Adaptive Teaching: Moving Beyond Differentiation to What the Evidence Says

The language of differentiation has dominated teacher training and Ofsted inspection for two decades. It has also produced extraordinary amounts of teacher workload for uncertain evidence of pupil benefit. The shift to "adaptive teaching" in the new Ofsted framework reflects a change in the evidence base, not just a rebrand. Understanding what the evidence actually supports — and what it does not — is essential for every classroom teacher.

What Was Wrong With Traditional Differentiation

Traditional differentiation as practised in many English schools meant: different worksheets for different groups; different learning objectives by ability; grouping pupils into fixed sets within or across classes; and the lowest-attaining pupils consistently receiving simplified, less demanding versions of the curriculum. The problem with this approach is not that it is unkind. It is that the evidence base for its benefits is weak and the evidence for its harms is substantial.

Research by Francis et al. (2017), the most comprehensive review of ability grouping in England, found that setting and streaming did not significantly improve outcomes for higher-attaining pupils and significantly disadvantaged lower-attaining pupils. Pupils placed in lower sets received a less demanding curriculum, less experienced teachers, lower expectations and fewer opportunities for peer modelling of high-quality thinking. The attainment gap widened rather than narrowing.

What Adaptive Teaching Actually Means

Adaptive teaching is defined in the Early Career Framework (2019) as recognising that pupils learn at different rates and require different levels of support from teachers, and adapting teaching practice accordingly — in real time, based on evidence of understanding, rather than through pre-planned differentiation by predetermined group.

The key differences from traditional differentiation: adaptive teaching maintains the same high expectations and the same core content for all pupils; it adjusts support and scaffolding in response to what pupils demonstrate in the lesson, not in response to a fixed ability label; it does not create separate tracks with separate destinations; and it is responsive rather than pre-planned in the way that preparing three versions of every worksheet is pre-planned.

What Adaptive Teaching Looks Like in Practice

High-quality whole-class instruction as the foundation

The starting point is high-quality teaching for all: clear explanations, worked examples, metacognitive modelling, well-structured retrieval practice. This is not the minimum required before differentiation happens; it is the core of adaptive teaching. When the quality of whole-class instruction is high, the need for significant individual adaptation is reduced.

Real-time adjustment based on formative assessment

Adaptive teaching relies on live information about pupil understanding: cold-calling, hinge questions, exit tickets, mini-whiteboards, scanning written work. When a teacher notices, during the lesson, that a significant group has not understood a key concept, they adapt — reteach, try a different explanation, provide a concrete example — rather than moving on and dealing with the gap next lesson.

Targeted, temporary scaffolding

Where specific pupils need additional support, this is provided through temporary scaffolds — a sentence starter, a simplified version of the resource, support from a teaching assistant — that are removed as soon as they are no longer needed. The goal is independence, not permanent support. The scaffold supports the build; the building stands without it when done.

Adaptive Teaching and SEND

For pupils with SEND, adaptive teaching is not a sufficient response on its own. Pupils with EHCPs or significant learning differences may require specific provision that goes beyond what adaptive teaching within the mainstream classroom provides. But the adaptive teaching approach — responding to what the pupil actually demonstrates rather than a fixed label — is a significant improvement on differentiation by ability group for this population. Our articles on dyslexia in the classroom, ADHD and academic achievement, and teacher workload (which covers the efficiency gains of adaptive over differentiated planning) provide the surrounding context.

Frequently Asked Questions

If I'm not differentiating by ability, how do I support my lowest-attaining pupils?

Through targeted, responsive scaffolding in real time; through high-quality teaching assistant deployment focused on understanding, not task completion; through structured peer learning; and through ensuring that your formative assessment is accurately identifying where individuals are struggling so that you can respond. The difference is that support is temporary, responsive and does not reduce access to the full curriculum.

Does Ofsted still expect to see differentiation?

The current Ofsted framework uses the language of adaptive teaching, not differentiation by ability group. Ofsted's own guidance acknowledges the weak evidence base for ability grouping. You should not be creating three-way differentiated resources for the purpose of inspection; what inspectors want to see is teachers responding to evidence of pupil understanding.

What is the difference between adaptive teaching and personalised learning?

Personalised learning typically means individually tailored programmes — a separate learning journey for each pupil. This is generally impractical at scale and has weak evidence for improving outcomes. Adaptive teaching means responsive whole-class teaching with targeted scaffolding: the same destination for all, with different levels of support to get there.

How do I help a pupil who is significantly behind the rest of the class?

Identify the specific gaps through diagnostic assessment, address those gaps through targeted intervention (which may be outside main lesson time), and maintain access to the full curriculum through scaffolding. Reducing the curriculum to only what the pupil can currently access independently reduces the gap further rather than closing it.