Study: Tutoring May Mitigate Pandemic Learning Losses

And that’s been true in both reading and math, which is exciting because in some case, for example, in educational accountability policy interventions you’ll often see math scores move but not reading scores. In this case, the research has documented successful programs in both subjects.

It’s also been across a range of ages and grade levels. In recent years, there’s been some really interesting and compelling evidence on tutoring for high school students and also small-group instruction for middle and high school students that suggests that these kind of state-of-the-art, well-designed programs can have a big impact even at the high school level.

You’ll hear observers make the argument that it’s too late to intervene or money would be spent better earlier in a child’s developmental trajectory, and so the fact that tutoring also seems effective for these later grade levels is exciting.

Q. You acknowledge in the paper that tutoring can be expensive, but that its effects make them cost-effective relative to many other educational interventions. Can you explain that a little more?

A. There’s a particular study where the researcher did a cost-benefit analysis of a bunch of different educational interventions, and tutoring outperformed most of the other interventions. These programs are expensive and have high up-front costs, but you’re getting such a big bang for your buck that even though it requires a significant investment, the benefit is worth the cost in the end.

Despite the fact that there’s persuasive research showing these programs are cost beneficial, I still think the high upfront price tag deters some schools and districts and states from adopting these programs on a wide scale. A lesser-known approach to individualizing instruction is vacation academies, which are basically small-group programs held over vacation breaks. Instead of a 1-to-2 or a 1-to-1 teacher-student ratio, these are roughly 1-to-10. For these programs, the districts hire teachers who they consider to be talented and have them work with a small group of students who are struggling in a particular subject and they work on that single subject over weeklong vacation breaks.

I’ve studied these programs in a couple of low-performing school districts now and found that they also produce impressive results – not quite as large as the size of the effects that you’d see with a state-of-the-art, high-dosage tutoring program, but that’s not super surprising given the fact that they are weeklong programs as opposed to yearlong programs and are less expensive than tutoring.

So there are other models that capture the spirit of what high-dosage tutoring is trying to do, which is to tailor and individualize instruction for particular student needs, something that is difficult to do when you have a class of 30 kids, but much easier with a smaller group. There are creative ways to do that with small-group programs that have typically been implemented over vacation breaks during the school year, but that you could imagine being adapted into longer programs over summer break.

Q. Does it make a difference if a child, say one who is elementary school, always has the same tutor?

A. There is some evidence that consistency is good. I would encourage people to read the brief, because I worry that districts are getting the message now that “We’ve got to do tutoring” and that many may rush to do that without thinking carefully about the details. There’s a danger in doing so without attention to quality and to designing a program that’s going to have an impact.

This consistency of the tutor, the teacher, is part of that. You can imagine, for example, a volunteer-based program where you have a rotating cast of characters coming in and out of the kid’s life that might not produce the same gains as a program where the tutor gets to know the student and their academic and social needs over a full semester or year.

With the vacation academies, one finding was that students who stayed with the same teacher for the whole program had declines in their exposure to exclusionary discipline. It reduced their suspensions [from school] after the program, which suggests something about the importance of relationship-building.

Q. What was the biggest takeaway from the research you did on the vacation academies?

A. It would probably be that the folks who designed those programs put a lot of effort into framing and pitching the [concept] to students and families as a positive and fun opportunity, rather than a soul-crushing, test-prep-oriented experience. They’ve done a lot to make it a joyful environment for kids and teachers.

I imagine that’s going to be key as we address the educational consequences of the pandemic – to not shy away from academics entirely during this time because we’re so worried that children are overwhelmed, but to recognize that a lot of kids probably are overwhelmed and to create supportive and enjoyable experiences to make sure that they show up, participate, and get re-engaged with school.

Q. With more and more kids returning to schools, probably even more as we approach the fall, are there any things in particular pertaining to this research that you’ll be keeping a close eye on?

A. With some collaborators here at UVA, we are partnering with the state of Virginia to look at COVID reopening plans across divisions and how equity of student outcomes has changed over time, pre- and post-pandemic. I will be interested to see the extent to which divisions are providing tutoring and individualized instructional opportunities and whether that seems to play a role in producing positive outcomes.

That’s true not only for the Virginia context but also nationally. How will districts and states take from this impressive literature to compensate for the lost learning time that occurred because of the pandemic? I think that will be a big area to keep an eye on.