Peer Tutor Your Classmates

Proof required

Submit: (1) the names or initials of the 2+ classmates you will tutor and the subject or topic area, (2) the date and location of your first confirmed session, and (3) the name and role of the teacher or coordinator who is aware of the arrangement.

What gets checked

• At least two distinct tutees are identified — tutoring one person does not meet the standard; the GOVERNANCE element of this outcome requires managing multiple voluntary relationships simultaneously
• Subject or skill area is named specifically — 'helping with school' does not pass; 'Year 8 maths — fractions and algebra' or 'GCSE Biology — cell biology unit' does
• A responsible adult (teacher, coordinator, subject teacher) is named and aware — the adult confirmation in milestone 3 depends on this; if no adult knows about the arrangement now, milestone 3 cannot be completed

Common mistakes

• Starting sessions before confirming with an adult — the adult awareness is not bureaucracy; it is what converts a favour between friends into a documented tutoring arrangement that a verifier can confirm later; skip it and milestone 3 becomes uncloseable
• Identifying tutees who are coerced or obligated to attend — a tutee who comes because a teacher told them to, because they owe the tutor a favour, or because they feel socially pressured is not the same as a voluntary tutee; the GOVERNANCE proof standard requires that sessions survive entirely on voluntary return
• Picking a subject the tutor cannot actually teach — tutoring works when the tutor has genuine working knowledge, not just marginally more than the tutee; if the tutor is uncertain about the content they plan to cover, they should identify a different subject or co-facilitate with a peer who has stronger knowledge

Resources

What a verifier looks for

• This is a K12 Grade 6-12 outcome: the accepted verifiers for milestone 1 are a teacher, subject teacher, or tutor coordinator — a parent or the tutees themselves are not sufficient for this milestone because the adult must be positioned to confirm sessions in milestone 3
• Confirm at least two tutees are named — one tutee is not enough; the GOVERNANCE element requires managing more than one voluntary relationship
• If the submission names tutees who were assigned by a teacher (e.g. 'my teacher told me to help X') rather than recruited voluntarily, note this — it is not a disqualifier for milestone 1, but it means the GOVERNANCE proof standard depends heavily on whether those students return voluntarily, which should be probed in milestone 3

Proof required

Submit: your session log showing 6+ completed sessions, each entry recording the date, topic covered, and name or initials of who attended. The log can be a simple table, a document, or a photo of a handwritten record — any format that shows all three fields per session.

What gets checked

• Log shows 6 or more completed sessions — a log with 4 sessions plus 2 planned future sessions does not pass; all 6 must have already happened at time of submission
• Each log entry has all three fields: date, topic, and attendees — a log that lists dates only, or dates and topics without naming who attended, cannot confirm that tutees voluntarily returned; all three fields are required per entry
• Sessions span at least 6 weeks — 6 sessions crammed into one week is not a tutoring relationship; the standard requires sustained engagement across time, which the log dates must confirm

Common mistakes

• Logging topics without noting attendance — a common shortcut where the tutor tracks what they taught but not who showed up; if the log has no attendance column, the verifier cannot confirm voluntary return, which is the GOVERNANCE proof element; add attendance tracking from session 1
• All sessions with the same tutee, zero sessions with the others — if milestone 1 identified 3 tutees but all 6 sessions were with 1 person, the multi-relationship GOVERNANCE element is absent; the log should show variety in who attended across the 6 sessions
• Fabricating a log after the fact without real sessions — a log where all 6 sessions are entered on the same day, or where handwriting is suspiciously uniform across all entries, is a red flag; verifiers should ask about one specific session detail (what did a tutee struggle with?) and compare the answer to the log

Resources

What a verifier looks for

• Open the session log and check all three fields per entry: date (specific calendar date, not 'week 3'), topic (specific concept, not 'maths'), and attendees (names or initials, not just a count) — if any field is missing from any entry, return the log for completion
• Check that sessions span at least 6 calendar weeks — calculate from the first to the last session date; if they are all within a 2-week window, the sustained engagement standard is not met
• Ask about one specific session in detail: 'In the session on [date], what did [tutee name/initials] find hardest?' A genuine answer (with content detail) confirms the sessions were real; inability to recall any detail about any specific session is a red flag

Proof required

Submit: (1) a written confirmation from a teacher, coordinator, or tutee (email, note, or screenshot) confirming the sessions were consistent and helpful, and (2) a 150+ word self-reflection covering what improved for tutees, what was harder than expected, and what you would change.

What gets checked

• Confirmation is from someone who actually experienced or observed the sessions — a confirmation from the tutor's parent about the tutor's commitment does not pass; it must come from a teacher who is aware of the sessions or a tutee who attended them
• Confirmation addresses both dimensions: consistency (sessions happened regularly) AND helpfulness (tutees gained something) — a confirmation that only says 'they did it for 6 weeks' without addressing impact does not pass
• Self-reflection is 150+ words and addresses all three questions — what improved for tutees, what was harder than expected, and what would be done differently; a reflection that only describes what was done (not what was difficult or what would change) does not pass

Common mistakes

• Submitting a confirmation that was written by the tutor and signed by the teacher without the teacher adding their own observations — a confirmation the teacher signed but did not write is a rubber-stamp; ask for a confirmation that contains at least one sentence the teacher wrote themselves about what they observed
• Writing a self-reflection that is entirely positive — a 150-word reflection that describes only successes ('I really helped everyone and they all improved') is implausible for any teaching experience; probe with: 'What is something a tutee struggled with that you could not fully explain?' A genuine answer to this question shows real reflective practice
• GOVERNANCE final check — the tutees stopped coming partway through and the tutor did not note this — the log should reflect any sessions where tutees did not attend; if all 6 log entries show full attendance but the confirmation mentions the tutor 'worked hard to keep people engaged', there may be a discrepancy worth probing

Resources

What a verifier looks for

• The confirmation must address both consistency and helpfulness — open the document and check that it confirms (a) sessions happened on a regular basis and (b) the tutee found them valuable; a confirmation that mentions only one of the two does not pass
• Ask the tutor one question about their tutees' learning: 'What is something a tutee understood by the end that they definitely did not understand at the start?' A specific answer (naming a concept) confirms genuine tutoring happened; a vague answer ('they got better at maths') suggests minimal engagement
• GOVERNANCE final confirmation: voluntary return is the signal — ask how many times a tutee cancelled or did not show up; in a real voluntary tutoring arrangement, occasional non-attendance is normal and honest; a tutor who claims perfect attendance across 6+ sessions with 2+ tutees over 6+ weeks may be overstating compliance