skip to main content
Washington State Institute for Public Policy
Back Button

Tutoring: By peers

Pre-K to 12 Education
Benefit-cost methods last updated December 2024.  Literature review updated March 2020.
Peer tutoring is an instructional strategy that uses students to provide academic assistance to struggling peers. Studies in this analysis include peer tutors from the same classrooms (same-age tutors) and students from higher grade levels who tutor younger students (cross-age tutors). One-on-one tutoring occurred on average three times per week for 30 minutes each session over five months. In no particular order, tutoring programs in this analysis include Peer-Assisted Learning Strategies (PALS), Reciprocal Peer Tutoring (RPT), and non-brand-name interventions. Most student participants were in elementary school, although one study focused on peer-tutoring in high school.
 
ALL
BENEFIT-COST
META-ANALYSIS
CITATIONS
For an overview of WSIPP's Benefit-Cost Model, please see this guide. The estimates shown are present value, life cycle benefits and costs. All dollars are expressed in the base year chosen for this analysis (2023).  The chance the benefits exceed the costs are derived from a Monte Carlo risk analysis. The details on this, as well as the economic discount rates and other relevant parameters are described in our Technical Documentation.
Benefit-Cost Summary Statistics Per Participant
Benefits to:
Taxpayers $5,823 Benefits minus costs $26,605
Participants $13,716 Benefit to cost ratio $246.15
Others $7,229 Chance the program will produce
Indirect ($54) benefits greater than the costs 83%
Total benefits $26,714
Net program cost ($109)
Benefits minus cost $26,605

Meta-analysis is a statistical method to combine the results from separate studies on a program, policy, or topic to estimate its effect on an outcome. WSIPP systematically evaluates all credible evaluations we can locate on each topic. The outcomes measured are the program impacts measured in the research literature (for example, impacts on crime or educational attainment). Treatment N represents the total number of individuals or units in the treatment group across the included studies.

An effect size (ES) is a standard metric that summarizes the degree to which a program or policy affects a measured outcome. If the effect size is positive, the outcome increases. If the effect size is negative, the outcome decreases. See Estimating Program Effects Using Effect Sizes for additional information on how we estimate effect sizes.

The effect size may be adjusted from the unadjusted effect size estimated in the meta-analysis. Historically, WSIPP adjusted effect sizes to some programs based on the methodological characteristics of the study. For programs reviewed in 2024 or later, we do not make additional adjustments, and we use the unadjusted effect size whenever we run a benefit-cost analysis.

Research shows the magnitude of effects may change over time. For those effect sizes, we estimate outcome-based adjustments, which we apply between the first time ES is estimated and the second time ES is estimated. More details about these adjustments can be found in our Technical Documentation.

Meta-Analysis of Program Effects
Outcomes measured Treatment age No. of effect sizes Treatment N Effect sizes (ES) and standard errors (SE) used in the benefit-cost analysis Unadjusted effect size (random effects model)
First time ES is estimated Second time ES is estimated
ES SE Age ES SE Age ES p-value
Test scores
Standardized, validated tests of academic achievement.
8 8 350 0.218 0.117 8 0.118 0.128 17 0.308 0.003
Social and emotional development
A broad range of skills relevant to self, emotion, and relationships. These skills are typically measured through validated assessments that measure self-awareness, social competence, and self-control.
8 2 43 0.052 0.306 8 n/a n/a n/a 0.052 0.866
1In addition to the outcomes measured in the meta-analysis table, WSIPP measures benefits and costs estimated from other outcomes associated with those reported in the evaluation literature. For example, empirical research demonstrates that high school graduation leads to reduced crime. These associated measures provide a more complete picture of the detailed costs and benefits of the program.

2“Others” includes benefits to people other than taxpayers and participants. Depending on the program, it could include reductions in crime victimization, the economic benefits from a more educated workforce, and the benefits from employer-paid health insurance.

3“Indirect benefits” includes estimates of the net changes in the value of a statistical life and net changes in the deadweight costs of taxation.
Detailed Monetary Benefit Estimates Per Participant
Affected outcome: Resulting benefits:1 Benefits accrue to:
Taxpayers Participants Others2 Indirect3 Total
Test scores Labor market earnings associated with test scores $5,823 $13,716 $7,229 $0 $26,768
Program cost Adjustment for deadweight cost of program $0 $0 $0 ($54) ($54)
Totals $5,823 $13,716 $7,229 ($54) $26,714
Click here to see populations selected
Detailed Annual Cost Estimates Per Participant
Annual cost Year dollars Summary
Program costs $92 2018 Present value of net program costs (in 2023 dollars) ($109)
Comparison costs $0 2018 Cost range (+ or -) 40%
Cost estimates include training for educators facilitating the peer-tutoring programs, materials like manuals, and time for training students on how to tutor their peers. We use average Washington State compensation costs (including benefits) for K-12 staff (i.e., elementary teachers, secondary teachers, and paraeducators) as reported by the Office of the Superintendent of Public Instruction for the 2018-19 school year. We estimate a weighted average per-participant cost across the treatment samples included in the studies.
The figures shown are estimates of the costs to implement programs in Washington. The comparison group costs reflect either no treatment or treatment as usual, depending on how effect sizes were calculated in the meta-analysis. The cost range reported above reflects potential variation or uncertainty in the cost estimate; more detail can be found in our Technical Documentation.
Benefits Minus Costs
Benefits by Perspective
Taxpayer Benefits by Source of Value
Benefits Minus Costs Over Time (Cumulative Discounted Dollars)
The graph above illustrates the estimated cumulative net benefits per-participant for the first fifty years beyond the initial investment in the program. We present these cash flows in discounted dollars. If the dollars are negative (bars below $0 line), the cumulative benefits do not outweigh the cost of the program up to that point in time. The program breaks even when the dollars reach $0. At this point, the total benefits to participants, taxpayers, and others, are equal to the cost of the program. If the dollars are above $0, the benefits of the program exceed the initial investment.

Citations Used in the Meta-Analysis

Dion, E., Roux, C., Landry, D., Fuchs, D., Wehby, J., & Dupere, V. (2011). Improving attention and preventing reading difficulties among low-income first-graders: A randomized study. Prevention Science, 12(1), 70-79.

Fuchs, D., Fuchs, L.S., Mathes, P.G., & Simmons, D.C. (1997). Peer-assisted learning strategies: Making classrooms more responsive to diversity. American Educational Research Journal, 34(1), 174-206.

Greene, I., Tiernan, A.M., & Holloway, J. (2018). Cross-age peer tutoring and fluency-based instruction to achieve fluency with mathematics computation skills: A randomized controlled trial. Journal of Behavioral Education, 27(2), 145-171.

Heller, L.R., & Fantuzzo, J.W. (1993). Reciprocal peer tutoring and parent partnership: Does parent involvement make a difference? School Psychology Review, 22(3), 517-534.

Mathes, P.G., & Babyak, A.E. (2001). The effects of peer-assisted literacy strategies for first-grade readers with and without additional mini-skills lessons. Learning Disabilities: Research & Practice, 16(1), 28-44.

Wexler, J., Vaughn, S., Roberts, G., & Denton, C.A. (2010). The efficacy of repeated reading and wide reading practice for high school students with severe reading disabilities. Learning Disabilities Research and Practice, 25(1), 2-10.