In a moment where boys are falling behind in reading, the field is asking a familiar question with new urgency: how do we actually change outcomes?
Recent evidence from Accelerate’s grant portfolio suggests in-person tutoring may be particularly powerful for boys in early literacy. This is one study (albeit a well constructed study) so the question is not settled. But it is a signal strong enough to shape what we study next.
What We Know
High-dosage tutoring works generally; and also – it may have an outsized benefit for boys in early literacy
Research-backed tutoring programs are producing measurable gains in literacy. In several cases, impacts are larger for boys than for girls, including findings highlighted in recent coverage of Accelerate-supported research:
These results are early and not definitive. They show statistically significant results for boys and not for girls, but they were not designed to answer the question we now have: does in-person early literacy tutoring have different effects for boys and girls?
Early literacy is high-leverage, and time-sensitive
Decades of research show that early literacy skills strongly predict later reading success, and that students who fall behind early are likely to remain behind without effective intervention. The National Early Literacy Panel identifies foundational skills such as phonological awareness, print knowledge, and oral language as predictors of later reading outcomes. Longitudinal evidence further shows that early reading proficiency is tightly linked to later academic outcomes, including whether students graduate from high school and enter postsecondary programs. In response to poor outcomes and post-pandemic urgency, more than half of stateshave passed “Science of Reading” laws in the past three years.
Recent evidence shows that boys enter kindergarten behind girls in reading, and that these gaps remain throughout elementary school.
In other words, the gap is not being created in elementary school, and it is not being closed there either. This is what makes early literacy both high leverage (it shapes later trajectories), and time sensitive (gaps remain if not addressed early).
The importance of what works, for whom, and why
Noticing early evidence that tutoring may have an outsized impact on boys in early literacy reveals a gap in how we interpret what works.
Are we missing other differential impacts beneath the surface of all the evidence that tells us tutoring works? What do we do when we see a differential impact across multiple studies? Are schools, districts and states equipped to act on this knowledge?
For example, there are several plausible hypotheses for why tutoring might be especially impactful for boys in early literacy:
- Boys may have an easier time paying attention in structured, small group settings that increase time on task.
- Boys may benefit more from immediate, repeated feedback loops that allow them to demonstrate growth quickly when they enter with lower achievement and lower confidence
- Boys may respond more strongly to consistent adult relationships that increase motivation and persistence
- Tutoring may disproportionately benefit students with lower baseline achievement, and boys, on average, have lower literacy achievement when they enter school.
Each hypothesis points to different explanations and different design choices, both for tutoring and for instruction more broadly, to better support both boys and girls facing similar challenges.
We should use the evidence we already have to guide decisions about which interventions are the best bets for different contexts and challenges. That means identifying which students benefit most from which program designs. RCTs are powerful learning tools, but average effects alone are not enough to guide which supports are chosen for which students.
What We Need to Learn Next
- Are boys benefiting more? And, if so, is this because tutoring is inherently more effective for them, or because their baseline achievement tends to be lower?
Priority: Using RCTs in large scale implementations, compare boys and girls with similar baseline scores to see if gains are greater for boys than for girls, and for boys who start off with lower achievement compared to boys with higher achievement levels.
- If tutoring is particularly effective for boys in early literacy, which design elements matter most, group size, scheduled dosage and frequency, alignment with Tier 1 materials, modality, or something else?
Priority: Explicitly test these hypotheses by varying core program elements, and using randomized designs to calculate impact estimates for boys only.
- Do early literacy gains for boys persist into later grades and translate into longer term academic outcomes?
Priority: Conduct longitudinal follow up to understand the durability of impacts over time, and disaggregate findings by gender.
What Comes Next
We don’t need to wait for perfect evidence. We can act on what we already know and continue to learn at the same time. And, when research points to surprising and challenging potential lessons, we need to lean in with more studies rather than simply explain away the evidence.
1. Disaggregate everything
Make analysis of differential impacts across groups of students standard in program evaluation, district reporting, and research design.
2. Use tutoring as a core strategy to addressing early literacy challenges
Tutoring works, and it may be especially important for boys. Depending on the underlying mechanisms it may be especially important for other groups as well. That’s a good bet even with incomplete evidence.
3. Drive dosage to those who need it most.
The evidence only matters if implementation happens. Without data to monitor whether the students who need tutoring are getting tutoring at a high enough dosage, there is no way to ensure we achieve the desired results.
We know boys are falling behind in early literacy, and we know the system is not closing the gap. We now have early evidence that tutoring not only works generally, but may be part of the solution to directly support boys. The work ahead is to act and learn at the same time.
