MSCS presents mixed findings on Literacy Mid-South tutoring; board calls for clearer evaluation before further investment

Superintendent Doctor Richmond asked the board to review data on district tutoring and a comparative study of Literacy Mid-South (LMS), saying the district could not yet conclude LMS produced consistently greater outcomes than MSCS programs.

Bill White, MSCS staff, summarized multi-year analysis showing mixed results: district-run before/after-school tutoring served roughly 12,700 students across many grades, while Literacy Mid-South operated in a smaller set of schools focused on early grades. The district’s in-house tutoring had a tutor-to-student ratio around 1:8; LMS was presented as having a smaller tutor-to-student ratio (about 1:3). MSCS’s estimated cost per student was about $394; MSCS staff recalculated the LMS cost at about $1,942 per student based on an LMS budget of roughly $3 million and the number of students reported in the program.

White told the board that year-to-year results varied: some cohorts and years showed statistically significant gains for MSCS tutored students on interim measures (i-Ready) and, in some years, larger gains in math or ELA depending on the year. When staff compared LMS and MSCS outcomes for 2022–23, results were mixed by grade: MSCS tutored students showed more growth in first and third grade in some measures, while LMS tutored students showed higher gains in second grade. For 2023–24, statistical differences narrowed and many comparisons were not statistically significant.

MSCS staff also highlighted attendance and dosage as critical factors. For the 2022–23 year, before-school tutoring enrolled 2,745 students (average attendance ~57%; about 23% met a 90% participation threshold). After-school tutoring enrolled 11,402 students (average attendance ~61%; about 29% met the 90% threshold). Staff noted a much smaller subgroup (618 students in k–3 bottom quartile who attended at least 90% of sessions) as one analytic focus.

Board members pressed for clearer, prospectively defined evaluation criteria tied to the district’s chief outcome—TCAP proficiency. Vice Chair Love and Board Member McKinney asked MSCS to use the LMS grant opportunity and any public funding to build a rigorous front-end methodology (attendance thresholds, comparable control groups, teacher- and school-level confounders) so subsequent comparisons would be interpretable. Several members asked for school‑level and aggregate attendance/participation rates for the tutoring programs and for data linking high‑dosage tutoring to TCAP proficiency; staff agreed to provide those figures.

Board members raised practical questions about program delivery: whether day‑time pull‑out tutoring removes students from core instruction and how that affects classroom teachers; whether tutoring curriculum aligns with state standards and TCAP-tested content; and who bears ongoing cost if an outside provider is more expensive per student. Superintendent Richmond said the district wants to partner with LMS as a strategic partner but stressed that any investment should be accompanied by a clear implementation plan and evaluation that allows the district to determine cost effectiveness and scalability.

The board did not vote on funding for LMS at the meeting. Several members signaled support for piloting fewer, better‑evaluated interventions and using the LMS grant and potential philanthropic partners to fund rigorous evaluation before a long‑term budget commitment. Staff said they would return to committee with the requested attendance and TCAP‑linked outcome data and proposed evaluation criteria.

Ending: MSCS staff and partners will provide the board with fuller attendance/participation figures, school‑level comparisons, and a proposed evaluation design to tie tutoring exposure to TCAP proficiency before the board considers additional budget commitments to external tutoring partners.