The Expanding Access to High-Impact Tutoring Act of 2025 would direct the Secretary of Education to award grants to State Educational Agencies (SEAs) to run tutoring programs in elementary and secondary schools and to award subgrants to local educational agencies (LEAs) to implement and evaluate those programs. Funding would be distributed with 80% for SEA grants to LEAs, 10% to develop a nationwide tutoring workforce, 5% for evaluation activities, and 5% for Advisory Board operations.
The bill sets a four-year subgrant period for LEAs, requires annual plans and reports, and establishes an Advisory Board to oversee quality, training, and evaluation. It also creates a framework for a nationwide tutoring workforce, Grow Your Own-style recruitment, and a bargaining requirement if tutoring affects employment terms.
The bill centers on evidence-based tutoring designed to raise academic achievement and aid recovery after COVID-19 disruptions.
At a Glance
What It Does
The Secretary of Education would award SEA grants to fund subgrants to LEAs for tutoring programs that meet defined hours, ratio, training, and evaluation requirements. Funds are allocated 80/10/5/5 across LEA grants, workforce development, evaluation, and Advisory Board activities.
Who It Affects
SEAs, LEAs serving Title I communities, teachers and paraprofessionals who tutor, nonprofit providers and higher-ed partners, and researchers involved in program evaluation.
Why It Matters
Creates a scalable, federally funded tutoring backbone with statewide coordination, a formal evaluation pipeline, and a workforce pipeline to address learning loss and improve student outcomes.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
The bill would establish a national framework for tutoring funded through federal grants. States would receive funds to support LEAs in delivering tutoring in math and reading, with a 3:1 student-to-tutor ratio and 30 minutes of tutoring at least three days per week.
Local districts would apply for subgrants through their SEAs and would be evaluated on specific metrics, including how many Title I students are served and how much student achievement improves. An Advisory Board would review plans, help design training, oversee tutor quality, and publish a database of tutoring methods.
The act also aims to grow a nationwide tutoring workforce by funding training and Grow Your Own programs, and it requires bargaining with educator unions if program changes affect terms of employment. Throughout, programs must be evaluated using rigorous research designs, with findings used to adjust plans and funding.
Finally, subgrants last four years, with annual reporting and potential plan updates if outcomes lag.
The Five Things You Need to Know
The bill authorizes 2026–2030 appropriations to fund tutoring programs, allocating 80% to SEAs for LEA subgrants, 10% for workforce development, 5% for evaluation, and 5% for Advisory Board work.
Subgrants to LEAs are competitive and prioritized by the number of Title I students served, post-pandemic achievement declines, program quality, and prior ARP ESSER results.
Tutoring requirements include at least 30 minutes per session, at least 3 days per week, a 3:1 student-to-tutor ratio, and alignment with regular classwork.
The Act mandates partner evaluations with research organizations and monthly/annual reporting to measure impact on student outcomes and guide program adjustments.
A nationwide tutoring workforce will be developed through partnerships with colleges, workforce boards, and nonprofits, including Grow Your Own programs and pilot training/compensation initiatives.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Authorization and Distribution of Funds
This section authorizes the annual appropriations needed to run the tutoring program for fiscal years 2026 through 2030 and prescribes how the funds will be distributed. 80% is reserved for State educational agencies to award subgrants to local educational agencies, 10% for nationwide tutoring workforce development, 5% for evaluation activities, and 5% for the Advisory Board’s statutory duties. The arrangement creates a centralized funding stream intended to scale tutoring capacity across states while preserving state and local control over implementation.
Grant Program Established
The Act creates a nationwide grant program administered through SEAs. Each SEA receives a grant proportionate to its prior Title I funding, and uses it to support LEAs in designing, administering, and evaluating tutoring programs. The goal is to boost academic achievement and recovery in K–12 students by funding well-planned tutoring that aligns with state standards and Title I objectives.
Subgrants to Local Educational Agencies
SEA-granted subgrants go to LEAs on a competitive basis and must be coordinated with an Advisory Board. Priorities include serving Title I-eligible students, addressing post-COVID learning loss, and demonstrating program quality (hours per day, days per week). Plans must detail how tutoring will be administered, which schools or grade levels are served, and how partnerships with nonprofits or higher education will operate.
Advisory Board
An Advisory Board within the Department of Education will evaluate SEA/LEA plans, provide technical assistance, approve nontraditional tutoring formats, oversee research partnerships, and coordinate training for tutors. It will also publish a database of tutoring methods and ensure that plans emphasize evidence-based approaches and measurable outcomes.
Subgrant Uses
Subgrants must be used to implement tutoring programs with defined instructional requirements, including scheduling, tutor qualifications, ongoing training, and monthly observations. Programs may use technology or virtual instruction if evidence supports it, but must plan for a transition to in-person tutoring if necessary. Evaluations must accompany tutoring programs, using quasi-experimental or experimental designs with a preference for the latter.
Nationwide Tutoring Workforce
The Advisory Board, in coordination with states, higher education institutions, and workforce boards, will develop a nationwide tutoring workforce. Activities include determining staffing needs, funding Grow Your Own pipelines, and creating pilot programs to train graduates who commit to tutoring in Title I schools for a minimum period. Partnerships with AmeriCorps and other organizations are encouraged to recruit tutors.
Bargaining
If tutoring implementation affects employee terms and conditions, the subgrant must be negotiated with the state or local educator union before award. If labor rights conflict with the grant, the contract terms prevail and funds may not be withheld on that basis.
Definitions
This section defines key terms, including those used in the ESEA context (Department, local education agency, state educational agency, etc.) and the term program administrator, who oversees compliance with tutoring program requirements and tutor observations.
This bill is one of many.
Codify tracks hundreds of bills on Education across all five countries.
Explore Education in Codify Search →Who Benefits and Who Bears the Cost
Every bill creates winners and losers. Here's who stands to gain and who bears the cost.
Who Benefits
- State educational agencies gain funding authority to run statewide tutoring programs and allocate subgrants to LEAs, plus capacity to oversee evaluation and training.
- Local educational agencies receive subgrants and a framework to implement and monitor tutoring, including reporting and accountability requirements.
- Title I-eligible students in participating districts gain access to structured tutoring aimed at improving learning outcomes and reducing pandemic-related learning loss.
- Educators and paraprofessionals serving as tutors gain formal roles, compensation where applicable, and professional development.
- Nonprofit tutoring providers and higher-education partners can participate as program implementers or evaluators, expanding tutoring capacity and expertise.
Who Bears the Cost
- State educational agencies incur administrative, monitoring, and evaluation costs to manage subgrants and oversee programs.
- Local educational agencies bear the direct costs of tutoring delivery, staff training, scheduling, and compliance activities.
- Educator unions and bargaining units may incur time and resource costs to negotiate terms if employment conditions are affected by tutoring implementations.
- Nonprofit providers and higher education partners may need upfront investment to staff, train, and sustain tutoring programs under this framework.
- Taxpayers ultimately bear the fiscal impact of federal appropriations supporting such programs.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The central dilemma is whether the benefit of standardized, evidence-based tutoring across states justifies the potential loss of local autonomy and the administrative burden of rigorous evaluation, especially when funding and workforce development rely on continuous, multi-year federal support.
The bill creates a robust, centrally funded tutoring program with significant administrative and evaluation requirements. The combination of performance-based funding, a four-year subgrant cycle, and an Advisory Board’s ongoing oversight will push LEAs to demonstrate value but also adds administrative complexity and potential delays in grant approvals.
The reliance on external researchers and quasi-experimental designs could slow decision-making or raise questions about methodological interpretations. In addition, the program’s emphasis on a 3:1 ratio, minimum tutoring time, and mandated training could constrain local flexibility if school schedules or staffing realities differ from the plan, and the push to partner with nonprofits raises questions about long-term sustainability without continued grant support.
Try it yourself.
Ask a question in plain English, or pick a topic below. Results in seconds.