As part of my work, I spend a lot of time in schools observing high-impact tutoring sessions.
In a third-grade classroom in NYC earlier this year, I saw a student working on multiplication who appeared defeated. He avoided eye contact, and when asked how he felt about the lesson, he said quietly, 鈥淚鈥檓 not good at this.鈥 He had just started tutoring sessions and that was how he saw himself.
What stayed with me most was not his frustration, but the tutor鈥檚 response. She didn鈥檛 rush to correct or move him quickly to the answer. Instead, she asked how he would begin, gave him space when he hesitated, and responded to mistakes with questions rather than corrections.
When I returned a few weeks later, the positive impact was clear. That same student was drawing equal groups and explaining his thinking aloud. At one point, he caught and corrected his own mistake.
When tutoring is most effective
Effective tutoring is about consistency, strong instruction, and a meaningful relationship between a student and a trusted adult. When those elements unite, students improve academically and start seeing themselves as capable learners.
The challenge is not whether this approach works, but whether it becomes the standard for students who are struggling.
In education, consensus can be difficult and there are many areas of ongoing debate. High-impact tutoring is different鈥攖he research base is both deep and consistent.
Across decades of studies, the evidence is clear. When students receive frequent, structured tutoring in small groups from trained instructors who build strong relationships, they make measurable gains, often equivalent to several months of progress in a single year.
So why isn鈥檛 tutoring more widely and consistently implemented?
Part of the answer lies in the context of the pandemic. When federal ESSER funding became available, districts acted quickly to meet urgent student needs.
They built tutoring programs from the ground up amid staffing shortages, shifting schedules, and ongoing disruption. They recruited tutors, created space in the school day, and worked to reach as many students as possible.
That effort was both necessary and commendable.
But timelines were compressed, the labor market was constrained, and guidance on what constitutes high-impact tutoring was often limited. Districts lacked the resources and urgency needed to ensure strong implementation.
These details matter.
Tutoring is most effective when it occurs several times per week and is sustained over time. It requires small group sizes, well-trained tutors, alignment to classroom instruction, and consistency in the student鈥搕utor relationship. It is most successful when embedded within the school day, where attendance and continuity are more likely.
When these elements are in place, the impact can be significant. When they are not, tutoring risks becoming another well-intentioned initiative that falls short.
This moment feels particularly important
As ESSER funding sunsets and district budgets tighten, there is a real risk that tutoring will be grouped with other pandemic-era efforts and phased out. If that happens, we risk drawing the wrong conclusion.
The issue has never been whether tutoring is effective, but whether we have consistently created the conditions necessary for it to succeed. There are reasons for cautious optimism.
States such as Arkansas and Massachusetts have embedded tutoring into broader literacy strategies, and others, including New Jersey, Connecticut, Louisiana, and California, are exploring ways to sustain and scale this work. That continued investment matters because the need remains urgent.
Student achievement has not fully recovered, and those who experienced the greatest disruption continue to face the greatest challenges. These are K12 students who deserve the resources, structure, and sustained commitment required to make effective approaches like high-impact tutoring a reality.
We must be explicit about what 鈥渉igh-impact鈥 tutoring entails and ensure that funding supports those core elements. This includes providing tutoring at least three times per week, maintaining small group sizes of no more than four students, and sustaining services over a meaningful duration.
Tutors must be well-prepared, receive ongoing coaching, and use materials aligned to classroom instruction. Whenever possible, tutoring should be integrated into the school day to ensure consistent participation. When these elements are diluted, the impact is diminished.
Second, district leaders must be supported in making strategic decisions about implementation. High-impact tutoring is intentionally intensive. Attempting to serve too many students at once or reducing frequency can undermine effectiveness.
A more responsible approach is to begin with the students who need the most support, implement with fidelity, and scale over time based on demonstrated success.
Finally, stronger systems are needed to support continuous improvement. Schools should have access to timely, actionable data on attendance, instructional focus, and student progress.
This visibility allows educators to adjust instruction, regroup students, and strengthen implementation in real time. Data should function as a tool for improvement and responsiveness, not simply for reporting.
We already have a strong foundation鈥攚hat is needed now is alignment across policy, funding, and practice. Because when you sit in a classroom and watch a student move from 鈥淚 can鈥檛 do this鈥 to 鈥淚 think I鈥檝e got it,鈥 the value of this work becomes undeniable.
