Grantees will generate rigorous evidence that informs how AI tools can improve student outcomes.
For the first time, the Department included High-Impact Tutoring as a dedicated Competitive Preference Priority. The result: 11 funded projects center on high-impact tutoring, representing nearly $130 million across 15+ states and tribal nations.
After convening 135+ stakeholders, one thing became clear – there is significant remaining distance between a promising statute and a program that actually delivers results to students.
When the windfall of pandemic-era federal stimulus money that helped districts weather the crisis expired in 2024, it raised a key question: Would the tutoring programs school systems scrambled to implement during that period prove to be temporary?
Godfrey: If Washington wants to throw a sprawling set of K-12 priorities in one pot for states, it needs to track whether it was worth it.
What we’re learning from our first Call for Effective Technology reaffirms much of what we’ve learned from high-dosage tutoring over the past four years, with some twists that are specific to AI.
Evidence on whether tutoring works is settled. It works. The open question is whether we can see what’s happening clearly enough to steadily improve delivery at scale.
Across three years of research from Accelerate’s Call to Effective Action, one lesson keeps surfacing over and over again in our high-dosage tutoring work: Dosage Matters. It matters more than other factors in tutoring.
Recent evidence from Accelerate’s grant portfolio suggests in-person tutoring may be particularly powerful for boys in early literacy. This is one study so the question is not settled. But it is a signal strong enough to shape what we study next.
Charlie and Kate Gibson take a closer look at the reading gap between boys and girls and what can be done to address it.
Get the latest from Accelerate, including news, insights, and updates on our work.
