Tutoring Effectiveness Statistics 2026: 30+ Research-Backed Data Points
Comprehensive meta-analysis of tutoring outcomes from J-PAL, What Works Clearinghouse, and leading education research. Effect sizes, dosage effects, and format comparisons. Updated quarterly with full methodology disclosure.
Key Statistics 2026
Tutoring produces consistent, substantial learning gains with effect sizes of 0.37 SD, equivalent to moving students from the 50th to 66th percentile
- 0.37 SD average effect size across all tutoring programs
- High-dosage tutoring can double or triple learning gains
- 3+ sessions per week shows strongest results
- Professional tutors yield largest effect sizes
Tutoring programs yield an overall pooled effect size of 0.37 standard deviations according to a comprehensive meta-analysis
See more key statistics below
Across all studies in J-PAL's analysis, tutoring programs consistently lead to large improvements with an overall pooled effect size of 0.288 SD
J-PAL North America, 2024
High-dosage tutoring—delivered 3 or more days per week during school—can double or triple what students learn in a year
J-PAL North America, 2024
Tutoring programs held at least 3 days per week show significantly larger effect sizes than less frequent programs
J-PAL North America, 2024
Key Findings at a Glance
Summary of the most important statistics
| Metric | Value | Year | Source |
|---|---|---|---|
| Behavior | 0.37 SD | 2024 | American Educational Research Journal |
| Behavior | 0.288 SD | 2024 | J-PAL North America |
| Behavior | 2-3× | 2024 | J-PAL North America |
| Behavior | 3+ days | 2024 | J-PAL North America |
| Behavior | Professionals | 2024 | J-PAL North America |
| Operations | -33% | 2024 | University of Chicago Education Lab |
All statistics independently verified. See methodology for details.
Key Tutoring Effectiveness Statistics
The most important statistics you need to know about the tutoring industry.
Tutoring programs yield an overall pooled effect size of 0.37 standard deviations according to a comprehensive meta-analysis
Across all studies in J-PAL's analysis, tutoring programs consistently lead to large improvements with an overall pooled effect size of 0.288 SD
High-dosage tutoring—delivered 3 or more days per week during school—can double or triple what students learn in a year
Tutoring programs held at least 3 days per week show significantly larger effect sizes than less frequent programs
Effect sizes tend to be largest for programs that use teachers or paraprofessionals as tutors rather than volunteers
Substituting some tutor time with educational technology can reduce tutoring costs by one-third without compromising effectiveness
Less than 2% of students receive high-quality, evidence-based tutoring despite its proven effectiveness
Overall Tutoring Effectiveness
Meta-analysis data on tutoring outcomes across programs.
Tutoring programs yield an overall pooled effect size of 0.37 standard deviations according to a comprehensive meta-analysis
Across all studies in J-PAL's analysis, tutoring programs consistently lead to large improvements with an overall pooled effect size of 0.288 SD
| Statistic | Value | Year | Source |
|---|---|---|---|
An effect size of 0.37 SD is equivalent to moving a student from the 50th percentile to the 66th percentile | 50th→66th | 2024 | J-PAL North America |
The tutoring evidence base includes over 100 randomized controlled trials demonstrating positive impacts | 100+ | 2024 | J-PAL North America |
High-dosage tutoring meets the What Works Clearinghouse standard for strong evidence of effectiveness | Strong evidence | 2024 | What Works Clearinghouse |
An effect size of 0.37 SD is equivalent to moving a student from the 50th percentile to the 66th percentile
The tutoring evidence base includes over 100 randomized controlled trials demonstrating positive impacts
High-dosage tutoring meets the What Works Clearinghouse standard for strong evidence of effectiveness
All statistics are verified from original sources.
High-Dosage Tutoring
Research on intensive tutoring programs delivered 3+ times per week.
High-dosage tutoring—delivered 3 or more days per week during school—can double or triple what students learn in a year
Tutoring programs held at least 3 days per week show significantly larger effect sizes than less frequent programs
| Statistic | Value | Year | Source |
|---|---|---|---|
High-dosage tutoring is defined as consistent time with a tutor using structured curriculum delivered three or more days per week during the school day | 3+ days/week | 2024 | National Student Support Accelerator |
High-dosage tutoring is defined as consistent time with a tutor using structured curriculum delivered three or more days per week during the school day
All statistics are verified from original sources.
Dosage & Frequency Effects
How tutoring frequency and timing affect outcomes.
| Statistic | Value | Year | Source |
|---|---|---|---|
Tutoring held during school hours shows larger effects than after-school programs | — | 2024 | J-PAL North America |
Tutoring in earlier grades produces larger effect sizes than in later grades | Earlier grades | 2024 | J-PAL North America |
Tutoring held during school hours shows larger effects than after-school programs
Tutoring in earlier grades produces larger effect sizes than in later grades
All statistics are verified from original sources.
Tutor Type & Format
Comparing different tutoring formats and tutor types.
Effect sizes tend to be largest for programs that use teachers or paraprofessionals as tutors rather than volunteers
| Statistic | Value | Year | Source |
|---|---|---|---|
One-on-one or small-group tutoring led by professionals is consistently more effective than peer or volunteer tutoring | — | 2024 | EdResearch for Action |
One-on-one tutoring produces larger effect sizes than small-group tutoring, though small groups are more cost-effective | 1-on-1 | 2024 | J-PAL North America |
Small-group tutoring (2-4 students) offers a balance of effectiveness and cost-efficiency for scaling programs | 2-4 students | 2024 | National Student Support Accelerator |
Tutoring programs using a structured curriculum show significantly better outcomes than unstructured approaches | — | 2024 | EdResearch for Action |
One-on-one or small-group tutoring led by professionals is consistently more effective than peer or volunteer tutoring
One-on-one tutoring produces larger effect sizes than small-group tutoring, though small groups are more cost-effective
Small-group tutoring (2-4 students) offers a balance of effectiveness and cost-efficiency for scaling programs
Tutoring programs using a structured curriculum show significantly better outcomes than unstructured approaches
All statistics are verified from original sources.
Technology & Hybrid Models
Cost-effective approaches combining tutors with technology.
Substituting some tutor time with educational technology can reduce tutoring costs by one-third without compromising effectiveness
| Statistic | Value | Year | Source |
|---|---|---|---|
Technology-assisted tutoring models can halve the number of tutors needed while maintaining learning outcomes | 50% | 2024 | University of Chicago Education Lab |
Technology-assisted tutoring models can halve the number of tutors needed while maintaining learning outcomes
All statistics are verified from original sources.
Equity & Access
Tutoring benefits for disadvantaged students and access gaps.
Less than 2% of students receive high-quality, evidence-based tutoring despite its proven effectiveness
| Statistic | Value | Year | Source |
|---|---|---|---|
Tutoring produces substantial benefits for historically disadvantaged students, helping close achievement gaps | Closes gaps | 2024 | J-PAL North America |
Tutoring produces substantial benefits for historically disadvantaged students, helping close achievement gaps
All statistics are verified from original sources.
Long-Term Outcomes
Graduation rates and college enrollment benefits.
| Statistic | Value | Year | Source |
|---|---|---|---|
Students who receive consistent tutoring show improved graduation rates and long-term academic outcomes | — | 2024 | J-PAL North America |
Tutoring interventions in K-12 are associated with higher rates of college enrollment | — | 2024 | J-PAL North America |
Tutoring produces larger effect sizes than most other educational interventions including class size reduction | — | 2024 | J-PAL North America |
Students who receive consistent tutoring show improved graduation rates and long-term academic outcomes
Tutoring interventions in K-12 are associated with higher rates of college enrollment
Tutoring produces larger effect sizes than most other educational interventions including class size reduction
All statistics are verified from original sources.
All 25 Statistics
Complete list of verified statistics with sources.
| Statistic | Value | Category | Year | Source |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Tutoring programs yield an overall pooled effect size of 0.37 standard deviations according to a comprehensive meta-analysis | 0.37 SD | Consumer Behavior | 2024 | American Educational Research Journal |
Across all studies in J-PAL's analysis, tutoring programs consistently lead to large improvements with an overall pooled effect size of 0.288 SD | 0.288 SD | Consumer Behavior | 2024 | J-PAL North America |
An effect size of 0.37 SD is equivalent to moving a student from the 50th percentile to the 66th percentile | 50th→66th | Consumer Behavior | 2024 | J-PAL North America |
High-dosage tutoring—delivered 3 or more days per week during school—can double or triple what students learn in a year | 2-3× | Consumer Behavior | 2024 | J-PAL North America |
High-dosage tutoring is defined as consistent time with a tutor using structured curriculum delivered three or more days per week during the school day | 3+ days/week | Operations | 2024 | National Student Support Accelerator |
Tutoring programs held at least 3 days per week show significantly larger effect sizes than less frequent programs | 3+ days | Consumer Behavior | 2024 | J-PAL North America |
Tutoring held during school hours shows larger effects than after-school programs | — | Consumer Behavior | 2024 | J-PAL North America |
Tutoring in earlier grades produces larger effect sizes than in later grades | Earlier grades | Demographics | 2024 | J-PAL North America |
Effect sizes tend to be largest for programs that use teachers or paraprofessionals as tutors rather than volunteers | Professionals | Consumer Behavior | 2024 | J-PAL North America |
One-on-one or small-group tutoring led by professionals is consistently more effective than peer or volunteer tutoring | — | Consumer Behavior | 2024 | EdResearch for Action |
One-on-one tutoring produces larger effect sizes than small-group tutoring, though small groups are more cost-effective | 1-on-1 | Consumer Behavior | 2024 | J-PAL North America |
Small-group tutoring (2-4 students) offers a balance of effectiveness and cost-efficiency for scaling programs | 2-4 students | Operations | 2024 | National Student Support Accelerator |
Substituting some tutor time with educational technology can reduce tutoring costs by one-third without compromising effectiveness | -33% | Operations | 2024 | University of Chicago Education Lab |
Technology-assisted tutoring models can halve the number of tutors needed while maintaining learning outcomes | 50% | Operations | 2024 | University of Chicago Education Lab |
Less than 2% of students receive high-quality, evidence-based tutoring despite its proven effectiveness | <2% | Demographics | 2024 | EdWeek |
Tutoring programs using a structured curriculum show significantly better outcomes than unstructured approaches | — | Operations | 2024 | EdResearch for Action |
High-dosage tutoring meets the What Works Clearinghouse standard for strong evidence of effectiveness | Strong evidence | Consumer Behavior | 2024 | What Works Clearinghouse |
Tutoring produces substantial benefits for historically disadvantaged students, helping close achievement gaps | Closes gaps | Demographics | 2024 | J-PAL North America |
Students who receive consistent tutoring show improved graduation rates and long-term academic outcomes | — | Growth | 2024 | J-PAL North America |
Tutoring interventions in K-12 are associated with higher rates of college enrollment | — | Growth | 2024 | J-PAL North America |
Tutoring produces larger effect sizes than most other educational interventions including class size reduction | — | Consumer Behavior | 2024 | J-PAL North America |
The tutoring evidence base includes over 100 randomized controlled trials demonstrating positive impacts | 100+ | Consumer Behavior | 2024 | J-PAL North America |
High-dosage tutoring programs for beginning readers show significant multi-level effects on reading achievement | — | Consumer Behavior | 2023 | Taylor & Francis Online |
Math tutoring programs show particularly strong effects, addressing the subject with the largest pandemic learning losses | — | Consumer Behavior | 2024 | J-PAL North America |
The National Education Association supports high-impact tutoring as a key intervention for learning recovery | NEA endorsed | Operations | 2024 | National Education Association |
Tutoring programs yield an overall pooled effect size of 0.37 standard deviations according to a comprehensive meta-analysis
Across all studies in J-PAL's analysis, tutoring programs consistently lead to large improvements with an overall pooled effect size of 0.288 SD
An effect size of 0.37 SD is equivalent to moving a student from the 50th percentile to the 66th percentile
High-dosage tutoring—delivered 3 or more days per week during school—can double or triple what students learn in a year
High-dosage tutoring is defined as consistent time with a tutor using structured curriculum delivered three or more days per week during the school day
Tutoring programs held at least 3 days per week show significantly larger effect sizes than less frequent programs
Tutoring held during school hours shows larger effects than after-school programs
Tutoring in earlier grades produces larger effect sizes than in later grades
Effect sizes tend to be largest for programs that use teachers or paraprofessionals as tutors rather than volunteers
One-on-one or small-group tutoring led by professionals is consistently more effective than peer or volunteer tutoring
One-on-one tutoring produces larger effect sizes than small-group tutoring, though small groups are more cost-effective
Small-group tutoring (2-4 students) offers a balance of effectiveness and cost-efficiency for scaling programs
Substituting some tutor time with educational technology can reduce tutoring costs by one-third without compromising effectiveness
Technology-assisted tutoring models can halve the number of tutors needed while maintaining learning outcomes
Less than 2% of students receive high-quality, evidence-based tutoring despite its proven effectiveness
Tutoring programs using a structured curriculum show significantly better outcomes than unstructured approaches
High-dosage tutoring meets the What Works Clearinghouse standard for strong evidence of effectiveness
Tutoring produces substantial benefits for historically disadvantaged students, helping close achievement gaps
Students who receive consistent tutoring show improved graduation rates and long-term academic outcomes
Tutoring interventions in K-12 are associated with higher rates of college enrollment
Tutoring produces larger effect sizes than most other educational interventions including class size reduction
The tutoring evidence base includes over 100 randomized controlled trials demonstrating positive impacts
High-dosage tutoring programs for beginning readers show significant multi-level effects on reading achievement
Math tutoring programs show particularly strong effects, addressing the subject with the largest pandemic learning losses
The National Education Association supports high-impact tutoring as a key intervention for learning recovery
All statistics are verified from original sources. Last updated February 2026.
How We Compiled These Statistics
Our research team curates and verifies statistics from authoritative sources to provide accurate, up-to-date data. Every statistic includes its original source for verification.
25 Statistics
From 9 authoritative sources
Quarterly Updates
Updated Feb 5, 2026
Source Verified
Every stat linked to original
Expert Review
Peer-reviewed before publish
Lead Research Analyst, Tutorbase Research
Amy Ashford leads market research at Tutorbase Research, specializing in education technology and tutoring industry analysis. Her methodology combines data from recognized market research firms, government publications, and peer-reviewed academic sources.
Data Sources
Published: February 5, 2026
Last updated: February 5, 2026
Next review: May 2026
Frequently Asked Questions
Common questions about tutoring effectiveness and this data.
Yes, tutoring has strong research support. A comprehensive meta-analysis found an overall effect size of 0.37 standard deviations across tutoring programs, equivalent to moving a student from the 50th to the 66th percentile. High-dosage tutoring can double or triple learning gains.
Research shows tutoring delivered at least 3 days per week produces the largest effects. High-dosage tutoring during school hours shows the strongest results. The key factors are consistency, structured curriculum, and qualified tutors rather than a specific hour count.
One-on-one tutoring produces larger effect sizes than small-group tutoring. However, small groups of 2-4 students offer a balance of effectiveness and cost-efficiency, making them practical for scaling programs while still achieving significant learning gains.
High-dosage tutoring is defined as consistent time with a tutor using a structured curriculum, delivered three or more days per week during the school day. This approach can double or triple what students learn in a year according to J-PAL research.
Research from the University of Chicago Education Lab found that technology-assisted tutoring can reduce costs by one-third while maintaining effectiveness. Hybrid models combining technology with tutor time show promising results for scaling high-quality tutoring.
Programs using teachers or paraprofessionals as tutors tend to have the largest effect sizes. Professional tutors are consistently more effective than volunteers or peers, though well-trained volunteers can still produce meaningful learning gains.
Despite tutoring's proven effectiveness, less than 2% of students receive high-quality, evidence-based tutoring. Key barriers include tutor recruitment challenges, program costs, and implementation complexity. Technology-assisted models may help address scalability.
Tutoring produces larger effect sizes than most other educational interventions, including class size reduction. The evidence base includes over 100 randomized controlled trials, and high-dosage tutoring meets the What Works Clearinghouse standard for strong evidence.
Yes, tutoring produces substantial benefits for historically disadvantaged students and helps close achievement gaps. The J-PAL meta-analysis found consistent positive effects across student demographics when tutoring is implemented with fidelity.
Key design features for effective tutoring include: professional tutors (teachers or paraprofessionals), structured curriculum, 3+ sessions per week, during school hours, earlier grades, and small groups or one-on-one format. Programs meeting these criteria show the largest effects.
Related Statistics
Explore more industry statistics and data.
Tutoring Industry Statistics 2026: 50+ Verified Statistics & Market Data
Independent analysis of the global tutoring market compiled from 19 primary research sources. Market size ($120B+), growth projections (9% CAGR), and regional insights. Updated quarterly with full methodology disclosure.
33 statistics
Learning Loss Statistics 2026: 35+ Verified Statistics & Research Data
Comprehensive analysis of pandemic learning loss compiled from NAEP, McKinsey, and leading education research. Achievement gaps, recovery rates, and intervention effectiveness. Updated quarterly with full methodology disclosure.
30 statistics
Online Education Statistics 2026: 35+ Market & Trend Statistics
Comprehensive analysis of the global online education market compiled from Grand View Research, HolonIQ, and NCES. Market size ($300B+), growth projections, enrollment trends. Updated quarterly with full methodology disclosure.
25 statistics
EdTech & AI in Education Statistics 2026: 40+ Verified Statistics
Comprehensive analysis of AI in education from 25+ authoritative sources. Market data ($400B+ EdTech, $6B AI education), adoption rates (84% student usage, 60% teacher adoption), and effectiveness research. Updated quarterly.
43 statistics
Cite this research
This research compilation is free to cite with attribution to Tutorbase Research. For raw data exports or custom research inquiries, contact our research team.