Coming out of the pandemic, students had a hard time returning to in-person classes, and they found themselves struggling to tread water academically as declining test scores made many in the country worry that students were drowning.

For school districts desperate to find a life vest for students, one response was to rely on tutoring services. These services — particularly high-dose tutoring, an evidence-backed form of small group, intensive tutoring — had been identified as a way to fight against declining student performance. But at first, in the rush to jump-start tutoring programs, schools plunked federal relief dollars down on less-researched tutoring models and created a cash-grab for companies in the tutoring space. Since then, educators have reputedly gotten more sophisticated when evaluating tutoring programs, focusing their attention on evidence-backed options like high-dose services.

Yet, it’s also unclear that the ample spending of federal funds on tutors has effectively countered learning declines. Plus, schools have had to turn to alternative funding sources to pay for tutors as relief funding fizzles out. Some programs, for instance, have started creatively using federal work placement dollars to grow their tutoring forces, even conscripting college students in the hopes that it would both bolster the outcomes for K-12 students and create the next generation of teachers from today’s college cohort at the same time.

---

Get EdSurge journalism delivered free to your inbox. Sign up for our newsletters.

---

Some hoped that presidential involvement would help. During the 2022 State of the Union address, President Joe Biden called for hundreds of thousands of new tutors, coaches and mentors for programs around the country. And seemingly, this use of the bully pulpit was a success. Now, two years later, an analysis from Johns Hopkins and the RAND Corporation suggests that schools and organizations around the country have surpassed that goal a year early. The Biden plea asked for an additional 250,000 tutors by the summer of 2025. In all, around 323,000 new tutors, mentors or coaches have already joined.

At an event for the White House this month — only weeks before an election where education has seemed a relatively quiet campaign issue — the administration pitched it as a coup for their “laser-focus” on student success. Student support organizations also took it as an encouraging sign for students. “The surpassing of President Biden’s call is a clear indicator of the strength of the American spirit and our collective dedication to the future of our youth,” said Michael D. Smith, CEO of AmeriCorps, one of the organizations involved, in a written statement.

Those volunteers will provide extra muscle for districts trying to support students. But given slumping test scores and vanishing federal relief dollars, is a surge in volunteers enough to stabilize learning?

A Small Victory?

The administration was able to steer a lot of volunteers to tutoring organizations, says Antonio Gutierrez, co-founder of Saga Education, a nonprofit organization focused on high-dose tutoring. It’s a big part of meeting the urgent need of schools post-pandemic and it’s encouraging, he adds.

But what have been the outcomes?

The Johns Hopkins report notes that 12,700 schools increased high-intensity tutoring, suggesting that the administration’s plea helped. Thousands of schools also reported an increase in other support for students. What’s more, 34 percent of principals surveyed reported that more students had access to tutoring in 2023-2024 than in the previous year. Relatedly, 24 percent reported that more students had access to mentors.

But how much of a dent does that actually make in the country? It’s hard to say, according to Gutierrez. But there has been recent evidence concerning “high-impact” tutoring in general, which he thinks might speak to how useful this approach could be for supporting students.

For instance: Preliminary findings from the University of Chicago “Personalized Learning Initiative,” meant to stimulate attempts to expand tutoring in the country, found that high-dose tutoring is effective. According to the study, which inspected a couple thousand K-12 students in Chicago and Fulton County, these tutoring programs inspired gains in math learning. The study was meant to assess how effective tutoring programs are when schools design them on their own, in Gutierrez’s summary. Gutierrez’s organization, Saga Education, has tried to support schools in those efforts by spelling out the best practices districts should follow. The study also found that making sure tutoring occurs during the school day, rather than “on demand” after school or on weekends, was important for getting large increases in student performance.

But there are reasons to slightly tamper that enthusiasm. A meta-analysis from Brown University’s Annenberg Institute looked at 265 randomized controlled trials and found that as tutoring programs get larger, they get notably less effective. While they still helped lift student learning, the benefits of tutoring appeared smaller in large-scale programs, according to this study. To Gutierrez, who notes that the study still noted a positive effect, that’s not really surprising. In other words, because schools are experimenting with these programs themselves, how well any particular program boosts student achievement will vary.

For the movement to make personalized learning a permanent feature of American education, there have been other developments as well.

The most flashy has been AI. This year, the Los Angeles School District, the second largest in the country, launched a high-profile $6 million chatbot called “Ed,” a talking sun that was supposed to boost personalized instruction. But the company behind that chatbot collapsed this summer, raising concerns about what would happen to the student data it collected. Some have suggested the project had been simply too ambitious, and the company has become a cautionary tale.

That’s a good example of what not to do with these programs, according to observers like Gutierrez. But more promising, he says, are efforts like Khanmigo, the personalized instruction tool from Sal Khan, and other chat-based tutoring programs. Those sorts of chatbots should be developed because they could add value, Gutierrez says.

They likely won’t replace human tutors, Gutierrez says. Because of how students learn, tutoring is highly reliant on the relationship between tutor and student, he adds. That’s how tutors can nudge students in the right direction, pushing them to learn. Still, these tech products hold the promise of translating into any language and also fine-tuning to a district’s needs, though there are questions about engagement from students with these tools, he says. But so long as districts don’t depend entirely on these technologies for personalized instruction, it’s probably useful to explore how human and bot tutors can work together to assist students, Gutierrez says.

Ultimately, the drove of tutors from the Biden-Harris administration push was a step in the right direction, but there’s a lot more work ahead, Gutierrez admits.