Why we can’t judge the impact of tuition on the NfER report alone
This week, the National Foundation for Educational Research (NFER) published their findings on Year 2 of the National Tutoring Programme, which suggests that tutoring from external providers is not as effective as in-house tuition.
Our CEO, Edward Marsh FRSA, and Action Tutoring’s CEO, Susannah Hardyman spoke to Schools Week to explain why this isn’t an accurate depiction of tutoring providers such as us.
Here are their three main takes from the evaluation:
We know tuition works
Our Year 6 Maths pupils made three months’ additional progress compared with their peers – as founded in our Randomised Control Trial (RCT) funded by the Education Endowment Foundation (EEF).
Similarly, Action Tutoring’s research showed their pupils outperformed peers at Primary and GCSE levels.
Recommended by LinkedIn
The NfER evaluation compared school-led tuition and programmes delivered through external partners.
We know that the teething problems at the start of the National Tutoring Programme (NTP) meant it was easier for schools to commission external partners rather than through the main portal. Around 80% of our tuition during year 2 of the NTP was done through the school-led approach – something the NfER evaluation doesn’t consider.
We know that not all provision that ran from all external tuition partners was as effective as it might have been.
Tuition works best when adhering to a few core principles as outlined in The Future of Tutoring report:
Read more of what Ed and Susannah had to say to Schools Week in their latest article.