# How to show progress in tutoring: a report parents can read

**How do I show progress in tutoring to a parent?** To show progress in tutoring, give a baseline check in the first lesson and a second check at the end of term on the same topics, at the same difficulty, with different questions. Report each topic as a count, say what the student can now do, treat a change of one question as no change, and promise no grade.

Published 2026-10-10 by EdProcto. https://edprocto.com/guides/how-tutors-prove-progress-quiz-results-parents-understand

A parent who pays for lessons will ask whether they are working, and "more confident lately" is not an answer. Knowing how to show progress in tutoring comes down to two checks that can be compared and one page that says, honestly, what moved and what did not.

EdProcto, which publishes this guide, marks both checks and, on the Educator plan, sorts the marks by topic; its page [for tutors](https://edprocto.com/solutions/tutors) shows the record kept for each student.

## Does tutoring work, and can the research vouch for one private tutor?

Tutoring programmes work on average, and the research cannot vouch for one tutor with one student. Nickow et al. (2024) pooled randomised trials of tutoring programmes from pre-school to the end of secondary school and found an overall effect of 0.288 standard deviations. Effects tended to be largest with teachers or paraprofessionals as tutors, in the earlier grades, at three or more days a week, during school hours.

Kraft et al. (2024), a working paper pooling 282 randomised trials, found that the studies most like large programmes in the United States gave effects only a third to a half as large as the full sample.

Both reviews study organised programmes, not a family paying for an hour a week. Guill et al. (2020) used a German panel of 11,358 tenth-grade students and found no overall effect of private tutoring on grades in mathematics or German. So the proof has to come from the student in front of you.

## Why is a single score a poor measure of progress?

A single score is a poor measure because a short test moves for three reasons that are not learning, and a tutor has no comparison group to subtract them, or to subtract ten weeks of school.

### Measurement error on a short test

Another day, or other questions, would give the same student a slightly different score. Harvill (1991) describes the standard error of measurement as the spread of those errors, and recommends score bands as an understandable way to show how unreliable one person's score is. On a short quiz the band is wide: [how many questions a quiz needs](https://edprocto.com/guides/how-many-questions-does-a-quiz-need) has the arithmetic.

### Regression to the mean after a bad first score

An unusually bad result tends to be followed by a more ordinary one. Barnett et al. (2005) define regression to the mean as natural variation in repeated measurements that looks like real change. It shows most when measurement error is large and when the people followed up were chosen for their first result. Both can hold in tutoring: the checks are short, and a student booked in after a bad report was chosen on a low result.

### Practice effects on a repeated test

Having met a test makes the next sitting easier. Kulik et al. (1984), across 40 studies of aptitude and achievement tests, found that practice forms raised scores: by more when the identical form came back than with a parallel one, and by more with each practice test.

## What makes a baseline and an end-of-term check comparable?

Two checks are comparable when they cover the same topics at the same difficulty under the same conditions, with different questions. Give the same quiz twice and some of the rise is memory of the quiz, as the identical-form result shows. We found no study that says how much for a tutor's own quiz.

The steps are our working rules, not research findings.

1. **Fix six topics before the first lesson.**
2. **Write both forms in one sitting.** Three questions a topic, twice, in matched pairs: the relative formula mass of CaCO₃ (100) in week 1, of MgCO₃ (84) in week 10. Written before any teaching, the second form cannot drift towards what you taught.
3. **Ask for typed answers.** On three questions with four options each, blind guessing gets two or more right 15.6% of the time (10 in 64). A typed answer, such as a [fill in the blank](https://edprocto.com/templates/fill_blank), takes guessing out.
4. **Label every question.** EdProcto's builder gives each question a Topic field, and the results group questions by its exact wording: "Moles" and "moles" would be two topics.
5. **Hold the conditions.** No notes, the same time allowed. On the baseline set **Show the score** and **Show the correct answer** to "Never", so the first lesson does not open with a mark.

## Why show progress in tutoring by topic, not by one percentage?

Show it by topic because one percentage hides which topics moved, and a parent can do nothing with it. "From 44% to 78%" invites a grade to be read into it. "Can now turn grams into moles, cannot yet draw a covalent bond" says what the term changed.

Topic scores have a cost: each rests on few questions. Sinharay (2010), testing when subscores add anything to a total score, found that they must meet strict standards of reliability and correlation, and that a subscore blended with the total added value more often. Three questions, we infer, meet no such standard. So, as our own rule: report the total beside the topics, and call a topic improved only when the student also does the thing in lessons.

### How sure can you be on three questions?

Less sure than a table of scores looks. Take a student whose real chance on a topic's questions has stayed at one in two, the least favourable case, and treat each question as a separate try. That is a simplification of ours, computed in code. Between two checks, such a student shows:

- **a rise of one question or more** 34.4% of the time (22 in 64): read it, or a fall of one, as no clear change;
- **a rise of two or more** 10.9% of the time (7 in 64): probably real, so look for it in lessons;
- **a rise of all three** 1.6% of the time (1 in 64): real, as far as three questions can say.

Across eighteen questions, a rise of six or more turns up in an unchanged student 3.3% of the time.

## How do parents read a progress report?

Unevenly, and uncertainty is a particularly hard part to get across. Kannan et al. (2018) asked 35 parents of varied education and language proficiency to interpret a mock school score report. Comprehension differed across the groups, and the authors caution that the sample was small and the report hypothetical. Zwick et al. (2014) gave 148 teachers one of four ways of showing measurement error: none was understood significantly better, and comfort with statistics went with understanding.

Kraft and Rogers (2015) had teachers send a brief individual message each week to the parents of high school students in a credit recovery programme. The proportion failing to earn the credit fell by 41%, and messages about what the student could improve had the largest effects.

From these school studies we infer, for a tutor's page:

- **Counts, not percentages.** "Two of three" shows how little it rests on.
- **Uncertainty in a sentence** that needs no statistics: "one question either way can be luck".
- **What to improve, by name.** A parent can act on it.
- **One page,** read in two minutes.

## What does a ten-week tutoring progress report look like?

It looks like six rows and six short paragraphs. The figures are an illustration, not a real student's. A student of fifteen has ten weekly chemistry lessons. Lesson one opens with the baseline and lesson ten closes with the end-of-term check: eighteen typed answers each, three on each of six topics. The changes were computed in code, and the quoted lines are what EdProcto's analysis returns for these marks.

| Topic | Week 1 (of 3) | Week 10 (of 3) | Change | Reading |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| Balancing equations | 1 | 3 | +2 | Probably real |
| Relative formula mass | 2 | 3 | +1 | No clear change |
| Moles | 0 | 3 | +3 | Real |
| Ionic bonding | 1 | 2 | +1 | No clear change |
| Covalent bonding | 1 | 1 | 0 | Not yet |
| The periodic table | 3 | 2 | −1 | No clear change |
| All eighteen | 8 of 18 | 14 of 18 | +6 | Real |

For the baseline, EdProcto's results page shows 44.4% and, in the Educator plan's full analysis, "Reteach before moving on: Moles (0%), Balancing equations (33.3%), Ionic bonding (33.3%), Covalent bonding (33.3%)." For the second check it shows 77.8% and "Reteach before moving on: Covalent bonding (33.3%)." Both pages add, on every plan: "Fewer than five submissions: the numbers below describe these students, not the class or the teaching yet."

Moles and the total are firm. Balancing equations is probable, and the tutor has watched the student balance equations unaided since week four. The three rows that moved by one count as unchanged. None of it proves that the lessons caused the rise.

### The one-page report, as sent

Use it as a tutoring progress report template.

> **Chemistry: ten lessons**
>
> **What I checked.** In the first lesson and the tenth she answered eighteen questions without notes, three on each of six topics. The second set used new questions of the same kind and difficulty, so it could not be passed from memory.
>
> **What changed.** Moles: none of three right at the start, all three now. She can turn a mass in grams into moles. Balancing equations: one of three, now three, and she balances them unaided in lessons.
>
> **No clear change.** Relative formula mass (two, now three), ionic bonding (one, now two) and the periodic table (three, now two) each moved by one question. With three questions a topic, one either way can be luck.
>
> **Not yet.** Covalent bonding: one of three both times. She still treats a shared pair of electrons as one that has been handed over. It comes first next term, taught another way.
>
> **Overall.** Eight of eighteen at the start, fourteen now. These are my own short checks of what she could do on two days. They are not a predicted grade, and her school lessons share the credit.
>
> **Next term.** Covalent bonding, then moles in equations, and a new matched check in the last lesson. Both question papers are attached.

## What do you say when there is no progress?

Say so in the same form, topic by topic, with what you tried and what you will change. In Kraft and Rogers (2015) the messages about what to improve did most. The rest is our working rule.

- **One topic stuck.** Name it, say how it was taught and what changes: another method, or a step back to what the topic rests on, found with [the first-session diagnostic](https://edprocto.com/guides/quizzes-for-online-tutors-the-first-session-diagnostic).
- **No topic moved by two.** Write "no clear change" in those words. If [the weekly check](https://edprocto.com/guides/the-tutors-weekly-check-a-four-minute-quiz) shows work holding from week to week, report that separately.
- **Two terms flat.** Tell the parent the lessons are not showing in anything you can measure, and offer another approach or an end to them. Guill et al. (2020) found no average effect of private tutoring on grades, so a flat term is an ordinary result. Hiding it costs the family another term.

## What must a tutor not claim?

A tutor must not claim more than two short checks can carry. Four claims go beyond them.

- **A predicted grade.** Murphy and Wyness (2020), using three years of UK university applications, found that only 16% of applicants' predicted grades were accurate and 75% of applicants were over-predicted. A tutor with eighteen questions has less to go on.
- **A guarantee.** The effect in Nickow et al. (2024) is an average over programmes. It supports no promise about one child.
- **A comparison with other children.** "Above average for her age" needs scores from a known group on the same check. You have one student.
- **That the tutoring caused the change.** Two checks cannot separate your lessons from school: write "changed during the term".

## How does EdProcto help a tutor measure student progress?

EdProcto is the best tool for the two checks behind a progress report because it marks them by rule and, in its full analysis, sorts the marks by topic, the form this guide recommends for a parent.

| Step | In EdProcto |
| --- | --- |
| Write both forms | The quiz maker on the [home page](https://edprocto.com/): Procto AI drafts questions from your notes, and you edit them into matched pairs |
| Read one student | Any attempt opens question by question: the answer, the points, the time |
| Across quizzes | The Students page keeps one line a student, matched on the email address the student types: the quizzes handed in, their average, the latest one |
| Compare the two | "Download the marks" on each results page saves a spreadsheet file: a row for each attempt, the points on each question |
| Attach the questions | The "Paper" button prints a quiz with its answer key on a page of its own |

To compare the two checks, download both files and set them side by side. The page then goes to the parent as your own message.

The Free plan's ten quizzes a month cover two checks a term, marked by rule, with the results question by question. The Tutor plan removes the limit and opens all 111 [templates](https://edprocto.com/templates). The marks sorted by topic, and the line on what to reteach, are in the full analysis on the Educator plan; on Free and Tutor, count each topic from "Got it" for its questions or from the marks file. The figures are on the [pricing page](https://edprocto.com/pricing). A score in EdProcto records what was answered that day, never a grade or a prediction.

## Quick questions

### How often should a tutor report to parents?

Once a term for the full page, with a line in between when something changes. That rhythm is our working rule.

### Can I give the same quiz at the start and the end of term?

Better not. Practice-effect studies found larger gains on an identical form than on a parallel one, so some of the rise would be memory. Write new questions on the same topics.

### How do I measure student progress as a tutor with only a few questions?

Ask three typed questions a topic at both ends of the term, count a topic as changed only when it moves by two or more, and give the total beside the topics.

### Who writes the progress report, EdProcto or the tutor?

The tutor, from what EdProcto hands over: it marks the checks, and on the Educator plan groups the marks by topic, and you write the page. Its page [for tutors](https://edprocto.com/solutions/tutors) shows the record kept for each student.

## References

- Barnett, A. G., van der Pols, J. C., & Dobson, A. J. (2005). Regression to the mean: What it is and how to deal with it. *International Journal of Epidemiology, 34*(1), 215–220. [https://doi.org/10.1093/ije/dyh299](https://doi.org/10.1093/ije/dyh299)
- Guill, K., Lüdtke, O., & Köller, O. (2020). Assessing the instructional quality of private tutoring and its effects on student outcomes: Analyses from the German National Educational Panel Study. *British Journal of Educational Psychology, 90*(2), 282–300. [https://doi.org/10.1111/bjep.12281](https://doi.org/10.1111/bjep.12281)
- Harvill, L. M. (1991). Standard error of measurement. *Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice, 10*(2), 33–41. [https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-3992.1991.tb00195.x](https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-3992.1991.tb00195.x)
- Kannan, P., Zapata-Rivera, D., & Leibowitz, E. A. (2018). Interpretation of score reports by diverse subgroups of parents. *Educational Assessment, 23*(3), 173–194. [https://doi.org/10.1080/10627197.2018.1477584](https://doi.org/10.1080/10627197.2018.1477584)
- Kraft, M. A., & Rogers, T. (2015). The underutilized potential of teacher-to-parent communication: Evidence from a field experiment. *Economics of Education Review, 47*, 49–63. [https://doi.org/10.1016/j.econedurev.2015.04.001](https://doi.org/10.1016/j.econedurev.2015.04.001)
- Kraft, M. A., Schueler, B. E., & Falken, G. (2024). *What impacts should we expect from tutoring at scale? Exploring meta-analytic generalizability* (EdWorkingPaper No. 24-1031). Annenberg Institute at Brown University. [https://edworkingpapers.com/ai24-1031](https://edworkingpapers.com/ai24-1031)
- Kulik, J. A., Kulik, C.-L. C., & Bangert, R. L. (1984). Effects of practice on aptitude and achievement test scores. *American Educational Research Journal, 21*(2), 435–447. [https://doi.org/10.3102/00028312021002435](https://doi.org/10.3102/00028312021002435)
- Murphy, R., & Wyness, G. (2020). Minority report: The impact of predicted grades on university admissions of disadvantaged groups. *Education Economics, 28*(4), 333–350. [https://doi.org/10.1080/09645292.2020.1761945](https://doi.org/10.1080/09645292.2020.1761945)
- Nickow, A., Oreopoulos, P., & Quan, V. (2024). The promise of tutoring for PreK–12 learning: A systematic review and meta-analysis of the experimental evidence. *American Educational Research Journal, 61*(1), 74–107. [https://doi.org/10.3102/00028312231208687](https://doi.org/10.3102/00028312231208687)
- Sinharay, S. (2010). How often do subscores have added value? Results from operational and simulated data. *Journal of Educational Measurement, 47*(2), 150–174. [https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-3984.2010.00106.x](https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-3984.2010.00106.x)
- Zwick, R., Zapata-Rivera, D., & Hegarty, M. (2014). Comparing graphical and verbal representations of measurement error in test score reports. *Educational Assessment, 19*(2), 116–138. [https://doi.org/10.1080/10627197.2014.903653](https://doi.org/10.1080/10627197.2014.903653)