New Mexico’s state‑funded high‑impact tutoring program produced measurable learning gains in the 2023–25 rollout, Public Education Department and Legislative Education Study Committee staff told lawmakers on July 24 — prompting calls from legislators to scale the program while improving reporting and targeting.

“From 2023 to 2025, tutored students have improved in math and language arts at almost twice the rate of non‑tutored students,” Julie Brenning, director of PED’s Community Schools and Extended Learning Bureau, told the committee. Dr. Rachel Boren, director of the SOAR Evaluation and Policy Center at New Mexico State University, said researchers found more than 2,000 students participated in HIT across 73 sites with about 14,500 tutoring sessions reported.

Why it matters: LESC staff documented a major investment in fiscal 2025: of a $15 million line item for “out‑of‑school time and tutoring,” the Legislature directed $8.5 million specifically for high‑impact tutoring (HIT). PED awarded most of that money to local education agencies and charter schools to stand up programs; the FY25 awards distributed roughly $6.82 million to 23 awardees. PED and LESC staff cautioned that FY26 appropriations shifted funding priorities—$14M was earmarked for out‑of‑school time and only $1M for targeted tutoring—raising questions about consistent funding for HIT.

What the evidence showed: LESC analyst Connor Hicks summarized national evidence and state results. A 2020 meta‑analysis shows tutoring can produce substantive gains (average effect sizes in education literature); New Mexico’s local evaluations found notable effects in multiple pilots. PED’s HIT evaluation reported tutored students’ average growth rates exceeded non‑tutored students’ growth rates; a growth‑curve analysis cited in the presentation showed a math rate of change of 0.054 for HIT students versus 0.018 for non‑HIT students from 2023 to 2025, and a language‑arts rate of change of 2.241 versus 0.15, respectively. PED also reported cohort‑level results from a middle‑school virtual program (HIT Middle Math) indicating participants learned an estimated 43% more (about 3.5 months of additional learning) than similar non‑participants.

Questions from lawmakers: Members pressed officials on several operational issues. Senator Ezell and others asked why allocations were concentrated geographically (LESC’s appendix showed 10 awardees in Bernalillo County and none in some southeastern counties) and requested a school‑level breakdown of grants by site and awarded amount; staff said districts applied and the department will follow up with site‑level reporting. Representative Block asked about per‑student costs; staff estimated best practice at about $1,000 per student per program year. Lawmakers also queried recruiting and training of tutors: PED emphasized mixed recruitment models (near‑peer high‑school tutors, college students, community partners, paid tutors like Saga’s program) and urged creating regional capacity through coaching and hubs.

Scaling and staffing constraints: Several members urged faster scaling. Committee Chair (Senator Bill Soules) said the Saga middle‑school model has shown strong results but scaling statewide requires substantial staffing and recurring funding—estimates presented at an education conference put statewide scale for middle schools at roughly $60 million per year, largely to pay and train tutors and supervisors. PED officials stressed the challenge of local capacity: districts decide whether to apply based on human resources, and some districts that served as prior out‑of‑school‑time grantees opted into HIT grants.

Data and program design: LESC recommended that PED formalize required HIT design principles as a condition of state grants, conduct mid‑ and end‑of‑year site inspections, and require student‑level reporting at baseline, midpoint and conclusion to permit evaluation. PED said it already emphasizes alignment to national design principles (session frequency, small tutor:student ratios, HQIM) and planned to prioritize in‑school implementation because school‑day tutoring generally shows larger effects than after‑school tutoring.

Discussion vs. decision: The meeting included presentation of program results and committee questions; no new appropriations or formal board votes were taken. Staff and PED described program data and next steps; legislators asked staff to return with more detailed site‑level award data and implementation information.

Ending note: Lawmakers and staff agreed tutoring can be highly effective but emphasized that durable gains will require recurring funding, regional capacity building (coaches, hubs), local partnerships for recruitment and rigorous student‑level data collection to guide expansion.