Most headteachers don鈥檛 know if tutoring of pupils through the government鈥檚 flagship catch-up scheme is working, an Ofsted evaluation has found. The inspectorate has published an 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 鈥渢uition compliance police鈥. It follows an evaluation of NTP year 1 which found it 鈥渇ailed鈥 to achieve its 鈥渋ntended focus鈥 on helping disadvantaged pupils catch up. Chief inspector Amanda Spielman said while there is evidence of tuition working effectively, “most” schools 鈥渓ack a system to assess it properly so do not know if that鈥檚 the case鈥. Tutoring scheme ‘failed’ in aim to help poorest pupils, study finds A DfE spokesperson said evidence “highlights the positive impact that tutoring is having on both pupils鈥 attainment and confidence”. Here鈥檚 what you need to know鈥 1. Tutoring progress not being assessed Ofsted said that although teachers suggested pupils鈥 confidence had increased, they found schools 鈥済enerally had not yet developed efficient means to assess pupils鈥 progress鈥 from tutoring. Although assessment was 鈥渟till in its infancy鈥 during Ofsted鈥檚 research, 13 of the schools had not considered methods of measuring its effectiveness at all. Instead they relied on 鈥渋ndividuals鈥 perceptions鈥 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 鈥渨eakest鈥 tuition provision, assessment was often 鈥渁n afterthought鈥 due to the 鈥渓ack of contact time鈥 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 鈥渟trong curriculum offer鈥. 2. Haphazard and ad hoc 鈥榖olt on鈥 Overall, the schools Ofsted visited tended to follow DfE鈥檚 guidance when planning their tutoring strategy. Tutoring was 鈥渟trong鈥 in over half of the schools. But in 10 schools, tutoring was 鈥渉aphazard and poorly planned鈥 with 鈥渘o systemic approach鈥 to tutoring, resulting in 鈥減oor implementation鈥. Ofsted said sometimes this led to tutoring resembling other types of intervention or simply seen as a 鈥渂olt-on鈥 to classes. Workload was also a barrier but Ofsted said there was a 鈥渇undamental misunderstanding鈥 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 鈥渙ften with little idea of whether attending was helping them鈥. 3. Ofsted: Tutoring can’t work without ‘well-considered curriculum’ Inspectors said that tutoring 鈥渃annot really work without a well-considered and constructed curriculum in place鈥. 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 鈥渟hort-term fix鈥 to help improve pupils鈥 immediate exam outcomes, but these were more 鈥済eneric in content鈥 to help students to 鈥減ass tests鈥. If the quality of tutoring was poor, this could 鈥減otentially lead to pupils maintaining misconceptions that may have longer term consequences鈥. Inspectors found the most effective tutors regularly collaborated with teachers to make sure sessions 鈥渨ere purposefully planned and aligned with the school鈥檚 curriculum鈥. 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 鈥減repare them for the demands of teaching small groups鈥. But inspectors said due to the recruitment crisis, it wasn鈥檛 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 鈥渟trong culture鈥 among staff that 鈥渁ll pupils would catch up鈥, 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 鈥渨as sometimes limited鈥. 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 鈥渃oncerned鈥 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鈥檚 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 鈥渘ot straightforward鈥. Ofsted said a few leaders were 鈥渕ore forthright in their communications鈥. 鈥淭hey stated that 鈥榯utoring is the type of additional support that rich kids get鈥 and were clear in highlighting to their pupils (and their parents) that they 鈥榳ere getting it for free鈥.” 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 鈥減rompted most leaders鈥 to select the new school-led tutoring approach. As Schools Week has reported, schools said the 鈥渁dministrative burden鈥 in sourcing tutoring was challenging. Leaders also felt 鈥渄istanced鈥 from the recruitment process and concerned about tutoring quality led schools to change their approach. Tutor cash will go straight to schools as Randstad AXED In a few cases, tutors had started sessions but their employment was terminated after only a couple of weeks. This was because leaders鈥 internal quality assurance checks had highlighted the tutor鈥檚 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.