ProvenTutoring is designed to provide comparable information on programs proven effective in rigorous studies. Each program is described in a similar way in a common template to make it easy to compare program features and evidence. The website links to program websites for users who want more detailed information.

Staff at the Johns Hopkins University Center for Research and Reform in Education developed and manage this site, in collaboration with the Success for All Foundation. Information and video content are supplied by program providers.

Users can select subjects and grade levels to explore. Each program page shows populations involved in validating research.

This website only focuses on programs proven effective in research. It also is restricted to programs that do not require hiring certified teachers as tutors (impractical in today’s teacher shortage). For a broader set of all tutoring and non-tutoring programs, go to www.evidenceforessa.org and enter the name of any program you seek in the search bar on the Home Page.

We would suggest that school leaders weigh several factors in deciding which proven tutoring programs to select:

a. Effect size: Go for the big numbers. If you are comparing equally rigorous evaluations, effect size is a meaningful indicator of the amount of gain students are likely to make in comparison to an untreated control group, assuming implementation is of high quality. All of the studies validating programs in ProvenTutoring.Org used similar, rigorous methods, so effect sizes are a good indicator of impact.

b. Group Size: Small group interventions (2-5 students) allow more students to be served and can still be effective. One-to-one interventions are much more intensive and serve fewer students. Consider your student needs. If two programs have similar effect sizes but one can teach twice or four times the number of students, you may wish to choose the one that extends the benefits of tutoring to more students.

c. Where the program was evaluated: Common sense should tell you that a rural school should prefer a program evaluated in rural schools, and an urban school should prefer evaluations in urban settings. If there are no evaluations in schools like yours, you might ask program leaders for examples of use of the program in schools like yours, perhaps even nearby.

d. Visit a program’s website, view videos of the program in action, or if possible, visit a school using a program nearby. Ask questions of program staff and current users. But check the program data first, to avoid selecting a program that looks great, but has never been found to make much of a difference.

Several variables related to the tutoring models and the tutors are important to know when estimating an answer to this question.

• Group Size: How many students will be served per session?
• Sessions: How many sessions per day can each tutor provide?
• Tutors: How many tutors are there?

Multiply these variables to determine how many students a program can serve at a time:

(Group Size) X (Sessions Per Day) X (Number of Tutors) = Students Served at a Time

If you want to estimate how many students will be served per year, consider whether students will be served for a semester, quarter, or year. Multiply the number of students served at a time by the number of time periods in a school year.

To join ProvenTutoring, replicable models and their providers must meet the following requirements:

• Eligible tutoring programs must be focused on increasing the achievement of students who are who are performing below grade level or at risk of performing below grade level in reading or mathematics in grades K-12.
• Tutoring programs eligible will include regular support by a human tutor, provided in a group of 4 or fewer students on a regular high-frequency schedule using a structured process.
• Tutoring programs must have been evaluated in studies that meet the evidence standards of the Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA) at the Strong, Moderate, or Promising levels. These are described in another FAQ.
• Tutoring providers must demonstrate the following:
  • Commitment to and capacity for delivering programs at scale;
  • Commitment to implementing a program as it was evaluated (i.e., with the same level of training, coaching, and monitoring for tutors); and
  • Commitment to joining with their peers to promote the use of proven programs, and to maintain high standards of implementation to maximize achievement outcomes of their programs.

In order to be considered “proven,” programs had to have at least one study that met the ESSA Strong, Moderate, or Promising standards of evidence, and had a significant and substantial positive outcome on achievement outcomes (an effect size of at least +0.10). Specific standards were as follows:

a. Studies had to compare students who received tutoring to a similar control group of students who did not receive tutoring. Assignment to the tutoring or control conditions could be random or matched in advance, but in practice, all but one accepted study used randomized assignment. Quasi-experimental studies that conduct the matching/weighting prior to posttest collection and during the early stage of intervention implementation, and define the experimental group as all students who received any treatment, must demonstrate comparable baseline characteristics including pretest equivalence and similar demographics.

b. Students had to be pre- and post-tested on valid achievement measures. Pretest measures for the final (analytic) sample had to be similar in tutoring and control groups (within 0.25 standard deviation units). Differential attrition had to be no more than 15%.

c. Studies had to be at least 12 weeks in duration.

d. There had to be at least 30 students in each group.

e. Outcome measures could not be ones created by developers or researchers. Tutors could not test their own students on research measures.

The Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security (CARES) Act provided $13.2 billion; the Coronavirus Response and Relief Supplemental Appropriations Act of 2021 (CRRSA) provided $54.3 billion; and from the American Rescue Plan (ARP) provided $121.9 billion, for a total of $189.5 billion.

Yes, funds from the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security (CARES) Act; the Coronavirus Response and Relief Supplemental Appropriations Act of 2021 (CRRSA) and from the American Rescue Plan (ARP), each provide funding for ESSER.  This program provides States and local educational agencies broad flexibility in the use of funds to address the impact of COVID0-19, including the ability to provide tutoring to students. ​Under the ARP Act, as described below,  both SEAs and LEAs must use a portion of the funding they receive to carry out evidence-based strategies for addressing students’ learning loss. Tutoring could well be an important way in which states and districts meet that requirement.

This fact sheet provides an overview and describes how funding should be used.

Yes, on April 9^th, the U.S. Department of Education released ED COVID-19 Handbook Volume 2:  Roadmap to Reopening Schools Safely and Meeting All Students’ Needs .  The Handbook devotes a section to “Addressing Lost Instructional Time” through high-quality tutoring:

“One strategy that districts can also use ARP funds for is tutoring. Because ARP funding is available to be spent through September 2024, districts will be able to hire and retain tutors for the critical time when students will most need assistance. Tutoring can be an effective intervention for a wide range of studentsif implemented in particular ways. High dosage tutoring (i.e., tutoring that is provided consistently by well- trained tutors or educators at least three days per week for at least 30 minutes at a time in groups of five or fewer students), led by a certified teacher or a paraprofessional, and conducted during the school day tends to have the largest impact.22 When scheduling tutoring during the school day, schools should do so in a way that ensures students still receive instruction on core content and have opportunities for enrichment. For example, tutoring could take place during study hall or flexible periods, during independent practice portions of a class, or as a complement to instruction in partnership with the classroom teacher.” (p. 18)

The Handbook also includes the following “Evidence-informed tutoring practices checklist:

In May, 2021, the Department of Education released an FAQ document to clarify allowable uses of funding and describe how these funds may be used to implement strategies. Among other things, this resource explains how funds can be used to support evidence-based tutoring programs.

In August, 2021, the U.S. Department of Education released a report, Strategies for Using American Rescue Plan Funding to Address the Impact of Lost Instructional Time.  The report highlights high quality and effective tutoring as a way to address student needs.  

Yes, under Sec. 2001(e)(1):  Each district “…shall reserve not less than 20 percent of such funds to address learning loss through the implementation of evidence-based interventions, such as summer learning or summer enrichment, extended day, comprehensive afterschool programs, or extended school year programs…”  In In addition, under Sec. 2001(f)(1):  Each State “…shall reserve not less than 5 percent of the total amount of grant funds awarded to the State under this section to carry out, directly or through grants or contracts, activities to address learning loss by supporting the implementation of evidence-based interventions, such as summer learning or summer enrichment, extended day, comprehensive afterschool programs, or extended school year programs…”