The reviews find that most schools prioritised English and maths tuition, while further education providers offered English and maths alongside a range of other subjects. Teaching staff and pupils were positive about their tutoring programmes. However, the quality of tuition varied greatly depending on the school or provider, and most teachers did not know the extent to which tutoring was having an impact.

Ofsted was commissioned by the Department of Education to look at the overall quality of tutoring provided, how it was integrated into schools’ curriculum planning and delivery, and the likelihood that it will help pupils catch up.

The reviews draw evidence from visits to 63 schools and 21 further education and skills providers.

Ofsted Chief Inspector, Amanda Spielman, said:

Tuition is an expensive intervention, but used well it can help pupils who fall behind. The government’s tutoring programme is potentially an important part of helping pupils catch up after the pandemic. There is evidence of tuition working effectively, but most schools and colleges lack a system to assess it properly and so do not know if that’s the case.

I hope these reviews help the government develop its tuition programme and help school leaders implement tutoring better.

Schools

Most leaders in the 63 schools visited had chosen to use existing staff to tutor pupils through a school-led route, rather than external tutors or academic mentors, because this gave them greater control and oversight of quality.

Schools that had strong tutoring in place used assessments, supplemented by teachers’ knowledge, to identify the pupils who could benefit most from tuition. Ofsted found that sessions taught by qualified teachers tended to be of higher quality than those taught by other types of tutors.

Nevertheless, inspectors saw that tutoring cannot really work without a well-considered and constructed curriculum in place. In the stronger schools, teachers and tutors were able to use the curriculum to identify the core knowledge that pupils had either missed, or did not fully understand, and made sure this could be covered in tutoring sessions. Tutors and class teachers collaborated to keep one another informed of a pupil’s progress.

In a minority of schools, the tuition provided was haphazard and poorly planned. These schools had not understood the purpose of having small tutoring groups and frequent sessions. Most schools had not yet found a good way to assess pupils’ progress and to decide when to stop tuition for individual pupils.

Some leaders found it difficult to extend the school day for tutoring, leading to many providing tutoring during school hours. Some schools had mitigations in place to minimise the impact of tuition on other lessons and extra-curricular activities. However, leaders in one fifth of the schools visited had not thought through the risks of disrupting children’s learning by taking them out of regular classes.

Despite some of the issues, leaders, staff and pupils were positive about the tutoring provided, and overall, the national tutoring programme, particularly the school-led tutoring route, has been well received by schools.

Further education and skills

The review found that 16 to 19 providers used the funding differently and had interpreted ‘tuition’ activities in a variety of ways.

In the stronger examples, tutors used regular assessment to understand learners’ progress and identify specific subject areas where they needed further assistance. Collaboration between teachers and tutors was strong.

Tutors were often recruited from existing teaching staff, which meant they already knew and taught the curriculum well. Sometimes there were challenges in recruiting specialist teachers, with some providers commissioning industry experts to deliver vocational tutoring sessions.

Learner groups were too large in some cases, which limited the ability of the tutor to tailor sessions to specific learners’ needs.

In a minority of cases, tutors did not set clear goals for learners, there was poor collaboration between tutors and teachers, and tutors did not refer back to the core knowledge in the course curriculum. This meant they did not always address an individual’s learning gaps.

Overall, leaders, staff and learners saw the value in the tutoring provided. Many suggested that tuition had re-engaged learners, increased their confidence and resilience, and changed their attitudes to learning. However, many providers acknowledged that they had not fully developed arrangements for overseeing and monitoring tuition.

The Pubs Code places duties on pub companies when dealing with new and prospective tied tenants. It requires the pub company to provide a range of information, so tenants are fully aware what the agreement involves and their obligations. The pub company must advise a tenant to take independent advice on this information, including the rent proposal, before preparing their sustainable business plan. It must also advise new tenants to complete pre-entry training (unless they are experienced).

The Government’s last statutory review of the Pubs Code (2016-2019) identified some concerns about whether tenants were receiving and fully understanding information from their pub company as required by the Code. The Government also recognised the importance of new tied tenants accessing good advice and fully understanding their Code rights.

The PCA initiated ongoing discussions with the pub company code compliance officers to review the experience of new and prospective tenants and where improvements can be made.

Working with the code compliance officers of all six regulated pub companies since then, the following work has been underway:

New tenant information and training

Tenants are provided with a wealth of information when taking on a tenancy. Much of this will be required by the Code (under Schedule 1) and while our recent annual tenant survey showed 83% found the information useful, it may be difficult to digest.

The Code also requires that new entrants complete pubs entry training, designed to raise awareness of the matters involved in operating a pub and entering into product ties and other agreements with landlords. Training is currently provided by British Institute of Innkeeping (BII) through their Pre-Entry Awareness Training (PEAT) course.

Code compliance officers in agreement with the PCA have reviewed how they provide information to new tenants, including about the Code, and how they will measure how well it is working. This includes ensuring pubs entry training is appropriate, where provided by a third party as well as their own training for inducting new tenants.

Professional advice

The BII has facilitated the creation of industry expert panels (Chartered Surveyors, Solicitors and Accountants). The panels have been established to support members of the BII with major lifecycle events around agreements, investment and business cases by directing them to independently accredited advisors. Following engagement with the PCA, the BII supported the effectiveness of the Code by ensuring that its new panels of accredited advisers for new tenants of all the regulated pub companies are also available to prospective tenants, who have rights to information under the Code when negotiating their tenancy. Most pub companies also pay for ongoing BII membership for their tied tenants. The PCA is pleased to see this delivered, recognising the importance of quality advice for tenants.

Steven Alton, CEO of the British Institute of Innkeeping (BII) commented, ‘Access to independent expert support is business critical to both new and existing tenants. Through our accredited advisors and wider professional services we are able to fully support our members with access to the highest level of professional, independent support to tenants, be that prospective tenants ahead of a formal agreement or existing tenants when changes to agreements occur. This will ensure they secure the very best commercial platform on which they can grow their business.’

Code awareness

All new and prospective tenants now receive a letter from the PCA, via their pub company, introducing them to their Code rights. Tied tenants told us in our independent research that they want personal contact from the PCA at the start of their tenancy. Our aim is to continue to improve tenant awareness of the Pubs Code with 79% of tenants now aware, up 7% from 2019 when the survey was last carried out.

Use of the sustainable business plan

The PCA is in ongoing discussions with the code compliance officers who have agreed to review their arrangements for regular reviews of the sustainable business plan, which the tied tenant is required to produce, relying on professional advice, before they take the tenancy. This is to ensure that it is updated as necessary and remains a useful basis for discussion and decision-making. Work is ongoing to ensure the quality of that review.

Further information

To find out about pub company duties to their new tenants see the PCA’s factsheet available on our website here.

The full PCA tied tenant survey results can be found on our website here.

The Competition and Markets Authority (CMA) referred the merger between London Stock Exchange Group (LSEG) and Quantile Group Limited (Quantile) for an in-depth Phase 2 inquiry by a group of independent CMA Panel members in May 2022, after identifying competition concerns during an initial Phase 1 review that warranted further investigation.

Following that Phase 2 investigation, the CMA has concluded that the deal does not raise substantial competition concerns in the UK. The Phase 2 investigation considered the deal against a higher threshold than Phase 1, and included consultation on provisional Phase 2 findings, published in September 2022.

LSEG is an international financial markets infrastructure and data business which holds a majority shareholding in the LCH clearing house group (LCH). A clearing house helps reduce the costs and risk of a contract between a buyer and a seller in a financial market by acting as a central counterparty between the parties to a transaction.

Quantile helps financial institutions trading in derivative instruments to reduce their capital requirements, along with their overall regulatory costs, through services such as multilateral compression. Multilateral compression service providers for interest rate derivatives, cleared through LCH, depend on LCH to be able to provide these services.

The CMA’s Phase 1 review raised concerns that, after the acquisition of Quantile, LCH could potentially disadvantage third party compression providers who are in competition with Quantile, leading to reduced competition.

During the in-depth Phase 2 investigation, the CMA engaged extensively with customers of LSEG and Quantile, and with third party compression providers, and conducted a more detailed analysis of the anticipated acquisition. Although the evidence showed that LSEG may have the ability to disadvantage Quantile’s rivals post-merger, the investigation found LSEG would not have the commercial incentive to do so as its customers were clear they could take steps to stop such efforts.

In light of all the evidence, including responses to its consultation on the provisional Phase 2 findings, the CMA considers that the anticipated acquisition will not lead to a substantial lessening of competition between Quantile and its rivals and, therefore, has cleared the deal.

Martin Coleman, chair of the CMA independent inquiry group said:

The in-depth investigation and consultation allowed us to engage extensively with LSEG, Quantile, and their customers and competitors, enabling us to better understand the impact of the transaction on those businesses and the market. On the basis of that engagement, and other evidence we have gathered, we are satisfied that this deal will not worsen the options available to businesses and consumers. As such, the transaction can go ahead.

For more information, visit the LSEG/Quantile inquiry page.

1. For media enquiries, contact the CMA press office on 0203 738 6460 or press@cma.gov.uk.

2. A Phase 1 inquiry determines whether there is a realistic prospect that the merger could substantially lessen competition. A Phase 2 inquiry has a different statutory test to Phase 1. Phase 2 determines whether it is more likely than not that a substantial lessening of competition will occur because of the merger – a higher threshold than Phase 1. For this reason, and because phase 2 decisions are taken by a different group of independent decision-makers following a further in-depth review, some transactions will ultimately be cleared at Phase 2 that are not cleared at Phase 1.