying useful things around what that data was based on and if it was based on an exam, that was just a particularly bad exam. I know for example, one teacher mentioned that there was one question that a few students just totally misread and therefore their tracking is kind of highlighting them as sort of below target actually, you know, we're not concerned about them and there are others who we will be more concerned on. My advice, I think, to sort of schools would be to definitely have those conversations. The teaching staff and the tutoring staff, the heads of department are obviously the specialists that know which students will be best and who will get the most out of the sessions as well.
Shreena:
Laura:
But I think it's the way that we send that message to them and it is a rolling programme you know, once you if you're on it in the beginning, it's not that you're on it forever, it's on a need by need basis and there's a you know, a reward or a sense of achievement. If, after two or three weeks, they're told that they no longer need to attend.
Michael:
Yeah, when we when we sell it to them. We do give it a really hard sell. We really laid on thickly about the opportunity that they have. And that's deeply rooted in the fact that staff really care about their progress. I can see where we're struggling and as someone said there's another 25 to 30 students with you. Everybody knows how difficult that might be, the many barriers there are to students opening up as to why they are finding something difficult and for them to come back at the end of the day, although they do do that. They come back at lunchtimes. This is their opportunity and they jump for it. So we're hoping for the same thing this summer.
Laura:
Shreena;
Alan;
So the tutors, the teachers that were delivering were saying exactly the same things that they could have seen growth in their pupils, you know, a couple of examples, examples that I can recall on some of the visits that I went to of, 'We weren't sure about this people we weren't, we weren't sure if this was for them. But actually, it was perfect, you know, the environment, we've seen them grow in a way that we wouldn't have seen beforehand. In some cases, it has been a case of in class a bit of a troublemaker. And that may be because they've got a bit of an audience that they can put a show on to, but in the tutoring session, they pivot and that's, that's the environment where you know, actually is really accessible for them and they benefit from that.
The other point I want to make is something that Laura mentioned about the process of adapting, and I think it was in the case of your assessment, your identification of pupils for this, but I think that the adaptation is a principle that is probably applied more generally across all aspects of school leaders coming to terms with 'what is tutoring, and how do we deliver this in our context.' So again, if we go back to the research, it's kind of it's it's small scale, but much smaller scale, research that's been completed on saying these are the things that are these are the areas where it is likely to have impact and be beneficial to people.
Current policy is being done at scale. I don't think that's ever been achieved before. So So I think part of that process and what we're learning from the research is, it's not going to necessarily look exactly like we would find in the research that already exists. This is this is new research that we're providing, where at scale and in different contexts, schools will work in different environments and have different pupils, and may need to make different decisions about how they implement it. And I think that part of that adaptation has been part of the journey that schools have been on the in the year that we've done the research you know, so you know, some are coming on board with it a little bit later than others. A lot of this has been trial be error - getting used to a new process and seeing where it lands. And that's the continuing journey. Essentially, it's kind of it's making some decisions reflecting on those and then going through a process of transformation to say, there's more that we can do here. Being adaptable, flexible in that and reflecting on your decisions within the tutoring space are actually really quite powerful and useful.
Shreena;
Michael:
Laura:
Alan;
Shreena:
Michael:
And that's also really exciting for staff. Because before you become a teacher, I think, there's an element of that, the essence of sitting down with small groups of people, and talking through a subject that you love. And you've had the opportunity here to craft a little curriculum for those individuals that's reallty special. That can be really motivating for staff and we've seen that. It's not separate from curriculum thinking, it's so integrated. The legacy will be far beyond. We're going to be limited in the future, it's a lot to take on, and we welcome that. But if we had the funding, we could do it. Without that, we wouldn't be able to do it.
Shreena:
By OfstedWe published an independent research report into our findings about the tutoring programme in October 22, and we will be publishing a follow-up in the autumn of 2023. Our podcast spoke to some of the teachers and the researcher involved.
Part 1 of the report can be read here: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/independent-review-of-tutoring-in-schools-and-16-to-19-providers/independent-review-of-tutoring-in-schools-phase-1-findings
Shreena: So with us today we have two people from Bishop Thomas Grant school in Lambeth, Laura Waterman who's the assistant headteacher and Michael Todd who is deputy head. With us we also have Alan Passingham, one of Ofsted's senior research leads. So if we could start with Alan, could you tell us about overall, what you found out about the quality of tutoring?
Alan: The starting point should be to define the quality of tutoring, the purpose of the work we did needed an appropriate lens in which to kind of look at what school leaders and staff and shooters were actually doing to make sure of what is quality in that sense sort of thing. So our starting point was to go back to the literature and have a look at what that was saying you know, and from there, we've got a sense of and this is in DFE guidance as well, that there's a need for it to be bespoke, small group size is more effective. It needs to be frequent, consistent, delivered by somebody with expertise, something to lead on, because one of the things we were going to struggle with was one thing that is difficult to determine, is identifying the direct impacts of tutoring on pupils outcomes, you know, there's there's just far too much noise in schools. They will be doing lots of other interventions. There'll be routine class teaching, you know, they'll be having an effect there will be things happening outside of school that will probably be impacting on. So there's just far too much noise to identify whether a single intervention is having that kind of improvement desired. So by going back to the research, it gives us a lens to determine and give us some degree of assurance that the schools we were looking at whether they were whether they were aligned to what good quality tutoring or more effective, that there's a direct line of causation, essentially.
With that in mind, and having got that criteria together, what did we find? It was a variable picture, but one with some genuinely positive aspects, you know, so many of the schools were following the guidelines with tutoring. So it was bespoke. It was small scale one to one, or at least one to three, one to four pupils per session. It was being delivered frequently, and it was being delivered by the same tutor on a regular basis. It was fairly quick and punchy, and pupils were not on it for a very long duration.
You know, there was a good thinking around when to take pupils off, that other pupils would then get the opportunity to experience tutoring. It wasn't all positive. There were a minority of schools where it was a bit more haphazard and they weren't giving it the same level of consideration which so you did get some schools that would deliver it into a much larger group of pupils in a session so 10 to 15 pupils, which isn't bespoke, you lose that element of tutoring that I think is most important and the bespokeness of individual pupils, but also for tutors you know, they can see where a pupil may not be getting something right, almost immediately, and then can react to that and say, Okay, I can see where you're going wrong here. And do the level of scaffolding required to get the pupil back on track sort of thing. You know, so there's, there's immediacy to it. You've got a class with 10-15 pupils, it's much, much more difficult to do that, you know.
So there was there was a bit more some schools that just weren't it wasn't just quite clicking, but I don't think that was a result of them, not necessarily misunderstanding what tutoring is. The sense I got from a lot of school leaders is they wanted to make a difference for their pupils. And so their their rationale was, we need more pupils to be accessing tutoring, sort of without realising that in some ways, that dilutes the impact, because it is very specific to individual needs, small group that kind of practice you know, so, so there was a desire to make a difference there, which is which is credible, but wasn't quite working with this particular intervention.
What else did we find? Those schools that were stronger in this space had strong processes of pupil identification, so they identify pupils that had the biggest gaps in their learning, post pandemic, you know, getting those sorts they weren't necessarily just identifying a disadvantaged cohort, they were actually doing it a bit more rigorously than that to to really identify other pupils that, you know, had really suffered during the pandemic and needed that additional support. And the curriculum planing was strong, so there was good alignment between what was being delivered in in classes and what was also being delivered in tutoring so there was a moment there so when a pupil would completed their their tutoring sessions, they could then go back into the classroom and were studying the same kind of areas, you know, it wasn't they weren't going off and doing something completely different.
Teachers and their pedagogy, or tutors and their pedagogy was really important groups really considering who should be the tutors, making sure that they were getting the right people involved, and they can build strong decisions on that. Which kind of leads to the last point I think I'll make here which is a lot of leaders preferring that, do it yourself kind of model rather than going through the National tutoring programme, which which did have some barriers, you know, particularly around the workload burden of managing that and getting a specific tutor or academic mentor in post and then not always delivering on that ie the actual tutor actually arriving as expected didn't always happen. And then sometimes the quality of the tutors that they found through the national tutoring programme, were not good enough. So the decisions that a lot of leaders leaders made was, we can do this ourselves, we can find tutors to do this. Typically, it was also teachers within the school. But some schools were also looking further, such as good examples of retired teachers, you know, coming back and doing a couple of hours work a week. They've got the expertise, they've got the experience, looking at good staff that would normally be there to provide support and cover and bring in those individuals in again with qualified teachers, but not necessarily full time teachers at that point. So schools were thinking about this in various ways of how they can deliver.
Of course, the national tutoring programme features three routes, tutoring partners, active mentors, and the school-lead routes where national tutoring programme, and where schools have rebuffed elements of the national tutoring programme is largely been along the lines of the tutoring partners and academic mentors. There is very much a preference for the school-led route, managing the provision and tutors for themselves.
Shreena:
Michael:
So we did try a few groups of students with tutors who were working with us remotely. We had problems with that. It was difficult, and I think you know, a lot of these things were common to all schools who had a go to make it work because as Alan said, the need was there, the desire, the motivation, it just became quite a complicated process to make it work. We linked up with Connects Education. We had some students in small groups connecting with staff that we'd never met. So all sorts of safeguarding and quality assurance, issues with that. Students, if they've never met someone, they're not going to be as forthcoming with sharing their issues. That could work the other way as well, that somebody that they don't know they might they can connect with and may be a little more forthcoming with sharing where they're finding things difficult.
So we'd limited success with that. Interestingly at that point, we trialled our own what became school-led tutoring. We have some of our staff and were able to start working with students in small groups. And we can see well, I don't think it's a big reach to understand that concept that if you know who your tutor is, and they're working with you in the classroom that you usually work in, and there's already a connection and the expectations of how school works. So we had a lot of success with that.
When the tutoring programme changed, we could use our own staff, everything seemed to fall into place. Because we had the quality assurance, there was some training offered. We made good use of that with staff and Alan said, this was different. One of the first questions where we spoken to Alan before was how we define tuition. How is it different than a lesson? And Laura and I actually last night met with parents to launch a year 10 summer tuition programme again this year using the national tutoring programme funding and programme structure we went through the same thing with them. This idea that you've got staff here, free, they are willing, motivated, have been through the training. We understand the difference between tuition and teaching, we know the parents, know their expectations, parents are on board and that changed into a model that we did last summer, which we had huge success with. We've since done something different since September, with other yeargroups. And Laura, you probably want to here because certainly we've worked long and hard. You talked, Alan, again about the investment in schools in order to make it work. But that's so much more motivating and so much more palatable when you know you're doing this work.
Laura:
And we've realised quite quickly that that hasn't worked. That hasn't been the best way. But we wanted to get the scheme up and running quickly last year. So we based the selection of students on tracking data that at that point, wasn't the most up to date. We have new tracking data that was going to be out about two weeks or three weeks later, and we had a discussion whether to wait but we wanted to get this the tutoring programme up and running. So we based it on Spring Data, only to find that two or three weeks later, new data had come out and different students were then highlighted as being more in need, and the sort of timetables and the cards we give to our students with their timetable lessons on or tutoring sessions on all had to be reprinted and changed. But I mean, I suppose the basic rationale is the obvious one, we look at their performance on their on their tracking on assessments against their, you know, target grades, their end of year 10 Target grades, and that that does form a big basis of it and obviously, we look at students that are furthest away from their target grades, but I know Alan mentioned as well. We do have to factor in although it's not the the only thing but we do factor in what we call our students that have got sort of barriers to learning. I know it was mentioned sort of EAL, SEND, Pupil Premium. As a school every child has a profile and they are given a score. They get sort of certain points for different barriers to learning, potential barriers to learning. So we do sort of try and make sure that our tutoring programme also considers our sort of perhaps most vulnerable or the students that have these potential barriers to learning. And that can also you know, cover things such as sort of home factors, our school data on ethnicity and performance. That forms the premise, but alongside that is it's important to have confersations with the staff and the heads of department.
What I found with selecting the students for this summer programme that is about to start, those conversations were really important because there was some students who if we just purely based on tracking would have been selected, but upon having conversation with heads of department, they were saying useful things around what that data was based on and if it was based on an exam, that was just a particularly bad exam. I know for example, one teacher mentioned that there was one question that a few students just totally misread and therefore their tracking is kind of highlighting them as sort of below target actually, you know, we're not concerned about them and there are others who we will be more concerned on. My advice, I think, to sort of schools would be to definitely have those conversations. The teaching staff and the tutoring staff, the heads of department are obviously the specialists that know which students will be best and who will get the most out of the sessions as well.
Shreena:
Laura:
But I think it's the way that we send that message to them and it is a rolling programme you know, once you if you're on it in the beginning, it's not that you're on it forever, it's on a need by need basis and there's a you know, a reward or a sense of achievement. If, after two or three weeks, they're told that they no longer need to attend.
Michael:
Yeah, when we when we sell it to them. We do give it a really hard sell. We really laid on thickly about the opportunity that they have. And that's deeply rooted in the fact that staff really care about their progress. I can see where we're struggling and as someone said there's another 25 to 30 students with you. Everybody knows how difficult that might be, the many barriers there are to students opening up as to why they are finding something difficult and for them to come back at the end of the day, although they do do that. They come back at lunchtimes. This is their opportunity and they jump for it. So we're hoping for the same thing this summer.
Laura:
Shreena;
Alan;
So the tutors, the teachers that were delivering were saying exactly the same things that they could have seen growth in their pupils, you know, a couple of examples, examples that I can recall on some of the visits that I went to of, 'We weren't sure about this people we weren't, we weren't sure if this was for them. But actually, it was perfect, you know, the environment, we've seen them grow in a way that we wouldn't have seen beforehand. In some cases, it has been a case of in class a bit of a troublemaker. And that may be because they've got a bit of an audience that they can put a show on to, but in the tutoring session, they pivot and that's, that's the environment where you know, actually is really accessible for them and they benefit from that.
The other point I want to make is something that Laura mentioned about the process of adapting, and I think it was in the case of your assessment, your identification of pupils for this, but I think that the adaptation is a principle that is probably applied more generally across all aspects of school leaders coming to terms with 'what is tutoring, and how do we deliver this in our context.' So again, if we go back to the research, it's kind of it's it's small scale, but much smaller scale, research that's been completed on saying these are the things that are these are the areas where it is likely to have impact and be beneficial to people.
Current policy is being done at scale. I don't think that's ever been achieved before. So So I think part of that process and what we're learning from the research is, it's not going to necessarily look exactly like we would find in the research that already exists. This is this is new research that we're providing, where at scale and in different contexts, schools will work in different environments and have different pupils, and may need to make different decisions about how they implement it. And I think that part of that adaptation has been part of the journey that schools have been on the in the year that we've done the research you know, so you know, some are coming on board with it a little bit later than others. A lot of this has been trial be error - getting used to a new process and seeing where it lands. And that's the continuing journey. Essentially, it's kind of it's making some decisions reflecting on those and then going through a process of transformation to say, there's more that we can do here. Being adaptable, flexible in that and reflecting on your decisions within the tutoring space are actually really quite powerful and useful.
Shreena;
Michael:
Laura:
Alan;
Shreena:
Michael:
And that's also really exciting for staff. Because before you become a teacher, I think, there's an element of that, the essence of sitting down with small groups of people, and talking through a subject that you love. And you've had the opportunity here to craft a little curriculum for those individuals that's reallty special. That can be really motivating for staff and we've seen that. It's not separate from curriculum thinking, it's so integrated. The legacy will be far beyond. We're going to be limited in the future, it's a lot to take on, and we welcome that. But if we had the funding, we could do it. Without that, we wouldn't be able to do it.
Shreena:

400 Listeners

2,062 Listeners

3,982 Listeners

1,131 Listeners

42 Listeners

361 Listeners

612 Listeners

979 Listeners

0 Listeners

715 Listeners

100 Listeners

1 Listeners

462 Listeners

78 Listeners

231 Listeners