1

Introduction

In 2014–15, the high school graduation rate reached a record high of 83 percent (U.S. Department of 

Education 2016). Despite the gains, over half a million students still drop out of high school each year 

(U.S. Department of Education 2015). High schools have adopted various strategies designed to keep 

students who are at risk of not graduating in school and on track for earning the credits required to 

graduate. “At-risk” students are defined as those failing to achieve basic proficiency in key subjects or 

exhibiting behaviors that can lead to failure and/or dropping out of school. Dropout prevention 

strategies are diverse; they vary in type of program, services offered, frequency, intensity, and duration 

of contact with target students.

The U.S. Department of Education (Department) sponsored the National Survey on High School 

Strategies Designed to Help At-Risk Students Graduate (HSS), which aimed to provide descriptive 

information on the prevalence and characteristics of dropout prevention strategies for at-risk students. 

The survey collected data in the 2014–15 school year from a nationally representative sample of 

2,142 public high schools and focused on 13 specific high school improvement strategies1 identified by a 

panel of external experts and senior Department officials. This brief on academic tutoring is the sixth in 

a series of briefs being released this year with key findings about these high school improvement 

strategies. 

Definition of Academic Tutoring 

The HSS defined academic tutoring as supplemental instruction that is required for high school students 

who have fallen behind academically. The HSS distinguished required academic tutoring, in which 

students must participate, from voluntary tutoring, in which students have the option to participate. 

Academic tutoring provides students with additional instruction and enrichment opportunities to help 

them master academic content. 

Research on Academic Tutoring

Evidence suggests that academic tutoring may be an effective way to help students improve their 

academic skills, stay in school, and/or graduate from high school. One experimental study of the Match 

tutoring program,

2 an intensive small group math tutoring program in which students receive one hour 

of tutoring each day from primarily recent college graduates, found that students participating in Match 

tutoring had higher math test scores and math grades than those who did not participate (Cook et al. 

1 The survey examined 13 strategies designed to improve high school outcomes for at-risk students. These strategies are: 

(1) academic support classes, (2) academic tutoring, (3) career-themed curriculum, (4) case management, (5) college-level 

coursework, (6) competency-based advancement, (7) credit recovery, (8) early warning systems, (9) high school transition

activities, (10) mentoring, (11) personalized learning plans, (12) social services, and (13) student support teams. See 

http://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/opepd/ppss/reports-high-school.html for the series of briefs. 2

 The Match tutoring program is now known as SAGA Innovations.

U.S. Department of Education

Office of Planning, Evaluation and Policy Development

Policy and Program Studies Service

Issue Brief: Academic Tutoring in High Schools

April 2017 
2 

2015). Research also suggests that some comprehensive programs that may include academic tutoring 

and also other services, such as test taking and study skills assistance, academic advising, mentoring, 

community service, and financial incentives for school performance, may help students stay in school 

and graduate (Dynarski et al. 2008). Two quasi-experimental studies on Talent Search, a program that 

provides several academic supports to students from disadvantaged backgrounds and features academic 

tutoring as one of its supports, found that students participating in Talent Search were more likely to 

graduate from high school than students who did not participate in the program (Constantine et al. 

2006). 

Survey Findings on Academic Tutoring 

This brief describes the prevalence of academic tutoring as a high school dropout prevention strategy. It 

does not measure the effectiveness of the strategy but instead describes the kinds of schools that offer 

academic tutoring and their approaches to implementing it. This analysis included an examination of

four school characteristics: (1) size, (2) poverty, (3) locale, and (4) graduation rate. Only statistically 

significant differences within school characteristics (at p <. 05) are discussed; non-statistically significant 

differences are not reported. School characteristics were defined in the following ways: 

School size. School size categories consisted of small schools (fewer than 500 students), medium 

schools (500–1,199 students), and large schools (1,200 or more students) based on 2013–14

Common Core of Data (CCD) student enrollment data. 

School poverty. Poverty levels were based on 2013–14 free or reduced-price lunch (FRPL) and total 

CCD school enrollment data. The poverty categories were low-poverty schools (below 35 percent 

students with FRPL), medium-poverty schools (35–49 percent students with FRPL), and high-poverty 

schools (50 percent or more students with FRPL).

School locale. School locale included three mutually exclusive locales from the CCD: rural schools, 

suburban/town schools, and city schools. 

Graduation rate. School classification by graduation rate was based on three categories: low

graduation rate (67 percent or lower graduation rate), medium graduation rate (68 to 89 percent 

graduation rate), and high graduation rate (90 percent or higher graduation rate).

Summary of Key Findings

• One-third of all high schools (32 percent) required academic tutoring for at least some students

in 2014–15; 8 percent of all high school students participated in required academic tutoring, 

according to school principals. 

• High-poverty schools were more likely than low-poverty schools to require academic tutoring

for struggling students, and city schools were more likely than suburban or rural schools to 

require academic tutoring. 

• Among high schools with required academic tutoring, most assigned tutoring on the basis of 

students’ academic performance (95 percent), followed by staff referrals (66 percent) and 

attendance problems (53 percent).
3

• High schools used different approaches to providing academic tutoring to different students.

Most commonly, academic tutoring was provided in person (95 percent), followed by a blended

model with an in-person facilitator and online tools (14 percent), and then online tutoring only

(6 percent).

• Required academic tutoring was most commonly provided to students in small groups of 10

students or fewer (75 percent) compared with one-on-one tutoring (14 percent) or large groups

of more than 10 students (11 percent).

• The most common academic tutors were teachers licensed in a core academic subject

(90 percent of schools); most tutors were offered supplemental pay out of the school/district

budget (83 percent).

What was the prevalence of academic tutoring in high schools? 

In 2014–15, 32 percent of high schools nationwide required academic tutoring for at least some 

students; 8 percent of high school students participated in required academic tutoring, according to 

school principals. The prevalence of required academic tutoring varied by school poverty level and 

school locale (Exhibit 1), but there were no significant differences by school size and graduation rate. 

Exhibit 1. Percentage of high schools that required academic tutoring by 

selected school characteristics, 2014-15

Exhibit reads: In 2014–15, 32 percent of high schools required at least some students to participate 

in academic tutoring.

* p < .05.

NOTE: The asterisk is placed on one case per comparison. Differences across school characteristics 

with two categories were based on comparisons between the two groups. Differences across school 

characteristics with three categories were based on goodness-of-fit across all three categories. 

Unweighted n = 1,925.

SOURCE: HSS survey of high school administrators, 2015 (Question 62).
4

Differences by school poverty. High-poverty schools were more likely than low-poverty schools 

to require academic tutoring (36 percent versus 26 percent).

Differences by school locale. Larger proportions of city schools than suburban or rural schools 

required academic tutoring (41 percent versus 28 percent and 31 percent, respectively). 

How did high schools target students for participation in academic tutoring? 

High schools most frequently assigned academic tutoring to specific students on the basis of their 

academic performance (95 percent), followed by staff referrals (66 percent), and attendance problems

(53 percent). Fewer schools assigned tutoring to English Learners (ELs) (19 percent) and reentry3

students (13 percent). The criteria schools used to require students to participate in academic tutoring 

differed by school size, school poverty level, school locale, and graduation rate (Exhibit 2). 

Exhibit 2. Percentage of high schools that targeted specific student subgroups or issues for 

participation in academic tutoring, 2014–15

Subgroup

All schools 

with 

required 

academic 

tutoring

Low grad 

rate

High 

grad 

rate Large Small

High 

poverty

Low 

poverty City Suburban Rural

Performing below 

standards

95% 94% 96% 94% 96% 95% 95% 95% 92% 97%

Staff referrals 66% 64% 70% 65% 65% 66% 59% 73% 61% 65%

Attendance issues 53% 57% 53% 48% 57% 56%* 44% 52% 50% 56%

Discipline issues 30% 32% 28% 28% 30% 30% 27% 29% 29% 31%

English learners 19% 23% 15% 27%* 16% 22%* 11% 28%* 18% 12%

Particular grade 

level

18% 28%* 14% 16% 16% 20% 15% 23% 15% 15%

Reentry students 13% 18% 10% 16% 11% 13% 9% 16% 14% 8%

Exhibit reads: Among high schools that required at least some students to participate in academic tutoring in 2014–15, 

95 percent targeted students performing below standards for tutoring. 

* p < .05.

NOTE: The asterisk is placed on one case per comparison. Differences across school characteristics with two categories 

were based on comparisons between the two groups. Differences across school characteristics with three categories were 

based on goodness-of-fit across all three categories. 

Unweighted n = 635. 

SOURCE: HSS survey of high school administrators, 2015 (Question 64).

Differences by school size. Large schools were more likely than small schools to target EL 

students for required academic tutoring (27 percent versus 16 percent) after examining the 

differences across selected student subgroups and issues. 

Differences by school poverty. High-poverty schools were more likely than low-poverty schools 

to target students with attendance issues (56 percent versus 44 percent) and EL students (22 

percent versus 11 percent) for required academic tutoring.

3 Reentry students are those who dropped out of high school and then reenrolled, as defined by the HSS. 
5 

Differences by school locale. Larger proportions of city schools than suburban or rural schools 

reported targeting EL students for required academic tutoring (28 percent in city schools versus

18 percent in suburban schools and 12 percent in rural schools). 

Differences by graduation rate. Low-graduation-rate schools were more likely than highgraduation-rate schools to target students in a particular grade level for required academic 

tutoring (28 percent versus 14 percent). 

How did schools deliver academic tutoring to students? 

High schools offered academic tutoring in different ways to different students. Most commonly, 

required academic tutoring was provided in person (95 percent), followed by a hybrid model blending

online support with an in-person facilitator (14 percent), and then online tutoring only (6 percent). 

There were significant differences in this delivery mode for required academic tutoring by school size 

and graduation rate, but there were no differences by school poverty or school locale.

Differences by school size. Large schools were less likely than small schools to deliver required 

academic tutoring using a blended approach (9 percent compared with 16 percent). 

Differences by graduation rate. Low-graduation-rate schools were more likely than highgraduation-rate schools to deliver required academic tutoring online (12 percent compared with 

4 percent) or using a blended approach (24 percent compared with 12 percent) and less likely to 

deliver tutoring in person (89 percent compared with 96 percent).

Who provided academic tutoring to students?

The most common tutors provided by high schools were teachers licensed in a core academic subject 

(90 percent), followed by teachers licensed in special education (41 percent), teachers licensed in a noncore subject (29 percent), professional tutors (13 percent), and unlicensed/provisional educators 

(11 percent). There were differences in the tutors’ professional background by school size, school locale, 

and graduation rate. There were no differences by poverty level. 

Differences by school size. Large schools were less likely than small schools to have an 

unlicensed/provisional educator provide academic tutoring (7 percent versus 14 percent). 

Differences by school locale. Larger proportions of city schools than suburban or rural schools 

had a professional tutor provide academic tutoring (18 percent versus 13 percent and 8 percent, 

respectively), and larger proportions of rural schools than city or suburban schools had an 

unlicensed/provisional educator provide academic tutoring (16 percent versus 6 percent and 

10 percent, respectively)

Differences by graduation rate. Low-graduation-rate schools were more likely than highgraduation-rate schools to have professional tutors provide academic tutoring (24 percent 

versus 9 percent). 
6 

Was academic tutoring provided to students in groups or one on one? 

High schools most frequently provided academic tutoring to students in small groups of 10 students or 

fewer (75 percent) and less frequently through one-on-one tutoring (14 percent) or in large groups of 

more than 10 students (11 percent). The groupings schools used varied by school size, school poverty 

level, and graduation rate, but there were no significant differences by school locale (Exhibit 3). 

Exhibit 3. Percentage of high schools that delivered academic tutoring in groups or one on one, 

by selected school characteristics, 2014–15

Delivery 

approach 

All 

schools 

with 

required 

academic 

tutoring

Low 

grad 

rate

High 

grad rate Large Small

High 

poverty

Low 

poverty City Suburban Rural

Small groups 75% 71% 77% 75% 75% 77% 75% 72% 75% 78% 

One on one 14% 26%* 13% 8%* 18% 11%* 20% 14% 14% 15% 

Large groups 11% 4%* 10% 17%* 7% 13%* 5% 14% 11% 7% 

Exhibit reads: Among high schools that required at least some students to participate in academic tutoring, 75 percent provided 

tutoring to students in small groups (10 or fewer students). 

* p < .05.

NOTE: The asterisk is placed on one case per comparison. Differences across school characteristics with two categories were 

based on comparisons between the two groups. Differences across school characteristics with three categories were based on 

goodness-of-fit across all three categories.

Unweighted n = 595.

SOURCE: HSS survey of high school administrators, 2015 (Question 69).

Differences by school size. Large schools were less likely than small schools to offer one-on-one 

tutoring (8 percent compared with 18 percent) and more likely to offer tutoring in large groups

(17 percent compared with 7 percent). 

Differences by school poverty. High-poverty schools were less likely than low-poverty schools to 

offer one-on-one tutoring than low-poverty schools (11 percent compared with 20 percent) and 

more likely to offer tutoring in large groups (13 percent compared with 5 percent).

Differences by graduation rate. Low-graduation-rate schools were more likely than highgraduation-rate schools to offer one-on-one tutoring (26 percent compared with 13 percent) 

and were less likely to offer tutoring in large groups (4 percent compared with 10 percent). 

When was academic tutoring offered? 

High schools offered academic tutoring to students at various times of the day; most commonly, 

academic tutoring was provided to students during the school day (67 percent), followed by after school 

(65 percent), before school (32 percent), and on weekends (14 percent). Tutoring times varied by school 

poverty level, school locale, and graduation rate, but there were no significant differences by school 

size. 

Differences by school poverty. High-poverty schools were less likely than low-poverty schools to 

offer academic tutoring during the school day (63 percent versus 80 percent) and were more 

likely to offer academic tutoring after school (71 percent versus 56 percent) or on the weekend 

(19 percent versus 6 percent). 
7 

Differences by school locale. Larger proportions of city schools than suburban or rural schools 

offered academic tutoring after school (75 percent versus 61 percent and 60 percent, 

respectively) and on the weekend (27 percent versus 11 percent and 7 percent, respectively). 

Differences by graduation rate. Low-graduation-rate schools were more likely than highgraduation-rate schools to offer academic tutoring on the weekends (19 percent compared with 

10 percent). 

How frequently did high schools provide academic tutoring? 

High schools provided academic tutoring more commonly on a weekly basis (52 percent) than on a daily 

basis (44 percent) (Exhibit 4). The frequency varied by school locale and graduation rate, and there were 

no significant differences by school size or school poverty level. 

Differences by school locale. Larger proportions of rural schools than city or suburban schools 

provided academic tutoring on a daily basis (54 percent of rural schools versus 38 percent of city 

schools and 40 percent of suburban schools), while larger proportions of city and suburban 

schools than rural schools provided academic tutoring weekly (58 percent of city schools and 

56 percent of suburban schools versus 42 percent of rural schools). 

Differences by graduation rate. Low-graduation-rate schools were less likely than highgraduation-rate schools to provide academic tutoring on a daily basis (37 percent versus

49 percent) and were more likely to provide academic tutoring weekly (58 percent versus 

47 percent). 

Exhibit 4. Frequency of academic tutoring, 2014–15

Frequency

All schools 

with 

required 

academic 

tutoring

Low 

grad 

rates

High 

grad 

rates Large Small

High 

poverty

Low 

poverty City Suburban Rural

Daily 44% 37%* 49% 44% 46% 43% 39% 38%* 40% 54%

Weekly 52% 58%* 47% 51% 51% 53% 57% 58%* 56% 42%

Exhibit reads: Among high schools that required at least some students to participate in academic tutoring in 2014–15, 

52 percent of schools had students meet weekly for academic tutoring.

NOTE: The asterisk is placed on one case per comparison. Differences across school characteristics with two categories were 

based on comparisons between the two groups. Differences across school characteristics with three categories were based on 

goodness-of-fit across all three categories. 

Unweighted n = 633. 

SOURCE: HSS survey of high school administrators, 2015 (Question 71).
8 

How did tutors reinforce classroom learning? 

High schools most frequently reported that tutors used the same materials as the classroom teacher to 

provide additional instructional time for students (74 percent). Schools also reported that tutors

provided homework assistance (60 percent), used supplemental materials aligned with the regular core 

course (54 percent), and answered questions/held study sessions for upcoming tests (53 percent). The 

relationship between academic tutoring and classroom instruction varied by graduation rate, but there 

were no significant differences by school size, school poverty level, or school locale. 

Differences by graduation rate. Low-graduation-rate schools were less likely than highgraduation-rate schools to answer questions/hold study sessions for upcoming tests (40 percent 

versus 56 percent) and provide homework assistance (39 percent versus 69 percent). 

How did high schools pay for tutors? 

Most tutors were offered supplemental pay out of the school/district budget (83 percent of schools), 

and fewer tutors were offered supplemental pay using funds from an outside organization (10 percent). 

In some schools, tutors were considered voluntary and were not offered any compensation 

(15 percent). Funding varied by school size, school poverty level, school locale, and graduation rate. 

Differences by school size. Large schools were more likely than small schools to use unpaid 

tutors (23 percent versus 12 percent).

Differences by school poverty. High-poverty schools were more likely than low-poverty schools 

to pay tutors using funds from an outside organization (14 percent versus 3 percent). 

Differences by school locale. Larger proportions of city schools than suburban or rural schools 

paid tutors using funds from an outside organization (15 percent versus 8 percent and 

7 percent, respectively).

Differences by graduation rate. Low-graduation-rate schools were more likely than highgraduation-rate schools to pay tutors using funds from an outside organization (13 percent 

versus 4 percent) and less likely to use unpaid tutors (6 percent versus 17 percent). 
9 

Methodology

The National Survey on High School Strategies Designed to Help At-Risk Students Graduate was a 

survey of 13 high school strategies designed to improve graduation rates among students at risk of 

dropping out and was administered in the 2014–15 school year. The 13 strategies are: (1) academic 

support classes, (2) academic tutoring, (3) career-themed curriculum, (4) case management, (5) collegelevel coursework, (6) competency-based advancement, (7) credit recovery, (8) early warning systems, 

(9) high school transition activities, (10) mentoring, (11) personalized learning plans, (12) social services, 

and (13) student support teams.

The purpose of the survey was to inform education practitioners and policymakers about the 

prevalence, characteristics, and students served by these strategies in U.S. public high schools. The 

descriptive study did not measure the effectiveness of particular strategies but instead examined 

implementation factors in high schools across the country. The study team identified the 13 strategies 

and designed survey items for each strategy with input from a panel of external experts in the field and 

senior Department officials. 

The researchers selected a nationally representative sample of high schools4 using a random sampling 

approach, stratifying high schools based on graduation rate (from EDFacts)

5 and locale code (from NCES 

2013–14 Common Core of Data). The survey collected data from high school principals (or designees 

knowledgeable about programs and strategies) at sampled schools. The survey response rate was 

90 percent. The survey responses, after cleaning and processing, were analyzed in SAS and Stata using 

descriptive techniques that apply the appropriate statistical population weights to account for 

stratification by graduation rate and locale. 

Results reported in this brief reflect the full survey sample unless otherwise noted and are 

representative of U.S. public high schools nationwide. References in the text to differences between 

subgroups based on sample data refer only to differences that are statistically significant using a 

significance level of 0.05. Adjustments to the alpha level were not made for multiple comparisons.

 

4

 All U.S. public high schools providing instruction to 12th grade students in the fall of 2010 were included in the sampling 

frame unless (1) the lowest offered grade was 11th grade or higher, (2) there were fewer than five students in grades 9 

through 12, (3) the percentage of students enrolled in grades 9 through 12 was under 20 percent of the total school 

enrollment and the total number of students in grades 9 through 12 was fewer than 20, or (4) the school name contained 

one of nine keywords indicating juvenile detention center or hospital. Of the 103,813 total schools listed in the 2010–11 CCD, 

22,447 high schools met the criteria to be included in the sampling frame. 5

 There were 3,302 schools without graduation rate information in the 2010–11 EDFacts public use data set. The researchers 

used an imputation approach to assign these schools to either the high- or low-graduation-rate stratum. The imputation 

process began by examining the distribution of the high/low graduation rate classification for the 19,145 schools by sampling 

locale. The percentage of schools classified as high graduation rate was calculated separately for each locale sampling 

stratum; 68.4 percent of rural schools were classified as high graduation rate, 63.0 percent of suburban schools were 

classified as high graduation rate, and 41.0 percent of city schools were classified as high graduation rate. The research team 

randomly assigned each of the 3,302 schools with unknown graduation rates to the high graduation rate stratum with 

probability 68.4 if the school was classified as rural, with probability 63.0 if the school was classified as suburban, and with 

probability 41.0 if the school was classified as urban. The sample size was adjusted upwards to account for potential 

misclassification due to this method. In analysis, the researchers used the restricted-use 2013–14 EDFacts data and 

graduation rates published on school and district websites to fill in this missing data.
10

References

Constantine, J. M., N. S. Seftor, E. S. Martin, T. Silva, and D. Myers. 2006. A Study of the Effect of the 

Talent Search Program on Secondary and Postsecondary Outcomes in Florida, Indiana, and Texas.

Final Report from Phase II of the National Evaluation. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of 

Education, Office of Planning, Evaluation, and Policy Development, Policy and Program Studies 

Services. 

Cook, P. J., K. Dodge, G. Farkas, R. G. Fryer, J. Guryan, J. Ludwig, and S. Mayer. 2015. Not Too Late: 

Improving Academic Outcomes for Disadvantaged Youth. Evanston, IL: Institute for Policy Research, 

Northwestern University.

Dynarski, M., L. Clarke, B. Cobb, J. Finn, R. Rumberger, and J. Smink. 2008. Dropout Prevention: A 

Practice Guide (NCEE 2008-4025). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of 

Education Sciences, National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance. 

U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Statistics. 

2016. “Table 1. Public High School 4-Year Adjusted Cohort Graduation Rate (ACGR).” 

https://nces.ed.gov/ccd/tables/ACGR_RE_and_characteristics_2014-15.asp

U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Statistics. 

2015. “Table 219.57. Population of 15- to 24-Year Olds Enrolled in Grades 10 through 12, Number 

Who Dropped Out (Event Dropouts), Percentage Who Dropped Out (Event Dropout Rate), and 

Percentage Distribution, by Selected Characteristics: 2014.” 

https://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d15/tables/dt15_219.57.asp
11

Appendix: Academic Tutoring (Survey Excerpt)

National Survey on High School Strategies Designed to Help At-Risk Students Graduate

 





This section asks about Academic Tutoring. For the purposes of this survey, academic tutoring is mandatory

tutoring for students who have fallen behind academically. 

62. In the 2014-15 school year, does your school have mandatory academic tutoring? 

(Please select only one) 

{Only allow one selection} Yes No

If user responds “Yes” to Q62, ask Q64 through Q74. Otherwise, skip to Q75

63. On average, approximately what percentage of high school 

students in your school is participating in mandatory

academic tutoring in the 2014-15 school year?

{Slide bar for 0% to 100%}

64. Are any of the following subsets of students targeted for mandatory tutoring?

(Check all that apply)

Students with attendance issues (e.g., truancy)

Students with discipline or behavioral issues

Students performing below standards or grade level 















Students in a particular grade level, regardless of performance

Students recommended by high school staff (e.g., counselor or teacher)

Re-entry students

English Language Learners

Other

(Please Specify________________)

65. Who provides the academic tutoring in your school?

(Check all that apply)

A teacher licensed in a core academic subject

A teacher licensed in a non-core subject

A licensed special education teacher 

A professional tutor 





An unlicensed educator

Other

(Please specify_________________)
12

66. Who pays the academic tutors in your school?

(Check all that apply)





















Tutors are paid by the school/district budget

Tutors are paid by an outside organization

Tutors are unpaid

Other

(Please specify __________________)

67. Do the individuals who provide mandatory tutoring in your school 

also teach other classes? 

(Check all that apply) 

Tutors do not have other teaching duties in my school

Tutors also teach core academic subject classes (e.g., mathematics, 

English, science)

Tutors also teach non-core subject classes (e.g., art, music)

Tutors also teach special education students 

68. How is mandatory tutoring typically delivered?

(Check all that apply)

Online

In person

Blended learning (e.g., online with an in-person facilitator) 













If user responds “in person” to Q68, ask Q69. Otherwise, skip to Q70.

69. Is mandatory tutoring offered one-on-one or in groups? 

(Please select only one) 

{Only allow one selection}

One-on-one

In small groups (10 or fewer students)

In large groups (more than 10 students)

70. When is mandatory tutoring typically offered to your students? 

(Check all that apply)

Before school

After school

During the school day (e.g., lunch, study hall)

On the weekend 
13

71. On average, how often do students meet to receive mandatory tutoring?

(Please select only one) 

{Only allow one selection}





















Daily

Weekly

Every other week

Once a month

Less frequently than once a month

I don’t know

72. What is the relationship between mandatory tutoring and classroom instruction?

(Check all that apply)

Tutors use similar materials as the classroom teacher to provide additional 

instructional time

Tutors use supplemental materials aligned with the regular core course 

Tutors answer questions and hold study sessions for upcoming tests

Tutors provide homework assistance

Other

(Please specify _____________) 

 

73. In the 2014-15 school year, does your school 

also offer students voluntary tutoring options 

(e.g., academic tutoring that students have 

the option to utilize)? Yes No

If user responds “Yes” to Q73, ask Q74. Otherwise skip to Q75.

74. On average, approximately what percentage of high 

school students in your school utilizes voluntary

academic tutoring?

{Slide bar for 0% to 100%}

The full survey is available at: http://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/opepd/ppss/reports-high-school.html