UKH

In education again this time:

https://www.theguardian.com/education/2021/mar/25/professional-tutors-call-...

Unfortunately not much of a surprise. When it was announced I thought it was a reasonable idea. I was disappointed when it seemed that the targets for tutor recruitment were inexperienced people on minimum wage.It's not really a shock that some felt even minimum wage was too much to be paying these tutors. In my opinion, to make a difference with the students that need it the most, it is  a highly skilled job. Certainly far more challenging (but probably more rewarding) than helping students with parents who are prepared to pay £40 (and in one case, even in North Cumbria £100 an hour.)

The whole idea of getting caught up academically is fundamentally flawed. The money should have been spent on child mental health, sports, outdoor education projects and such like.

It may be flawed in terms of value for money but if you are saying tutoring doesn't work that's plain wrong.

Tutoring only works in some pretty specific circumstances and I don't think it's what many of the young people affected by lockdown need.

Really? I think tutoring is the essential core of all good teaching but one to one is very expensive.

Returning to school after the first lockdown I expected to see pupils having regressed academically or to struggle to engage with new concepts. It absolutely just wasn't a thing, they were fine in that regard. Sure, they'd missed some stuff but it doesn't much matter when a kid learns most stuff and I'm confident we can catch up on any key concepts over the next few years.

What became immediately apparent though was that behaviour had nosedived, anxiety and other mental health issues had rocketed and many pupils had regressed socially and emotionally.

That's why I think tutoring isn't what they need most.

As for the effectiveness of tutoring, I'm really dubious about that when it's done on this scale.

I think we're talking at cross purposes. Sounds like you're talking about tutoring as a pedagogical process. I'm talking about tutoring like people would pay for prior to an exam, 1-1 specific teaching in addition to that done in class. That's pretty much the format of the govt program.

There is no need for any difference in my wide experience. It is personal for me as after failing O level French as a comp kid I got some tutoring as a favour for my dad (in return for a favour). It got me in to Cambridge. The teaching at school was below par and disrupted and I had an interest but little natural talent. The tutoring was professionaly target focussed but also inspiring on the country and the language. The tutor taught French in another nearby comp. Seeing the tutor system at University and how well it functioned, especially compared to friends' experiences of other 'good' Universities (in particular the 'do or die' nightmare  of Imperial at that time) further cemented that. This led me to one of my key motivations in my an academic career (I always found time for students who had tried but needed some help). This is before I was aware of all the research on the subject.

So where is your evidence to the contrary?

I think you've missed my point, I'm not saying tutoring as you describe it doesn't work, I'm saying it's not what most kids need right now.

Also, what you describe worked for you. It wouldn't work for everyone, particularly not those worst affected by school closures and it's probably not what will be delivered under the govt tutoring program anyway!

That's laudable but one of the main problems we have now is with those who haven't (or couldn't) try during school closures. I don't think intensive academic tutoring is what they need or what they'd respond to. 

<if you are saying tutoring doesn't work that's plain wrong>

Just depends on the quality of tutoring, the age-range and engagement of the tutee, the focus & content of the work. Jury is very much out on a wide range of its supposed benefits...

Which is why I don't think using inexperienced tutors is sensible. As DHK says money needs to be spent elsewhere as well. Perhaps a smaller, more targeted scheme would have been better.  Some people benefit from two hour private ski lesson, others from a  week in ski school, some from neither. 

 > Jury is very much out on a wide range of its supposed benefits...

About 25%  of parents are prepared to pay, I expect more would if they could. If we are talking about disadvantaged students having the same opportunity,  I think there is some evidence that it is more effective if they already know the tutor and trust them. Unfortunately this probably means existing school staff so isn't as practical as an extra. 

The tutoring industry today is almost entirely focused on cramming for exams, and routinely employs, for example, sixth-formers to tutor younger students. It’s a world away from Offwidth’s experience of personal engagement with qualified educators. As a post-16 teacher my colleagues and I had to spend time every year undoing the damage done by private tutors.

 The government could have given the money to schools, who know their students’ needs, and trusted them to make the best use of it. But they’ve chosen the private sector once again, regardless of quality.

I visited a Rauschenberg exhibition the other day after a saunter through Borough market and it struck me. The salt-of-the-earth type jobs some of my primary school classmates ended up in just don't exist any more. It's a shame no-one was listening when I warned about the dangers of GMOs.

This is pretty much what's happening in Scotland.

I can only speak from personal experience and locally the vast majority of tutoring is done by existing (mainly part-time) or semi retired staff. I've only done it for friends children and i accept that the main focus at A level would be they are currently predicted a D and need a B to get to X, but I like to think I was reasonably successful in helping them meet that goal, I think that some students would benefit if that opportunity was more widely available. Again it is purely personal experience but I have bitten my tongue when my told about what "normal" lessons were like/what is in their books, some of my colleagues haven't.  

I agree with this, and think some academic tutoring would result. Offwidth's experience did resonate with me. An ex-student is in their third year studying law at Oxford. They were PP, after the referendum we weren't able to appoint any replacement language teachers, after the two we had decided to "go home" We basically used some of his PP money to pay an ex-colleague of mine to tutor him for his GCSE. With the cuts over the last 5 years I not sure I would be able to afford that now.  I agree that the current system is too focused on exams at 16, and the focus was for him  to get an A/A* rather than become a linguist, but maintain that was money well spent.  

I agree. The issue with these sub-contracts is that a significant proportion is top-sliced by the company overseeing them. It's in their interest to keep costs down because profit is their key driver. My organisation uses job-coaches and personal mentors with young people in supported employment situations. These don't come cheaply, and good, committed and experienced ones are much sought after. The model being slavishly followed is not too far from the snap-shot example given recently, where what is verging on slave labour is being used so that the project's principal's can trouser a load of cash. And these people know how this kind of sub-contracting works: you just have to be a mate of a mate of Johnson, or another of his cabal.

Yep,  My previous posts might have implied some support for the current scheme, I haven't, for the reasons you have outlined, but do think the principle has some merit. I think there is quite a bit of talent/experience that heads cold tap into if they had been given the money directly. I know several who are frustrated that they couldn't use the money to directly employ who they wanted to do the tutoring. I know a considerable number of people who have left the profession for a number of reasons, who would have been interested had it been organised differently. Given that in England and Wales we seem to be sticking with GCSE exams, I think private tutoring market will expand over the next couple of years, for those parents who can afford it.

I couldn't agree more. If I were still a Head this whole ridiculously bureaucratic and expensive tutoring scheme would drive me mad. It would have been so much simpler and more effective to give schools the money and let them organise intervention and support in the way they knew would be most equitable and productive. I'd always have much rather used my own staff plus trusted supply and volunteers and paid them for the extra hours. This is just one more in a long line of initiatives that have been bedevilled by government's control freakery, distrust of the educational establishment and ideological desperation to get the private sector involved. Talk about never learning.

I certainly didn’t mean to cast any aspersions on the kind of tutoring you describe! That’s clearly valuable, and I may even volunteer for some myself.  As for the point about GCSEs - wouldn’t it be a silver lining if we could shake off the addiction to exams, at least at 16!

I'd agree with all you say. In defending good tutoring I'm not denying much of the money could be better spent. I just think tutoring gets an unfairly bad rap. Giving the money to schools would be by far my preference (to buy their own tutoring, or not) if the alternative is  what has happened. I also see the benefit of extra curricular spending. This was personal as well. I was just in the catchment for a rural comp with a good A level cohort. The next door comp catchment, in my nearest town, had kids staying on in sixth form to fill key gaps in CSEs (a scary post code lottery)... what really changed people in that failing school were extra curricular subjects that inspired focus and discipline... which is how I became friends with some involved in Judo,......all have gone on to do well in life with later help from further education.

For rsc yes some are like that but far from all. I'd add that I have (unpaid) tutored quite a few A level students in maths and physics and in all cases had to undo below par teaching from school teachers in good schools... the worst example being telling bright kids the best way to pass maths mechanics papers is to memorise all the equations and methods (when it's way easier and much safer given the very narrow breadth of modern papers and exam condition stress to understand what the equations mean). In my mechanics paper situation I can understand how less subject experienced tutors might fear the risk of unlearning bad practice in a cramming scenario... I felt it was a risk and a big responsibility but worth it given I knew the person and it was successful, with the benefit of improved interest and understanding.

Exactly! Give schools the money and they’ll choose tutors like that. My mini-rant was against the tutoring *industry*, which operates on other priorities.