Laura Hakimi
Tutoring, which seeks to extend learning beyond what is possible within the constraints of a school timetable, has long been regarded as “a well-evidenced intervention, with significant potential to help close the attainment gap between poorer students and their better-off peers” (Sutton Trust 2023 p3., see also EEF 2022). Indeed, it has gained recent policy emphasis after the pandemic school closures, with the National Tutoring Programme (NTP) at the very heart of ‘catch up’ support for students who were most disadvantaged during periods of home learning. There are reasons for us to treat estimates of the scale of learning ‘loss’ with caution (see Harmey and Moss 2021), but what is clear from proposals and evaluations of the NTP is that tutoring has long been, and continues to be, tied to claims about educational (in)equity.
For example, the Sutton Trust (2023) argues that the potential of harnessing tutoring to narrow gaps is evident. Yet, discrepancies remain in access to tuition, with private tutoring functioning as “an extra layer of the education system, serving predominantly to reinforce the advantages of existing privilege” (ibid; 3). Indeed, Tutor Trust called for ensuring fair access to tuition – not just those who are able to pay – to help close the attainment gap (Tutor Trust 2023).
Whilst the structural socio-economic differences in access to tuition sit at the forefront of these policies and proposals, there is apparently less analysis given to the nature of tuition provided: its pedagogical premise, the way it makes educational assessments of tutees, the medium of delivery etc. It’s worth paying attention to the key partners in this provision: the schools and parents, who have different roles in the commissioning tuition and identifying the tutees, there are tutoring organisations, who recruit tutors and connect them to schools and parents; the tutees themselves, with differences in their resources, motivations, cultural backgrounds, levels of parental support etc. And there is a final partner, which is increasingly powerful but subject to relatively little critical attention: the technology.
A quick browse online is enough to understand a burgeoning marketplace of tutoring organisations, offering online ‘personalised’ one-to-one tuition that supports different educational stages, specific exam preparation, and so on. Typically, these services are much cheaper than face to face options, and increasingly combine an online tutoring relationship with complimentary access to specific EdTech platforms, which serve as means to assess tutees, provide access to lesson materials, or offer consolidatory learning resources. As an example, an exploratory encounter with one such organisation, which promised primary school level support in literacy and numeracy, materialised as a weekly subscription, costing approximately 30 minutes per child. This included: an adaptive online assessment, designed to assess Years 3 to 6 in a single test, weekly online input from assigned tutors via Zoom, and follow-up ‘homework’ set via two EdTech services: Reading Eggs and MyMaths, with subscriptions to these platforms as part ofthe weekly tuition cost.
In this case, the format of an initial assessment for two children, in Years 3 and 6 respectively, was to be the same online multiple-choice test. The results of the test, generated automatically by the online assessment, were to be communicated as “above” or “below” average, determined by the computations of the software, rather than observations of the professional. The homework set was to be a ‘unit’ of one of the EdTech platforms, and measures such as time taken and percentage completion of these activities were monitored by the tutor each week. You can easily understand the win-win commercial relationships between tutoring provider and EdTech platforms, where the existing availability of EdTech products means tutoring can be offered at a significantly lower cost to face-to-face tuition, and less pedagogical input from the tutor is required because the platforms already assess and dictate much of the pedagogical framing and expectations.
Two important questions arise, however. First, in a national context where access to digital resources and skills remains socio-economically, culturally and geographically unequal, what is the implication of an increasing dependence on digital tutoring provision, which require substantial set up in terms of devices, app downloads, multiple logins etc.? We must question the fairness of expectations that the young people in greatest need have the devices, connectivity and parental support to help them, for example, facilitate zoom calls (and to advocate for themselves when things don’t work). Is this model set up to further reinforce the advantages afforded to those pupils in the most privileged positions?
Second, we need to ask more questions about a model that leans heavily on existing EdTech. As the Department for Education (2023) have recently articulated:
“Currently, in England, there is no universally agreed framework or standard that facilitates the evidenced-based judgement of what constitutes a high quality, effective EdTech product. In the absence of an evidence-based method to differentiate EdTech product quality, there is no clear guidance, grounded in pedagogical evidence, regarding desirable criteria or quality characteristics to look for when selecting EdTech products and tools.” (2023;5)
In the absence of evidence and standards, we rely on user reviews, endorsement and reputation, on subscription ‘deals’, on what ‘others’ are using and on issues such as familiarity and engagement, in order to assess the ‘quality’ and educational value of an EdTech product. Policy makers acknowledge the need to build awareness of “equity and inclusivity issues such as the dynamics of power, privilege and oppression” (ibid: 32), but there aren’t currently the frameworks to help us make these judgments.
We still have so much to learn about what EdTech’s embedded pedagogies and experiences mean for educational equity. Meanwhile, the commercial structures and endorsements around EdTech products are such that they are being adopted relatively uncritically into the tutoring marketplace. Given that tuition sits at the forefront of national policy discussions about educational opportunity and equity, we really need to take these questions seriously.
References:
Department for Education (2023) EdTech Quality Frameworks and Standards Review DfE Quality Characteristics Project. Available at: https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/6579d0ac0467eb001355f761/EdTech_quality_frameworks_and_standards_review.pdf
Education Endowment Foundation (2022) Making a difference with effective tutoring. Education Endowment Foundation. Available at: https://educationendowmentfoundation.org.uk/support-for-schools/making-a-difference-with-effective-tutoring
Harmey S and Moss G (2021) Learning disruption or learning loss: Using evidence from unplanned closures to inform returning to school after COVID-19. Educational Review 75(4): 637–656.
The Sutton Trust (2023) Tutoring: The New Landscape. Available at: https://www.suttontrust.com/our-research/tutoring-2023-the-new-landscape/