For several years, federal pandemic relief funds helped school districts across the United States expand “high-impact”—or “high-dosage”—tutoring programs that measurably improved student learning and helped reverse pandemic-related academic setbacks. Now that the primary source of that financial support has officially expired, education leaders nationwide are scrambling to figure out how to keep those vital programs afloat without sacrificing the quality that made them so successful in the first place.
Between March 2020 and March 2021, the U.S. Congress allocated nearly $190.5 billion to public education through the Elementary and Secondary School Emergency Relief (ESSER) fund. This sweeping initiative marked the largest single-time federal investment in K-12 education in the history of the United States. Designed to help schools navigate the unprecedented disruptions of the COVID-19 pandemic, the funding was distributed in phases and expired between 2022 and 2024, though certain districts managed to secure temporary liquidation extensions from the federal government.
In the wake of the funding cliff, school districts have taken varied approaches. Some education systems have been forced to pause or significantly scale back their tutoring initiatives due to budgetary constraints, while others are working tirelessly to save the programs by weaving them directly into their core academic systems and standard operating budgets. A comprehensive 2026 analysis of 35 districts conducted by the National Student Support Accelerator (NSSA) revealed that eight districts had significantly reduced their tutoring offerings, and another eight had experienced a temporary pause or disruption after ESSER funds ran out. However, 19 districts—representing more than half of the studied group—successfully preserved or even expanded their tutoring programs despite the loss of federal dollars.
Extensive educational research shows that high-impact tutoring, frequently called high-dosage tutoring, has served as the single most powerful intervention to accelerate student learning and make up for pandemic-related learning loss. These programs typically take place at least three times a week, providing highly targeted academic instruction that is carefully coordinated with regular classroom work. According to the NSSA, effective programs feature frequent sessions delivered over a span of at least 10 weeks, implemented individually or in small groups using data-driven instruction capable of generating anywhere from three to 15 months of additional academic learning.
Despite its proven efficacy, high-impact tutoring comes with a substantial price tag. Research from the Annenberg Institute at Brown University estimates that high-impact tutoring costs between $1,200 and $2,500 per student annually. Without the cushion of ESSER funds, absorbing these ongoing expenses presents a formidable challenge for districts operating on tight local budgets.
For schools that made heavy investments in these initiatives and are now fighting to retain their hard-won benefits, the central challenge is transforming tutoring from a temporary pandemic measure into a permanent, standard fixture of public education. Devon Wible, vice president of teaching and learning at Catapult Learning, a provider of educational and tutoring programs to schools, notes that districts across multiple states are increasingly viewing tutoring as a foundational layer of academic support rather than an optional add-on.
“A few years ago, when ESSER funds were here, the conversation was, ‘Let’s see if it works,’” Wible observes. “Now it’s, ‘How do we sustain this?’”
Building Tutoring Into Existing Systems
One of the primary strategies districts are employing to make tutoring last is embedding it directly into the regular school day and aligning it with existing academic-support systems. While this structural shift does not completely eliminate the financial cost of providing tutoring, it is significantly less expensive than establishing and maintaining a separate, extracurricular program outside of normal school hours.
Wible explains that some districts have strategically added dedicated intervention periods or “WIN” (What I Need) blocks to their daily master schedules. These designated times provide students with vital opportunities for extra academic support without pulling them away from core classroom instruction. Furthermore, this integrated approach encourages much tighter collaboration among classroom teachers, specialized tutors, and intervention staff, who can regularly share student data and work collaboratively toward common academic goals.
Under this model, tutoring is explicitly designed to align with daily classroom instruction. For instance, a student struggling with grade-level reading might receive targeted coaching on foundational phonics and decoding skills during the intervention block while continuing to engage with rich, grade-level texts alongside their peers in the regular classroom. Schools utilize continuous student data to identify precise academic needs, dynamically adjust instruction, and determine the exact moment a student is ready to exit the program.
“Ultimately, our shared goal is that students experience classroom instruction, intervention, and tutoring as one coherent learning experience,” Wible says.
Wible has witnessed the tangible impact of this cohesive approach firsthand. A recent internal analysis conducted by Catapult Learning, tracking approximately 700 students in kindergarten through third grade across 12 Massachusetts school districts, revealed that children made substantial literacy gains after receiving high-impact tutoring. Some students achieved up to five additional months of reading progress as a result of the targeted support.
In one specific Massachusetts school district, the results of the intervention were particularly striking. Following just 12 weeks of high-impact tutoring, the share of students in kindergarten and first grade performing at or above grade level jumped dramatically from 11% to 55%, according to Wible.
Protecting What Works
While finding alternative revenue streams is a priority, David Blazar, an associate professor of education policy at the University of Maryland, suggests that an even greater concern for educators is what happens to program quality when schools cannot secure new funding and are forced to cut spending on tutoring.
Blazar recently co-authored a University of Maryland study examining tutoring programs across all 24 school districts in Maryland, investigating how local educational agencies design and scale their academic interventions. The analysis found that 18 districts offered tutoring featuring several key elements associated with stronger program implementation, such as small-group instruction, frequent weekly sessions, and delivery during regular school hours.
Although the research focused specifically on Maryland, it offers broad insights into the dilemmas facing school districts nationwide as they attempt to sustain tutoring in a post-ESSER landscape. Blazar anticipates that as financial pressures mount, districts may consider increasing group sizes, reducing the frequency of tutoring sessions, or turning to lower-cost providers rather than outright eliminating their tutoring programs.
“The more likely change is quieter and, in some ways, more consequential: erosion of the design features that make tutoring work,” Blazar cautions. “When you have to find savings, dosage—and other components of quality, including how many students work with the same tutor simultaneously—are very likely to change.”
At the same time, Blazar’s analysis of implementation plans developed under the Blueprint for Maryland’s Future between 2024 and 2027 shows that Maryland districts have proactively planned to restructure their daily schedules to keep tutoring afloat. Because tutoring serves as a core statutory mandate under the state’s landmark education policy, he expects local districts to maintain a firm commitment to the strategy.
“I think they will continue because it is a core part of the Blueprint, and there is growing consensus that tutoring is a critical resource for improving student outcomes, so it is money well spent,” Blazar notes.
For districts everywhere trying to stretch limited local and state dollars, the ultimate challenge lies in figuring out where to trim administrative or operational costs without weakening the fundamental design features that make high-impact tutoring genuinely effective in the first place, Blazar emphasizes.
One District’s Approach
West Feliciana Parish Schools in Louisiana provides a clear example of a public school district successfully finding alternative funding sources to permanently integrate tutoring into the school day. Although the district had established basic intervention and tutoring practices prior to 2024, it significantly expanded and formalized its school-day high-dosage tutoring program during the 2024-25 academic year with assistance from state funding provided through the Louisiana Department of Education’s Accelerate: High-Dosage Tutoring initiative.
To accommodate the program, the district created a comprehensive schoolwide master schedule incorporating a daily 30- to 50-minute block where regular core instruction pauses. During this designated window, students are divided into flexible, skill-based groups and report either to their regular classroom teacher or a specialized interventionist for high-dosage tutoring, according to Jodi Lemoine, director of accountability at West Feliciana Parish Schools.
Students who are not receiving tutoring during this period remain in the classroom to work independently on educational software programs or read library books. For older students, fourth and fifth graders received online tutoring support delivered through external providers.
This structural approach dramatically expanded the reach and capacity of the district’s intervention program. Prior to the rollout of the initiative, the local reading intervention program served roughly 96 students per week. Lemoine reports that after just one year, that figure surged to more than 430 students.
“From the get-go, our philosophy was: This is gonna require good teaching, not just programs,” Lemoine says.
The district closely monitors individual student progress every two to three weeks, making necessary instructional adjustments along the way. Lemoine points to district assessment data showing consistent academic gains between the fall and spring assessments of the 2025-26 school year. According to data from the Northwest Evaluation Association’s Measures of Academic Progress, the district recorded notable increases in overall student performance metrics.
In recognition of these achievements, the Louisiana Department of Education recognized West Feliciana Parish Schools as a Model of Excellence for its innovative approach to high-dosage tutoring. By December 2024, more than 45% of the district’s kindergarten through fifth-grade students were receiving regular tutoring—more than double the proportion served previously. Furthermore, about 60% of participating students successfully reached their targeted literacy skill benchmark by the very first progress-monitoring checkpoint.
“We have figured out a way to use the resources we have smarter,” Lemoine concludes. “Our high-dose tutoring program is truly an example of that: Work smarter, not harder.”
Currently, the district relies on a careful combination of state and local funding streams to keep the program operating smoothly, but school leadership remains deeply committed to sustaining it over the long term. Superintendent Hollis Milton asserts that the district’s measurable success demonstrates that effective tutoring does not simply have to disappear the moment a specific temporary funding source dries up.
“If something’s working, you find the will, and then you’re gonna find the way,” Milton says.