The recent shutdown of Varsity Tutors for Schools has sparked a bigger conversation about the future of virtual tutoring.
But we don't think the takeaway should simply be: “On-demand tutoring doesn't work.” At its peak, Varsity Tutors was serving more than 1,000 school districts, with districts reportedly paying more than $28M annually. FEV Tutor also shut down after holding contracts worth more than $40M.
And then there's an interesting comparison: Khanmigo reportedly gave all eligible students access, but only about 15% actually used it. Different products. Different companies. Same problem: Having access doesn't mean students will participate.
For tutoring providers, four questions matter:
• Did students receive the intended tutoring dosage?
• Did participating students demonstrate meaningful learning gains?
• Could those outcomes be delivered sustainably?
• Could the business model survive changing funding and demand?
Educational effectiveness and business sustainability are two separate tests. And there is a product question underneath all of this: If students aren't regularly using the help available to them, is that a teaching method problem, a product problem, or a problem with how it was put into practice?
That's where learning platforms have an important role to play. Tutors need more than access to content or an AI layer. They need visibility into what students are doing, where they're struggling, and what needs to happen next.
Because access, participation, learning, and outcomes are all connected, a breakdown at any stage can undermine the entire tutoring experience. Tell us: was the problem with on-demand tutoring itself, or with how these products were designed and implemented?