New research shows disadvantaged 16-year-olds are now almost 19 months behind. Here is a practical plan to help schools and parents close that gap.
The attainment gap is not a new problem, but its persistence should concern everyone involved in education.
The Education Policy Institute’s 2026 Annual Report found that the disadvantage gap at the end of secondary school widened to 19 months in 2025. This was up from 18.8 months in 2024 and represented the joint-highest level recorded since the current series began in 2013. It was also a full month wider than before the pandemic.
That headline is stark. However, it needs to be interpreted carefully.
The figure does not mean that every disadvantaged 16-year-old is exactly 19 months behind in every subject. It is a statistical estimate of the average difference in GCSE English and maths attainment between pupils classified as disadvantaged and their non-disadvantaged peers.
Individual pupils’ experiences vary considerably. Some may be working at or above age-related expectations, while others may have gaps extending back several years. Disadvantage can also overlap with special educational needs and disabilities, interrupted schooling, low attendance, caring responsibilities, mental health difficulties and limited access to educational resources.
This means there is no single programme that can close the national attainment gap on its own.
However, well-designed one-to-one tuition can form an important part of the response. It gives schools and families a way to identify an individual pupil’s barriers, concentrate teaching time on their most important gaps and measure whether the support is producing meaningful progress.
Why has the disadvantage gap grown?
It is tempting to describe the attainment gap as a simple difference in ability. It is nothing of the sort.
The gap reflects unequal access to time, stability, resources and support. A pupil who has experienced repeated absence, changes of school, unsuitable provision or long waits for SEND support may have missed essential building blocks. Another pupil may understand the material but struggle to demonstrate it because of anxiety, weak confidence or unfamiliarity with exam technique.
Attendance is an especially important part of the picture.
The Education Policy Institute has reported that the increase in the disadvantage gap among 16-year-olds between 2019 and 2023 could be explained by higher levels of absence among disadvantaged pupils. This does not mean attendance is the only cause of educational inequality. It does show that pupils cannot benefit fully from teaching they are not consistently able to access.
The response must therefore be wider than simply providing extra worksheets or adding another revision session to an already overloaded timetable.
Schools need to understand why a pupil is behind, which knowledge or skills are missing and what may prevent the pupil from engaging with additional support. Tuition is most useful when it sits within that wider understanding.
Can one-to-one tuition close the attainment gap?
One-to-one tuition has a strong intuitive appeal. Instead of teaching a class of 30 pupils with different starting points, a tutor can concentrate on one learner.
The tutor can pause when something is unclear, change the explanation, return to an earlier concept and provide immediate feedback. The pupil has more opportunities to ask questions and is less able to disappear quietly into the classroom crowd.
There is also evidence supporting the approach.
The Education Endowment Foundation rates one-to-one tuition as having a moderate positive impact for a moderate cost, based on moderate evidence. Its Teaching and Learning Toolkit estimates an average impact equivalent to approximately five additional months of progress.
That figure is an average across the studies considered. It is not a guaranteed result for every pupil or every tuition programme. The quality of implementation matters enormously.
The EEF also highlights several conditions associated with more effective tuition. Sessions should be structured, delivered regularly and linked explicitly to the learning taking place in school. Progress should be monitored so that schools can judge whether the intervention is working.
This is an important distinction. Simply placing a pupil in front of a tutor does not automatically produce accelerated progress.
Effective tuition requires a clear purpose.
Tuition must be targeted, not merely available
The experience of the National Tutoring Programme illustrates why targeting matters.
The Department for Education’s evaluation of the third year of the programme found evidence of immediate benefits for some participating pupils, including particularly strong evidence relating to primary maths tuition. However, it did not find that tutoring had closed the overall socioeconomic attainment gap.
One reason was that disadvantaged pupils had not always been selectively targeted. There was also limited evidence of sustained longer-term effects across the outcomes examined, although a sustained benefit was identified in Key Stage 2 maths in particular circumstances.
This does not show that tuition is ineffective. It shows that access alone is not enough.
A national programme can deliver millions of tutoring hours without necessarily narrowing the gap if the pupils with the greatest needs are not consistently reached, attendance is weak, tuition is poorly matched to classroom learning or progress is not sustained after the intervention ends.
Schools therefore need a more precise model.
A useful framework is:
Diagnose → Targeted Sessions → Progress Tracking
Each part matters. Remove one, and tuition risks becoming an activity rather than an intervention.
Step one: Diagnose the pupil’s actual learning gaps
The first stage should not be “start tutoring”. It should be “find out what is getting in the way”.
A pupil predicted a grade 3 in GCSE maths may not need to revisit the entire curriculum. They may have secure knowledge in several areas but struggle with fractions, algebraic manipulation or multi-step problem-solving.
Another pupil may understand the mathematical processes but lose marks because they misread questions, rush their working or become overwhelmed by full examination papers.
These pupils should not receive identical tuition programmes.
An effective diagnosis can draw on school assessments, exercise books, teacher observations, previous exam papers and an initial low-pressure activity with the tutor. The aim is not to subject the pupil to another intimidating test. It is to build a practical map of strengths, gaps and barriers.
The diagnosis should answer several questions:
What can the pupil already do independently? Which missing skills are preventing progress elsewhere? Are the difficulties rooted in subject knowledge, literacy, memory, confidence, attendance or exam technique? What would meaningful progress look like over the available period?
For pupils with SEND, diagnosis must also consider how they learn. A pupil may benefit from shorter activities, visual explanations, additional processing time, repeated modelling or the option to respond verbally rather than through extended writing.
The result should be a focused plan rather than a vague ambition to “improve maths” or “catch up in English”.
Step two: Deliver targeted one-to-one sessions
Once the gaps have been identified, each session should have a defined purpose.
This is where one-to-one tuition has a particular advantage. The content, pace and explanation can be adjusted around the learner rather than the learner having to keep pace with a whole class.
A targeted session might revisit a prerequisite concept, model a solution, practise it with support and then gradually remove that support until the pupil can complete the task independently.
The tutor can identify misconceptions as they appear. Instead of simply marking an answer as incorrect, the tutor can work backwards to discover whether the difficulty came from vocabulary, calculation, recall or the pupil’s interpretation of the question.
Regularity is also important. One disconnected session every few weeks is unlikely to create the same momentum as a planned sequence of tuition.
The EEF notes that short, regular sessions delivered over a defined period have often produced the strongest outcomes within the evidence it reviewed. However, schools should adapt frequency and session length to the pupil. Some learners can concentrate effectively for an hour, while others may gain more from shorter sessions with clear breaks and tightly defined goals.
Online tuition can make regular delivery easier, particularly where geography, transport, staffing or pupil attendance creates barriers. It can also give pupils different ways to participate through speech, chat, shared documents or an interactive whiteboard.
Delivery method alone does not determine quality. What matters is whether the pupil has a suitable tutor, can access the technology, feels safe enough to engage and receives teaching connected to their identified needs.
Step three: Track progress and respond to the evidence
The final stage is where many tuition programmes become foggy.
Schools may know how many sessions were scheduled and how many were attended, but not whether the pupil has become more secure in the target skills.
Attendance is important, but it is not the same as impact.
Progress tracking should begin with a clear baseline. The pupil’s starting point should then be compared with short, relevant measures throughout the programme. These might include curriculum-based questions, timed exam tasks, accuracy checks, teacher feedback and evidence that the pupil can apply a skill without prompting.
The measures should match the intended outcome. A pupil working on algebra does not need to sit a complete GCSE paper every fortnight. A pupil developing extended writing may need comparison pieces that show improvements in structure, evidence and accuracy.
This creates a GradeGain-style accountability model:
*Establish the pupil’s starting point.
*Agree specific, realistic goals.
*Deliver tuition focused on those goals.
*Review progress at planned intervals.
*Adapt the programme when progress stalls.
*Report clearly to the school, parent and pupil.
Any guarantee attached to tuition should be framed responsibly.
No ethical provider can promise a particular GCSE grade regardless of attendance, starting point, teaching time or circumstances beyond the tutor’s control. A meaningful guarantee should instead concern the quality and responsiveness of the service.
It might guarantee that a baseline will be established, targets will be agreed, attendance and progress will be reported and the teaching plan will be reviewed when the evidence shows that it is not working.
That is more useful than an inflated promise. It turns progress tracking into an active decision-making tool rather than an attractive chart produced at the end of the programme.
The importance of tutor matching
The success of one-to-one tuition depends partly on the relationship between the tutor and the pupil.
A tutor must have appropriate subject knowledge, but knowledge alone is not enough. They also need to explain ideas clearly, notice confusion and adapt without making the pupil feel that they have failed.
This is particularly important for pupils who have begun to associate learning with embarrassment or repeated disappointment.
One-to-one tuition creates an environment in which a pupil can say, “I don’t understand,” without doing so in front of a class. That moment can be academically valuable. It exposes the exact point at which learning has broken down.
A calm and consistent tutor can also help the pupil experience small, credible successes. Confidence should not replace academic teaching, but it can make academic teaching accessible again.
Schools should therefore consider subject expertise, communication style, SEND experience and personality when matching tutors. A technically excellent tutor who cannot establish trust may be less effective than a tutor who combines strong knowledge with patience, clarity and flexibility.
Tuition should connect with classroom teaching
Tutoring works best when it is not an educational island.
Where possible, tutors should understand what the pupil is covering in school, which specifications or schemes of work are being used and where teachers believe the most significant gaps lie.
This does not require tutors to recreate normal lessons. Their role is to strengthen the foundations that allow the pupil to participate more successfully in them.
Communication can be simple. A school might provide the tutor with priority topics, recent assessment information and the intended outcomes for the intervention. The tutor can then provide concise updates on attendance, content covered, emerging concerns and evidence of progress.
For parent-funded tuition, families can share school reports, topic lists and examples of work. Parents do not need to design the teaching plan themselves, but they can help the tutor understand the wider picture.
Avoiding the tuition trap
There is a risk that tutoring becomes a sticking plaster placed over structural problems.
A pupil who is regularly absent because they feel unsafe, unsupported or overwhelmed may not benefit from simply adding another academic demand. A pupil waiting for appropriate SEND provision may require adjustments beyond the scope of a tutor. A family experiencing poverty cannot have every resulting barrier solved through weekly tuition.
One-to-one tuition should not be presented as a substitute for good classroom teaching, appropriate SEND support, pastoral care, attendance work or policies addressing child poverty.
Nor should all disadvantaged pupils automatically receive the same intervention. Disadvantage is a broad category, not an individual diagnosis.
The strongest tuition programmes identify the pupils most likely to benefit, define what the tutoring is intended to change and coordinate it with wider support.
A practical plan for schools
Schools considering one-to-one tuition can begin with a focused cohort rather than launching a sprawling programme.
Select pupils using more than a single headline grade. Look at curriculum gaps, recent progress, attendance, teacher judgement and the pupil’s readiness to engage.
Complete a baseline before tuition begins. Agree a small number of measurable outcomes and ensure tutors receive enough information to teach towards them.
Protect the sessions from unnecessary disruption. Tuition repeatedly cancelled for assemblies, cover lessons or timetable changes will struggle to build momentum.
Review attendance quickly. If a pupil misses sessions, find out why rather than allowing the programme to drift.
Finally, evaluate progress against the original goals. Continue, change or conclude the tuition according to the evidence.
A practical plan for parents
Parents do not need to wait until a child has failed an exam before seeking support.
Early signs might include growing avoidance of a subject, repeated comments such as “I’m just bad at maths”, incomplete homework, falling assessment scores or an inability to explain what is causing difficulty.
Before arranging tuition, ask what the tutor will assess, how the programme will be personalised and how progress will be communicated.
Good tuition should have more substance than completing extra worksheets. Parents should be able to understand what the tutor is targeting and how they will know whether their child is improving.
It is also worth remembering that more tuition is not always better. A pupil already exhausted by school may need a carefully paced programme rather than several additional hours of pressure.
Closing the gap requires precision
A 19-month disadvantage gap cannot be solved by one initiative. The figure reflects deep inequalities accumulating throughout childhood, and the causes extend beyond the school gates.
However, the scale of the national problem should not lead to paralysis.
For an individual pupil, the next step can be concrete: identify the missing knowledge, provide focused teaching and track whether it is working.
That is the value of one-to-one tuition. It turns a broad national challenge into a series of specific, teachable problems.
When tuition is diagnosed carefully, targeted precisely and monitored honestly, it can help pupils make accelerated progress. It can reconnect them with classroom learning, strengthen essential foundations and prevent smaller gaps from becoming permanent barriers.
The attainment gap may be measured nationally, but it is experienced individually. Closing it must therefore happen one learner, one barrier and one well-planned step at a time.