skip to main content
Washington State Institute for Public Policy
Back Button

Tutoring: By certificated teachers, small-group, structured

Pre-K to 12 Education
Benefit-cost methods last updated December 2024.  Literature review updated April 2020.
Tutoring by certificated teachers in small groups reflects additional instruction outside of regular classroom instruction. All tutors have their teaching certification. In this analysis, structured and systematic approaches to reading or math instruction are taught to students who either test below average on reading comprehension or test below grade-level on math standardized tests.

Tutoring is provided within the school day to bring below-grade level performers up to grade-level in reading or math. On average, students participate in small group tutoring for three to four weekly, 45-minute lessons for an average of 16 weeks. In the included studies, tutoring is provided to elementary-aged students using several programs, including Read Aloud, Proactive & Reactive Reading, Reading Recovery, SpellRead P.A.T. program, Lindamood Phoneme Sequencing program, and Number Rockets. The analysis excludes studies that focus exclusively on special education populations. Studies in the analysis compare students receiving small-group tutoring by certificated teachers to students who receive no additional instruction outside of regular classroom instruction.
 
ALL
BENEFIT-COST
META-ANALYSIS
CITATIONS
For an overview of WSIPP's Benefit-Cost Model, please see this guide. The estimates shown are present value, life cycle benefits and costs. All dollars are expressed in the base year chosen for this analysis (2023).  The chance the benefits exceed the costs are derived from a Monte Carlo risk analysis. The details on this, as well as the economic discount rates and other relevant parameters are described in our Technical Documentation.
Benefit-Cost Summary Statistics Per Participant
Benefits to:
Taxpayers $5,428 Benefits minus costs $21,605
Participants $12,787 Benefit to cost ratio $10.67
Others $6,740 Chance the program will produce
Indirect ($1,117) benefits greater than the costs 98%
Total benefits $23,838
Net program cost ($2,233)
Benefits minus cost $21,605

Meta-analysis is a statistical method to combine the results from separate studies on a program, policy, or topic to estimate its effect on an outcome. WSIPP systematically evaluates all credible evaluations we can locate on each topic. The outcomes measured are the program impacts measured in the research literature (for example, impacts on crime or educational attainment). Treatment N represents the total number of individuals or units in the treatment group across the included studies.

An effect size (ES) is a standard metric that summarizes the degree to which a program or policy affects a measured outcome. If the effect size is positive, the outcome increases. If the effect size is negative, the outcome decreases. See Estimating Program Effects Using Effect Sizes for additional information on how we estimate effect sizes.

The effect size may be adjusted from the unadjusted effect size estimated in the meta-analysis. Historically, WSIPP adjusted effect sizes to some programs based on the methodological characteristics of the study. For programs reviewed in 2024 or later, we do not make additional adjustments, and we use the unadjusted effect size whenever we run a benefit-cost analysis.

Research shows the magnitude of effects may change over time. For those effect sizes, we estimate outcome-based adjustments, which we apply between the first time ES is estimated and the second time ES is estimated. More details about these adjustments can be found in our Technical Documentation.

Meta-Analysis of Program Effects
Outcomes measured Treatment age No. of effect sizes Treatment N Effect sizes (ES) and standard errors (SE) used in the benefit-cost analysis Unadjusted effect size (random effects model)
First time ES is estimated Second time ES is estimated
ES SE Age ES SE Age ES p-value
Test scores
Standardized, validated tests of academic achievement.
7 12 1572 0.239 0.041 7 0.112 0.045 17 0.258 0.001
1In addition to the outcomes measured in the meta-analysis table, WSIPP measures benefits and costs estimated from other outcomes associated with those reported in the evaluation literature. For example, empirical research demonstrates that high school graduation leads to reduced crime. These associated measures provide a more complete picture of the detailed costs and benefits of the program.

2“Others” includes benefits to people other than taxpayers and participants. Depending on the program, it could include reductions in crime victimization, the economic benefits from a more educated workforce, and the benefits from employer-paid health insurance.

3“Indirect benefits” includes estimates of the net changes in the value of a statistical life and net changes in the deadweight costs of taxation.
Detailed Monetary Benefit Estimates Per Participant
Affected outcome: Resulting benefits:1 Benefits accrue to:
Taxpayers Participants Others2 Indirect3 Total
Test scores Labor market earnings associated with test scores $5,428 $12,787 $6,740 $0 $24,954
Program cost Adjustment for deadweight cost of program $0 $0 $0 ($1,117) ($1,117)
Totals $5,428 $12,787 $6,740 ($1,117) $23,838
Click here to see populations selected
Detailed Annual Cost Estimates Per Participant
Annual cost Year dollars Summary
Program costs $1,893 2018 Present value of net program costs (in 2023 dollars) ($2,233)
Comparison costs $0 2018 Cost range (+ or -) 20%
In the evaluations included in this meta-analysis, a certificated teacher provides, on average, 40 hours of tutoring to nine students per year in groups of three and receives approximately 35 hours of training. To calculate a per-student annual cost, we used average Washington State compensation costs (including benefits) for a K–8 teacher as reported by the Office of the Superintendent of Public Instruction, divided by the total number of students served in the studies.
The figures shown are estimates of the costs to implement programs in Washington. The comparison group costs reflect either no treatment or treatment as usual, depending on how effect sizes were calculated in the meta-analysis. The cost range reported above reflects potential variation or uncertainty in the cost estimate; more detail can be found in our Technical Documentation.
Benefits Minus Costs
Benefits by Perspective
Taxpayer Benefits by Source of Value
Benefits Minus Costs Over Time (Cumulative Discounted Dollars)
The graph above illustrates the estimated cumulative net benefits per-participant for the first fifty years beyond the initial investment in the program. We present these cash flows in discounted dollars. If the dollars are negative (bars below $0 line), the cumulative benefits do not outweigh the cost of the program up to that point in time. The program breaks even when the dollars reach $0. At this point, the total benefits to participants, taxpayers, and others, are equal to the cost of the program. If the dollars are above $0, the benefits of the program exceed the initial investment.

Citations Used in the Meta-Analysis

Kerins, M.R., Trotter, D., & Schoenbrodt, L. (2010). Effects of a tier 2 intervention on literacy measures: Lessons learned. Child Language Teaching and Therapy, 26(3), 287-302.

Lennon, J.E., & Slesinski, C. (1999). Early intervention in reading: Results of a screening and intervention program for kindergarten students. School Psychology Review, 28(3), 353-364.

Mathes, P.G., Denton, C., Anthony, J., Francis, D., & Schatschneider, C. (2005). The effects of theoretically different instruction and student characteristics on the skills of struggling readers. Reading Research Quarterly, 40(2), 148-182.

Ransford-Kaldon, C.R., Flynt, E.S., Ross, C.L., Franceschini, L., Zoblotsky, T., Huang, Y., & Gallagher, B. (2010). Implementation of effective intervention: An empirical study to evaluate the efficacy of Fountas & Pinnell's Leveled Literacy Intervention (LLI) 2009-2010. Memphis, TN: University of Memphis, Center for Research in Education Policy.

Rashotte, C.A., MacPhee, K., & Torgesen, J.K. (2001). The effectiveness of a group reading instruction program with poor readers in multiple grades. Learning Disability Quarterly, 24(2), 119-134.

Rolfhus, E., Gersten, R., Clarke, B., Decker, L.E., Wilkins, C., & Dimino, J. (2012). An Evaluation of Number Rockets: A tier-2 intervention for grade 1 students at risk for difficulties in mathematics Final Report (NCEE 2012-4007). Washington DC: U.S. Department of Education, Institute for Education Sciences, National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance.

Torgesen, J.K., Wagner, R.K., Rashotte, C.A., Herron, J., & Lindamood, P. (2010). Computer-assisted instruction to prevent early reading difficulties in students at risk for dyslexia: Outcomes from two instructional approaches. Annals of Dyslexia, 60(1), 40-56.

Torgeson, J., Schirm, A., Castner, L., Vartivarian, S., Mansfield, W., Myers, D. . . . Haan, C. (2007). National assessment of Title I final report: Volume II: Closing the reading gap: Findings from a randomized trial of four reading interventions for striving readers (NCEE 2008-4013). Washington DC: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance.