The Scaling Dynamics and Causal Effects of a District-Operated Tutoring Program. EdWorkingPaper No. 24-1030
Matthew A. Kraft; Danielle Sanderson Edwards; Marisa Cannata (2024). Annenberg Institute for School Reform at Brown University. Retrieved from: https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED672280
-
examining3,289Students, grades1-9
Single Study Review
Review Details
Reviewed: July 2026
- Single Study Review (findings for Accelerating Scholars)
- Randomized Controlled Trial
- Meets WWC standards with reservations because it is a randomized controlled trial with high attrition, but the analytic intervention and comparison groups satisfy the baseline equivalence requirement.
This review may not reflect the full body of research evidence for this intervention.
Evidence Tier rating based solely on this study. This intervention may achieve a higher tier when combined with the full body of evidence.
Findings
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Math course grade |
Accelerating Scholars vs. Business as usual |
0 Semesters |
Grade: 6, 7, 9;
|
N/A |
N/A |
No |
-- | ||
| Show Supplemental Findings | |||||||||
|
Math course grade |
Accelerating Scholars vs. Business as usual |
0 Semesters |
CACE, Grade: 6, 7, 9;
|
N/A |
N/A |
No |
-- | ||
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
ELA course grade |
Accelerating Scholars vs. Business as usual |
0 Semesters |
Grade: 3, 4, 5;
|
N/A |
N/A |
No |
-- | ||
| Show Supplemental Findings | |||||||||
|
ELA course grade |
Accelerating Scholars vs. Business as usual |
0 Semesters |
CACE, Grade: 3, 4, 5;
|
N/A |
N/A |
No |
-- | ||
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Measures of Academic Progress (MAP) Reading Score |
Accelerating Scholars vs. Business as usual |
0 Semesters |
Grade: 3, 4, 5;
|
N/A |
N/A |
No |
-- | ||
| Show Supplemental Findings | |||||||||
|
Measures of Academic Progress (MAP) Reading Score |
Accelerating Scholars vs. Business as usual |
0 Semesters |
CACE, Grade: 3, 4, 5;
|
N/A |
N/A |
No |
-- | ||
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Measures of Academic Progress (MAP) Math Score |
Accelerating Scholars vs. Business as usual |
0 Semesters |
Grade: 6, 7, 9;
|
N/A |
N/A |
No |
-- | ||
| Show Supplemental Findings | |||||||||
|
Measures of Academic Progress (MAP) Math Score |
Accelerating Scholars vs. Business as usual |
0 Semesters |
CACE, Grade: 6, 7, 9;
|
N/A |
N/A |
No |
-- | ||
Evidence Tier rating based solely on this study. This intervention may achieve a higher tier when combined with the full body of evidence.
Sample Characteristics
Characteristics of study sample as reported by study author.
-
2% English language learners -
Female: 57%
Male: 43% -
Urban
-
- B
- A
- C
- D
- E
- F
- G
- I
- H
- J
- K
- L
- P
- M
- N
- O
- Q
- R
- S
- V
- U
- T
- W
- X
- Z
- Y
- a
- h
- i
- b
- d
- e
- f
- c
- g
- j
- k
- l
- m
- n
- o
- p
- q
- r
- s
- t
- u
- v
- x
- w
- y
South
-
Race Asian 3% Black 42% Other or unknown 21% Two or more races 2% White 32% -
Ethnicity Hispanic 18% Not Hispanic or Latino 82% -
Eligible for Free and Reduced Price Lunch Other or unknown 100%
Study Details
Setting
The study took place in three schools in the Metro Nashville Public School system. The schools included one elementary school, one middle school, and one high school. The tutoring focused on reading for students in grades 3–5 and math for students in grades 6, 7, and 9.
Study sample
The study included students who were eligible for reading or math tutoring in the participating schools. The researchers randomly assigned 139 students to the intervention group and 139 students to the comparison group. About half of the students who received tutoring were attending school remotely during the pilot.
Intervention Group
Accelerating Scholars was a school-based tutoring program that provided students with extra reading or math instruction. In the pilot, volunteer college students recruited by BrightPath Tutors provided online tutoring to students. Students were scheduled for three 45-minute online tutoring sessions each week for 8 weeks. Reading tutoring was provided to students in grades 3–5, and math tutoring was provided to students in grades 6, 7, and 9.
Comparison Group
Students in the comparison group did not receive the BrightPath online tutoring offered during the pilot. The study did not describe in detail what comparison group students did during the time when students in the intervention group received tutoring.
Support for implementation
BrightPath Tutors recruited the volunteer college students who provided tutoring. Across the broader Accelerating Scholars program, tutors had to clear a background check and complete four self-paced trainings covering the program, academic content, the tutoring platform, and student safety and privacy. The study did not clearly state whether pilot tutors received support beyond these requirements.
Single Study Review
Review Details
Reviewed: July 2026
- Single Study Review (findings for Accelerating Scholars)
- Randomized Controlled Trial
- Meets WWC standards with reservations because it is a cluster randomized controlled trial with high cluster-level attrition, but the analytic intervention and comparison groups satisfy the baseline equivalence requirement.
This review may not reflect the full body of research evidence for this intervention.
Evidence Tier rating based solely on this study. This intervention may achieve a higher tier when combined with the full body of evidence.
Findings
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Math course grade |
Accelerating Scholars vs. Business as usual |
0 Semesters |
Grade: 8;
|
N/A |
N/A |
No |
-- | ||
| Show Supplemental Findings | |||||||||
|
Math course grade |
Accelerating Scholars vs. Business as usual |
0 Semesters |
CACE, Grade: 8;
|
N/A |
N/A |
No |
-- | ||
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
ELA course grade |
Accelerating Scholars vs. Business as usual |
0 Semesters |
Grade: 1, 2, 3;
|
N/A |
N/A |
-- |
-- | ||
| Show Supplemental Findings | |||||||||
|
ELA course grade |
Accelerating Scholars vs. Business as usual |
0 Semesters |
CACE, Grade: 1, 2, 3;
|
N/A |
N/A |
-- |
-- | ||
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Standardized reading test score |
Accelerating Scholars vs. Business as usual |
0 Semesters |
Grade: 1, 2, 3;
|
N/A |
N/A |
No |
-- | ||
| Show Supplemental Findings | |||||||||
|
Standardized reading test score |
Accelerating Scholars vs. Business as usual |
0 Semesters |
CACE, Grade: 1, 2, 3;
|
N/A |
N/A |
No |
-- | ||
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Measures of Academic Progress (MAP) Math Score |
Accelerating Scholars vs. Business as usual |
0 Semesters |
Grade: 8, 9;
|
N/A |
N/A |
No |
-- | ||
| Show Supplemental Findings | |||||||||
|
Measures of Academic Progress (MAP) Math Score |
Accelerating Scholars vs. Business as usual |
0 Semesters |
CACE, Grade: 8, 9;
|
N/A |
N/A |
No |
-- | ||
Evidence Tier rating based solely on this study. This intervention may achieve a higher tier when combined with the full body of evidence.
Sample Characteristics
Characteristics of study sample as reported by study author.
-
25% English language learners -
Female: 49%
Male: 51% -
Urban
-
- B
- A
- C
- D
- E
- F
- G
- I
- H
- J
- K
- L
- P
- M
- N
- O
- Q
- R
- S
- V
- U
- T
- W
- X
- Z
- Y
- a
- h
- i
- b
- d
- e
- f
- c
- g
- j
- k
- l
- m
- n
- o
- p
- q
- r
- s
- t
- u
- v
- x
- w
- y
Tennessee
-
Race Asian 4% Black 43% Other or unknown 22% White 31% -
Ethnicity Hispanic 31% Not Hispanic or Latino 69% -
Eligible for Free and Reduced Price Lunch Other or unknown 100%
Study Details
Setting
The study took place in 68 traditional public schools in the Metro Nashville Public School system. The tutoring focused on reading for students in grades 1–3 and math for students in grades 8–9.
Study sample
The study included students in the grades and subjects served by Accelerating Scholars who were eligible for tutoring based on earlier assessment scores. The researchers randomly assigned 29 schools to begin the tutoring program in the fall semester and 39 schools to begin the program in the spring semester. Schools decided which eligible students would receive tutoring based on academic need, other services students were already receiving, and schedule fit. About 25% of eligible students in schools assigned to begin tutoring in the fall semester received tutoring, which the study attributed to the school district’s limited tutoring capacity.
Intervention Group
Accelerating Scholars was a school-based tutoring program that provided students with extra reading or math instruction aligned with state standards and the school district’s curriculum. Students in schools assigned to begin tutoring in the fall semester received tutoring for 10 weeks. The school district planned for students to receive about 1.5 hours of tutoring per week, most often split into three half-hour sessions. Tutors included undergraduate students, community volunteers, teachers, paraprofessionals, and other school staff. Tutoring occurred in school buildings and could be delivered online or in person, although most tutoring in this sub-study took place during the school day.
Comparison Group
Students in comparison schools did not receive Accelerating Scholars tutoring during the fall semester, but their schools could begin offering the program in the spring semester. Students who did not receive tutoring generally continued with their usual school supports, such as computer-adaptive learning programs or other services offered during personalized learning time. The study provided less detail about students’ comparison condition experiences than about the tutoring program.
Support for implementation
Before tutoring students, tutors had to clear a background check and complete four self-paced trainings covering the program, academic content, the tutoring platform, and student safety and privacy. Each participating school had a tutor lead who helped run the program locally by organizing tutor staffing, student schedules, tutor-student matches, attendance communication, and technology support. The school district also worked with external partners to support tutor training and curriculum materials.
Single Study Review
Review Details
Reviewed: June 2026
- Single Study Review (findings for Accelerating Scholars)
- Quasi-Experimental Design
- The study does not meet WWC group design standards because it uses a quasi-experimental design in which the analytic intervention and comparison groups do not satisfy the baseline equivalence requirement.
This review may not reflect the full body of research evidence for this intervention.
Evidence Tier rating based solely on this study. This intervention may achieve a higher tier when combined with the full body of evidence.
Findings
Evidence Tier rating based solely on this study. This intervention may achieve a higher tier when combined with the full body of evidence.
Sample Characteristics
Study sample characteristics were not reported.An indicator of the effect of the intervention, the improvement index can be interpreted as the expected change in percentile rank for an average comparison group student if that student had received the intervention.
For more, please see the WWC Glossary entry for improvement index.
An outcome is the knowledge, skills, and attitudes that are attained as a result of an activity. An outcome measures is an instrument, device, or method that provides data on the outcome.
A finding that is included in the effectiveness rating. Excluded findings may include subgroups and subscales.
The sample on which the analysis was conducted.
The group to which the intervention group is compared, which may include a different intervention, business as usual, or no services.
The timing of the post-intervention outcome measure.
The number of students included in the analysis.
The mean score of students in the intervention group.
The mean score of students in the comparison group.
The WWC considers a finding to be statistically significant if the likelihood that the finding is due to chance alone, rather than a real difference, is less than five percent.
The WWC reviews studies for WWC products, Department of Education grant competitions, and IES performance measures.
The name and version of the document used to guide the review of the study.
The version of the WWC design standards used to guide the review of the study.
The result of the WWC assessment of the study. The rating is based on the strength of evidence of the effectiveness of the intervention. Studies are given a rating of Meets WWC Design Standards without Reservations, Meets WWC Design Standards with Reservations, or >Does Not Meet WWC Design Standards.
A related publication that was reviewed alongside the main study of interest.
Study findings for this report.
Based on the direction, magnitude, statistical significance, and sample size of the findings within a domain, the WWC assigns effectiveness ratings as one of the following: Tier 1 (strong evidence), Tier 2 (moderate evidence), Tier 3 (promising evidence), uncertain effects, and negative effects. For more detail, please see the WWC Handbook.
The WWC may review studies for multiple purposes, including different reports and re-reviews using updated standards. Each WWC review of this study is listed in the dropdown. Details on any review may be accessed by making a selection from the drop down list.
Tier 1 Strong indicates strong evidence of effectiveness,
Tier 2 Moderate indicates moderate evidence of effectiveness, and
Tier 3 Promising indicates promising evidence of effectiveness,
as defined in the
non-regulatory guidance for ESSA
and the regulations for ED discretionary grants (EDGAR Part 77).