Although substantial evidence supports tutoring’s efficacy, student participation rates in tutoring programs rarely reach desired levels. Our mixed-methods study examines implementation challenges across three in-school tutoring delivery models: live in person, live virtual, and artificial intelligence (AI) virtual. Drawing on student-level dosage data and qualitative evidence, we find that dosage rates across implementations were quite low. All programs faced challenges with scheduling and tutor quality. The in-person model suffered inadequate tutor/teacher communications and the difficulty of limiting tutoring to targeted students, and both virtual models faced persistent challenges with technology. Additionally, the AI-based model was hindered by the absence of meaningful adult/student relationships. We conclude that the implementation barriers we identify are addressable, putting high-dosage tutoring within reach.
BhattM. P.GuryanJ.KhanS. A.LaForest-TuckerM.BhavyaM. (2024). Can technology facilitate scale? Evidence from a randomized evaluation of high dosage tutoring (Working Paper No. 32510). National Bureau of Economic Research.
2.
BloomB. S. (1984). The 2 sigma problem: The search for methods of group instruction as effective as one-to-one tutoring. Educational Researcher, 13(6), 4–16.
3.
Bush-MecenasS.MarshJ. A. (2018). The DIVE approach: Using case-ordered meta-matrices and theory-based data displays to analyze multiple case study data. In LochmillerC. R. (Ed.), Complementary research methods for educational leadership and policy studies (pp. 33–56). Palgrave Macmillan.
4.
CreaghS.ThompsonG.MocklerN.StaceyM.HoganA. (2025). Workload, work intensification and time poverty for teachers and school leaders: A systematic research synthesis. Educational Review, 77(2), 661–680.
5.
DietrichsonJ.BøgM.FilgesT.Klint JørgensenA. M. (2017). Academic interventions for elementary and middle school students with low socioeconomic status: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Review of Educational Research, 87(2), 243–282.
EscuetaM.NickowJ. A.OreopoulosP.QuanV. (2020). Upgrading education with technology: Insights from experimental research. Journal of Economic Literature, 58(4), 897–996.
8.
FahleE. M.KaneT. J.PattersonT.ReardonS. F.StaigerD. O.StuartE. A. (2023). School district and community factors associated with learning loss during the COVID-19 pandemic. Center for Education Policy Research at Harvard University.
9.
FarmerT.RobinsonK.ElliottS. J.EylesJ. (2006). Developing and implementing a triangulation protocol for qualitative health research. Qualitative Health Research, 16(3), 377–394.
10.
FryerR. G.Jr. (2017). The production of human capital in developed countries: Evidence from 196 randomized field experiments. In BanerjeeA. V.DufloE. (Eds.), Handbook of economic field experiments (Vol. 2, pp. 95–322). North-Holland.
11.
GerstenR.RolfhusE.ClarkeB.DeckerL. E.WilkinsC.DiminoJ. (2015). Intervention for first graders with limited number knowledge: Large-scale replication of a randomized controlled trial. American Educational Research Journal, 52(3), 516–546.
12.
GortazarL.HupkauC.RoldanA. (2023). Online tutoring works: Experimental evidence from a program with vulnerable children (EdWorkingPaper No. 23-743). Annenberg Institute at Brown University. https://doi.org/10.26300/tpxj-qs08
13.
Groom-ThomasL.LeungC.LoebS.PollardC.WaymackN.WhiteS. (2023). Challenges and solutions: Scaling tutoring programs. IDB Publications.
14.
GuryanJ.LudwigJ. (2023). Overcoming pandemic-induced learning loss. Aspen Institute.
JacobR.ArmstrongC.BowdenA. B.PanY. (2016). Leveraging volunteers: An experimental evaluation of a tutoring program for struggling readers. Journal of Research on Educational Effectiveness, 9(Suppl. 1), 67–92.
17.
KraftM. A.SchuelerB. E.FalkenG. (2024). What impacts should we expect from tutoring at scale? Exploring meta-analytic generalizability (EdWorking Paper No. 24-1031). Annenberg Institute at Brown University. https://doi.org/10.26300/zygj-m525
18.
LauerP. A.AkibaM.WilkersonS. B.ApthorpH. S.SnowD.Martin-GlennM. L. (2006). Out-of-school-time programs: A meta-analysis of effects for at-risk students. Review of Educational Research, 76(2), 275–313.
19.
MakoriA.BurchP.LoebS. (2024). Scaling high-impact tutoring: School level perspectives on implementation challenges and strategies (EdWorkingPaper No. 24-923). Annenberg Institute at Brown University. https://doi.org/10.26300/h8z5-t461
20.
MannaP. (2011). Collision course: Federal education policy meets state and local realities. CQ Press.
21.
MarkovitzC. E.HernandezM. W.HedbergE. C.SilberglittB. (2014). Impact evaluation of the Minnesota Reading Corps K-3 Program. Corporation for National and Community Service.
22.
McCormickR.WooJ.SteinerB.GrossmanJ. (2023). How a pilot program targeting ninth-graders led to shifting sessions from weekends and evenings to regular school hours. MDRC.
23.
NeitzelA. J.ReillyJ. (2024). An evaluation of Ignite Reading virtual literacy tutoring in Massachusetts. Center for Research and Reform in Education, The Johns Hopkins University.
24.
NeitzelA. J.StoreyN. (2024). Air reading: A randomized evaluation of a virtual tutoring model. Center for Research and Reform in Education, Johns Hopkins University.
25.
NickowA.OreopoulosP.QuanV. (2024). The promise of tutoring for prek-12 learning: A systematic review and meta-analysis of experimental evidence. American Educational Research Journal, 61(1), 74–107.
26.
PetersS. J.LangiM.KuhfeldM.LewisK. (2023). Unequal learning loss: How the COVID-19 pandemic influenced the academic growth of learners at the tails of the achievement distribution (EdWorking Paper No. 24-1031). Annenberg Institute at Brown University. https://doi.org/10.26300/z2ek-4937
27.
ReadyD. D.McCormickS. G.ShmoysR. J. (2026). The effects of in-school virtual tutoring on student reading development: Evidence from a short-cycle randomized controlled trial. Journal of Education for Students Placed at Risk. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1080/10824669.2026.2615787
28.
RobinsonC. D.KraftM. A.LoebS.SchuelerB. (2024). Design principles for accelerating student learning with high-impact tutoring. EdResearch for Action.
29.
RobinsonC. D.LoebS. (2021). High-impact tutoring: State of the research and priorities for future learning. National Student Support Accelerator.
30.
RobinsonC. D.PollardC.NovicoffS.WhiteS.LoebS. (2025). The effects of virtual tutoring on young readers: Results from a randomized controlled trial. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 47(4), 1245–1265. https://doi.org/10.3102/01623737241288845
31.
Skjott LinnebergM.KorsgaardS. (2019). Coding qualitative data: A synthesis guiding the novice. Qualitative Research Journal, 19(3), 259–270.
32.
St. PierreE. A.JacksonA. Y. (2014). Qualitative data analysis after coding. Qualitative Inquiry, 20(6), 715–719.
33.
StrassbergerM.CondliffeB. (2024). How to build it and ensure they will come: Educators’ advice on high-dosage tutoring programs. MDRC.
34.
SyedM.NelsonS. C. (2015). Guidelines for establishing reliability when coding narrative data. Emerging Adulthood, 3(6), 375–387.
35.
WangR. E.RibeiroA. T.RobinsonC. D.LoebS.DemszkyD. (2024). Tutor copilot: A human-AI approach for scaling real-time expertise. National Student Support Accelerator.
36.
WhiteS.CareyM.O’DonnellA.LoebS. (2021). Early lessons from implementing high-impact tutoring at scale. National Student Support Accelerator.
37.
ZimmerR.HamiltonL.ChristinaR. (2010). After-school tutoring in the context of No Child Left Behind: Effectiveness of two programs in the Pittsburgh public schools. Economics of Education Review, 29(1), 18–28.
