Educational Support Services (U.S., NAICS 611710)

A Histometrics industry primer for public-market and private investors

1. Overview

Educational Support Services is the "picks-and-shovels" layer of American education. Firms in this industry do not run classrooms or grant degrees themselves — they sell the non-instructional services that schools, colleges, employers, and families rely on: standardized tests, curriculum and assessment content, learning-management software, guidance and college-admissions counseling, tutoring-program management for districts, and student-exchange administration.[3]

Why it matters to an investor: the industry sits on top of a roughly trillion-dollar U.S. education system but is asset-light and fee-based, so its economics look more like software, testing, and professional services than like real estate or heavy industry. It is also unusually bifurcated — a handful of large, entrenched testing and content organizations at the top, and tens of thousands of tiny tutors, consultants, and franchisees underneath.

• Public-market ways in are limited and indirect. No large pure-play exists. The cleanest exposure comes through diversified owners such as Graham Holdings (Kaplan), Pearson (assessment), Grand Canyon Education (university services), Stride (school curriculum and services), and the newly listed McGraw Hill (curriculum and assessment), plus smaller, more speculative names in online tutoring and study help.[14][15][16][17][20]
• Private-market ways in are where most of the value sits. Private equity now owns much of the software and testing infrastructure, franchising dominates bricks-and-mortar tutoring, and the biggest test-makers are tax-exempt nonprofits that cannot be bought at all.[11][21][22]

The durable thesis is straightforward: demand for measurable educational outcomes is persistent. But returns depend on labor productivity, contract renewals, regulation, and provable effectiveness — not on the broad NAICS label.

2. What it is and how it's structured

In scope (NAICS 611710): establishments "primarily engaged in providing non-instructional services that support educational processes or systems."[3] The Census Bureau's own examples are educational testing services, educational consultants, educational guidance and counseling services, testing-and-evaluation services, and student-exchange programs.[3] In practice the industry spans five clusters:

1. Testing and assessment — designing, delivering, and scoring exams (admissions tests, K-12 accountability tests, professional-licensure and certification exams).
2. Curriculum and assessment content and platforms — instructional materials, item banks, and the learning-management and student-information software districts run on.
3. Counseling and consulting — college-admissions advising, guidance counseling, and institutional consulting.
4. Program management and services to institutions — running enrollment, technology, and support functions for schools and universities on contract.
5. Exchange and enrichment administration — foreign-exchange and study-abroad program organizers.

Explicitly excluded (name the neighbors): the code is deliberately narrower than the everyday "education services" market. A single company often sells tutoring, curriculum, testing, software, and formal schooling at once, so its financial statements rarely line up with 611710. The adjacent codes are:

• Academic tutoring and exam prep to individuals → NAICS 611691, Exam Preparation and Tutoring — a sibling code, not this one. This matters: most headline "tutoring market" figures describe 611691, not 611710.[3]
• Elementary and secondary schools → NAICS 611110; colleges and universities → 611310; language schools → 611630 (i.e., actually running the institutions).[3]
• Job training for the disadvantaged / unemployed → NAICS 624310, Vocational Rehabilitation Services.[3]
• Research on cognitive development → NAICS 541720, R&D in the Social Sciences and Humanities.[3]
• Management and professional-skills training → NAICS 611430.[3]

Ownership mix is genuinely mixed and unusual for a for-profit-investor lens: dominant nonprofits (College Board, Educational Testing Service), for-profit corporations (Kaplan, Pearson, Stride, McGraw Hill), private-equity-owned platforms (PowerSchool, Instructure/Canvas, ACT, Cambium), franchise systems (Kumon, Mathnasium, Sylvan, Huntington), government/school-district support functions, and a very long tail of sole proprietors (independent tutors and college consultants).[10][11][12][20][21][22][23]

3. How big it is

Federal business statistics (our anchor figures) size the employer-firm slice of this industry as follows:

Two notes on reading the table. These figures come from different surveys and years, so they are not a single-year income statement. And the $24 million SBA (Small Business Administration) threshold is a federal-contracting definition of "small," not a measure of typical company size. The ground-truth file contains no industry-wide profit margin, growth rate, or nonemployer-receipts total — so we do not state one.

The undercount caveat is large here — read it before trusting the $21.8 billion. Several structural gaps mean the federal industry figure materially understates the real footprint of "educational support":

• Guidance counseling is mostly inside government payrolls. Most school counseling is delivered by counselors employed directly by public districts, whose payroll and headcount land in public-education codes (NAICS 6111), not here. The Economic Census also excludes government-owned establishments outright.[4] The counseling activity is real but largely invisible in this industry's business statistics.
• Solo consultants and tutors are "nonemployers." County Business Patterns counts only establishments with paid employees.[1] Independent educational consultants and self-employed tutors — an estimated 8,500-10,000 full-time college consultants, plus more part-time — are excluded because they have no payroll. The independent college-counseling market alone is estimated at roughly $3 billion.[8]
• Consumer tutoring and test-prep classes sit in the sibling code (611691). Market-research estimates that put U.S. online private tutoring near $4.3 billion in 2024 (growing ~11% a year) describe mostly 611691, not 611710 — treat them as adjacent, not additive.[6][7]

Conversely, a large share of the $21.8 billion is concentrated in a few big nonprofits whose revenue is captured because they have paid staff: ETS (Educational Testing Service) alone reported about $1.1 billion in 2024 revenue, and the College Board about $955 million in program revenue.[12][13]

4. The investable universe

There is no large public pure-play in NAICS 611710. Investors buy exposure through diversified parents, adjacent operators, or a few small, higher-risk names. The best-known brands (College Board, ETS) are tax-exempt nonprofits and cannot be invested in at all. Reported financials rarely match the NAICS box, so weigh how much of each company's revenue is genuinely educational support.

Public companies with meaningful exposure

Major private / nonprofit / PE-owned owners (not directly investable, but they define the industry)

• College Board and ETS — nonprofits behind the SAT, Advanced Placement (AP), and TOEFL (Test of English as a Foreign Language). ETS agreed to acquire ACT — which private-equity firm Nexus Capital had bought and converted to for-profit in 2024 — in a 2026 deal that combines two of the largest admissions-testing organizations.[11][12][13]
• Kaplan — owned by public Graham Holdings (above).
• Curriculum Associates (i-Ready), Amplify, Imagine Learning, Edmentum, Discovery Education, Cambium Learning — private/PE-owned curriculum and assessment providers; Cambium is owned by Veritas Capital.[23]
• PowerSchool (student-information systems) — taken private by Bain Capital for $5.6 billion in 2024.[21]
• Instructure / Canvas (learning-management system) — taken private by KKR for $4.8 billion in 2024.[22]
• Franchise tutoring — Kumon (1,500+ U.S. franchises) and Mathnasium (~1,000) lead, alongside Sylvan Learning and Huntington Learning Center.[10]
• Independent educational consultants — thousands of solo and boutique college-admissions advisors.[8][9]

5. How the money works

This is a fee-and-contract business; owners make money in five distinct ways, each with different margin math.

• Per-test and per-credential fees (high operating leverage). Testing organizations earn volume × fee. The AP program administered roughly 5 million exams at about $99 each in 2025, and the SAT is taken by ~2 million students a year with per-test and score-report fees on top.[13] The cost of building an exam (item development, psychometrics, security) is largely fixed; the cost of delivering one more is low — so incremental volume drops heavily to the bottom line. This is why the leading testing bodies throw off large surpluses.[12][13]
• B2B contracts with districts, states, and colleges (recurring, budget-cycle-driven). Curriculum, assessment platforms, and managed tutoring sell on multi-year, per-student or per-seat licenses. The metrics that matter are bookings/backlog, renewal (retention) rates, and net revenue retention; the sales cycle tracks the school-district budget calendar and government funding availability.
• Services-to-institutions / revenue share. Program managers such as Grand Canyon Education are paid a fee (often a percentage of partner-university tuition) to run enrollment, technology, and support functions — margins scale with partner enrollment.[17]
• Consumer fees (labor-driven, thinner margins). Tutoring and college counseling are billed hourly or in packages — independent consultants average roughly $140 an hour.[9] The binding metric is billable utilization of tutors/consultants; because delivery is human labor, gross margins are lower and the model is hard to scale without adding people.
• Franchising (asset-light royalties). Franchisors (Kumon, Mathnasium, Sylvan, Huntington) collect upfront fees plus ongoing royalties on franchisee revenue — a recurring, high-margin stream that offloads real-estate and staffing risk onto local operators, whose own returns hinge on center-level enrollment, hours delivered, and labor cost.[10]

A rising twist on district contracting is outcomes-based contracting, where part of a tutoring vendor's payment is tied to measured student-achievement gains rather than hours delivered — shifting risk toward providers.[25]

6. What drives demand

• Government funding for K-12. Federal Title I and IDEA (Individuals with Disabilities Education Act) dollars, state per-pupil budgets, and (until recently) pandemic relief drive the district-contract segment. The ~$190 billion ESSER (Elementary and Secondary School Emergency Relief) program — whose funds largely had to be committed by September 2024 — removed a major tailwind that had bankrolled tutoring and software; vendors now depend on states and districts backfilling it.[24]
• Learning loss and academic recovery. Post-pandemic gaps sustained demand for "high-dosage" tutoring: NCES (National Center for Education Statistics) found that nearly half of U.S. public schools (about 46%) offered high-dosage tutoring in the 2023-24 school year, and about 90% of those schools rated it at least moderately effective.[27] Some states are embedding tutoring in their funding formulas (e.g., Tennessee adds $500 per 4th-grader for literacy tutoring).[26]
• Required assessment. The Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA) mandates annual statewide reading and math tests in grades 3-8 and at least once in high school — a legal floor under demand for assessment content, scoring, and reporting.[30]
• College-admissions competition and the test-optional pendulum. When universities require admissions tests, demand for testing and test-prep rises; several selective schools reinstated test requirements heading into 2025-26, a tailwind for testing organizations after the test-optional era.[11]
• International mobility. The Institute of International Education's Open Doors report counted 1,177,766 international students at U.S. colleges in 2024-25, supporting demand for advising, credential evaluation, language testing, and exchange services.[28]
• Household spending power. Consumer tutoring and private college counseling scale with family income and parental anxiety about admissions — a discretionary, income-sensitive market.[8]
• Workforce credentialing. Professional licensure and certification testing (Pearson VUE and peers) rides on employer and regulatory demand for verified skills.[15]
• AI — a double-edged driver. Artificial intelligence is spawning new adaptive-tutoring and assessment products and lowering the cost of basic content and feedback, but free AI substitutes are also eroding parts of the consumer study-help market (see Chegg, section 9). The likely effect is to expand low-cost supply while raising the value of trusted human guidance and validated assessment.[18][19]

Demand is also seasonal: school calendars, testing windows, admissions deadlines, and annual district budgets create uneven revenue.

7. Regulation

There is no single federal regulator; oversight is a patchwork of privacy, accessibility, education, procurement, and consumer-protection rules.

• FERPA (Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act) governs how vendors may handle student records. Firms typically operate under the "school official" exception — which requires direct institutional control and limits use of the records — and sign data-protection agreements; a breach is both a legal and reputational liability.[29]
• COPPA (Children's Online Privacy Protection Act) generally requires verifiable parental consent to collect personal information online from children under 13. A school can provide consent only for the educational context, not for unrelated commercial use — a real constraint on consumer-facing platforms.[31]
• ESSA (Every Student Succeeds Act) shapes the district-contract market: states may reserve up to 3% of Title I funds for Direct Student Services open to for-profit and nonprofit providers, and ESSA's tiered "evidence" standards increasingly gate which interventions districts can buy — while also raising the bar on assessment validity, accommodations, and reporting.[30]
• Accessibility. Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act and Title II of the ADA (Americans with Disabilities Act) require equal access to digital educational content and disability accommodations on exams.[32]
• State procurement and testing contracts are awarded by competitive bid, so revenue can be lumpy and politically sensitive. State student-privacy and automatic-renewal statutes add compliance cost.
• Nonprofit-status and antitrust scrutiny. The dominant testing bodies' 501(c)(3) status and pricing draw recurring criticism, and the ETS-ACT combination raised concentration concerns in admissions testing.[11][13]
• Professional oversight is light for consultants. Independent educational consultants are essentially unregulated, relying on voluntary standards from bodies such as the IECA (Independent Educational Consultants Association) rather than licensure.[9]

For investors, the key diligence questions are data ownership, subcontractor controls, breach history, accessibility testing, the honesty of learning-outcome claims, and the ability to clear district procurement rules.

8. Competitive dynamics and consolidation

The industry's most important structural fact: the aggregate NAICS code is genuinely unconcentrated, but its most valuable sub-markets are near-monopolies.

Federal concentration data show a fragmented industry overall — the top four firms hold just 16.8% of receipts, the top eight 23.1%, the top 20 34.4%, and the top 50 48.6%, with an HHI (Herfindahl-Hirschman Index) of 105 (well below the ~1,500 threshold the government treats as "unconcentrated").[2] That reflects the thousands of tutors, franchisees, and solo consultants in the long tail.

But drill into specific segments and the picture inverts:

• College-admissions and AP/SAT testing is effectively a duopoly of the College Board and (post-deal) ETS-owned ACT.[11][13]
• Learning-management and student-information software is dominated by Instructure/Canvas and PowerSchool — both now private-equity-owned.[21][22]
• Professional test delivery is led by Pearson VUE and a few peers.[15]

Competition works differently by layer: local tutoring and counseling compete on trust, availability, price, and referrals; assessment and institutional services compete on validity, security, procurement track record, and integration; digital platforms compete on content, engagement, distribution, and cost.

Consolidation is accelerating. In 2024-26 alone: ACT was bought by private equity and then agreed to be acquired by ETS; PowerSchool was taken private by Bain Capital ($5.6B); and Instructure/Canvas was taken private by KKR ($4.8B).[11][21][22] Private equity treats the district-software and testing-infrastructure layer as a recurring-revenue, high-switching-cost asset, and the fragmented base offers roll-up potential for firms that can bolt local brands onto centralized technology and compliance. But consolidation does not guarantee pricing power: school systems have long procurement cycles, can insource, and drop vendors after weak outcomes or a security failure. The durable moats are brand and incumbency — colleges accept the SAT/ACT; districts don't rip out their LMS lightly — while the long tail competes on price, locality, and relationships.

9. Risks

• Government-funding dependence and cliffs. The ESSER expiry is the cautionary case — vendors that grew on relief dollars face a demand air-pocket unless states backfill.[24]
• Demographic headwind. Declining U.S. births and flattening K-12 enrollment shrink the long-run student base for K-12-tied services.
• AI substitution. The clearest live example: Chegg's revenue fell 14% in 2024 to $617.6M with an $837M net loss as free AI answers (including Google's AI overviews) gutted its consumer study-help traffic — a warning for any provider whose value is easily replicated by a chatbot.[19]
• Policy volatility in admissions testing. Demand swings with the test-optional/test-required pendulum, which is set by university policy, not the vendors.[11]
• Regulatory, antitrust, and reputational risk around dominant nonprofits' pricing, test bias, and "pay-to-play" admissions advantage.[13]
• Data-privacy and accessibility liability — a FERPA or student-data breach, or an accessibility/discrimination claim, can end district relationships.[29][32]
• Labor intensity and thin margins in the human-delivered tutoring/counseling segments, which are hard to scale and quality-control, plus wage inflation and independent-contractor disputes.[9]
• Weak or unverified learning outcomes, which increasingly gate procurement under ESSA's evidence standards.[30]
• Customer concentration and long sales cycles — reliance on a few districts, universities, or testing programs, and contract nonrenewal.
• Acquisition leverage — integration failures and sponsor-driven cost cutting in a heavily PE-owned segment.

10. How to invest, and the outlook

Public routes (reserve valuation talk for here). There is no large listed pure-play, so investors approximate the theme and should weigh how much of each name's revenue is truly educational support:

• Diversified/large-cap proxies: Graham Holdings (GHC) for Kaplan, Pearson (PSO) for assessment, Grand Canyon Education (LOPE) for institutional services, Stride (LRN) for school curriculum-and-services, and the newly public McGraw Hill (MH) for curriculum and assessment — each carries non-611710 businesses too, so exposure is partial.[14][15][16][17][20]
• Small-cap/higher-risk: Nerdy (NRDY) and Chegg (CHGG) offer more direct tutoring/study-help exposure but are unprofitable and AI-exposed.[18][19]
• Note the exits: the purest software plays (PowerSchool, Instructure) were taken private in 2024, shrinking the listed opportunity set.[21][22]

Focus the analysis on recurring contracts, learner retention, renewal rates, cash conversion, tutor/counselor productivity, assessment volumes, customer concentration, regulatory reserves, and acquisition-adjusted leverage.

Private routes (where most capital actually goes). Private equity is now the dominant owner of the testing-and-software infrastructure (Bain, KKR, Veritas, Nexus).[11][21][22][23] For operators and smaller investors, franchising (Kumon, Mathnasium, Sylvan, Huntington) is the standard entry into bricks-and-mortar tutoring, and direct ownership of a tutoring center or college-counseling practice remains viable given the fragmented long tail.[9][10] Prioritize businesses with evidence of student value, repeat institutional demand, defensible data-and-compliance processes, and a clear path to higher utilization. The marquee brands — College Board and ETS — are nonprofits and simply are not for sale.[12][13]

Near-term drivers to watch (forward-looking judgment, not fact):

• Whether states backfill the ESSER cliff with permanent tutoring funding will decide the health of the district-contract segment.[24][26]
• The return of test-required admissions at more selective universities would be a tailwind for testing and test-prep.[11]
• The AI product cycle will likely bifurcate the industry: winners embed AI into assessment and tutoring at scale; losers whose value is static, easily-copied content get disintermediated.[18][19]
• Continued consolidation — expect further private-equity roll-ups of district software and assessment assets, and ongoing scrutiny of the testing duopoly.[11][21][22]

Net: a durable, cash-generative industry sitting on a large education base, with excellent economics at the concentrated top (testing, platforms) and commodity economics at the fragmented bottom (tutoring, consulting) — but one whose growth is unusually hostage to government budgets, admissions policy, and how quickly AI reshapes what "support" families and schools are willing to pay for. Underwrite the individual business model, not the broad NAICS label.

---

Sources

1. U.S. Census Bureau. County Business Patterns: 2023, NAICS 611710 (establishments, employment, annual and first-quarter payroll). https://www.census.gov/data/datasets/2023/econ/cbp/2023-cbp.html
2. U.S. Census Bureau. Economic Census 2022 — Concentration of Largest Firms (EC2200SIZECONCEN), NAICS 611710 (receipts, firms, CR4/CR8/CR20/CR50, HHI). https://data.census.gov/table/ECNSIZE2022.EC2200SIZECONCEN
3. U.S. Census Bureau. 2022 NAICS Definition — 611710 Educational Support Services (scope, examples, cross-references/exclusions). https://www.census.gov/naics/?details=61171&year=2022
4. U.S. Census Bureau. About the Economic Census: 2022 (government-owned establishments excluded from coverage). https://www.census.gov/programs-surveys/economic-census/year/2022/about.html
5. U.S. Small Business Administration. Table of Small Business Size Standards (NAICS 611710, $24M receipts), 2023. https://www.sba.gov/document/support-table-size-standards
6. Grand View Research. U.S. Online Private Tutoring Market Report, 2030 (2024 size and CAGR). https://www.grandviewresearch.com/industry-analysis/us-online-private-tutoring-market-report
7. IBISWorld. Testing & Educational Support in the US (industry analysis, 2025-2026). https://www.ibisworld.com/united-states/industry/testing-educational-support/1549/
8. Marketplace (APM). "Inside the $3 billion independent college counseling industry," 2025. https://www.marketplace.org/story/2025/03/24/inside-the-3-billion-independent-college-counseling-industry
9. Independent Educational Consultants Association (IECA). "FAQs on the Independent Educational Consulting Profession" (consultant counts, hourly rates). https://www.iecaonline.com/news-publications/ieca-news-center/faqs-on-the-independent-educational-consulting-profession/
10. 1851 Franchise. "Top Tutoring and Test Prep Franchises to Consider for 2025" (Kumon, Mathnasium, Sylvan, Huntington franchise counts). https://1851franchise.com/top-tutoring-test-prep-franchises-2730098
11. Higher Ed Dive. "Testing specialist ETS acquires ACT," 2026. https://www.highereddive.com/news/testing-specialist-ets-acquires-act/824153/
12. ProPublica Nonprofit Explorer. "Educational Testing Service" — IRS Form 990 financials (2024). https://projects.propublica.org/nonprofits/organizations/210634479
13. Forbes (Scott White). "The College Board Exposed: Nonprofit or $1.6 Billion Testing Monopoly?" 2025. https://www.forbes.com/sites/scottwhite/2025/05/26/the-college-board-exposed-nonprofit-or-16-billion-testing-monopoly-in-disguise/
14. Graham Holdings Company. "Graham Holdings Company Reports 2024 and Fourth Quarter Earnings," 2025. https://www.ghco.com/news-releases/news-release-details/graham-holdings-company-reports-2024-and-fourth-quarter-earnings
15. Pearson plc. "Full Year Results 2024," 2025. https://plc.pearson.com/en-GB/investors
16. Stride, Inc. "Stride Achieves Another Record Year — Fiscal Year 2025 Results," 2025. https://investors.stridelearning.com/news/news-details/2025/Stride-Achieves-Another-Record-Year/default.aspx
17. Grand Canyon Education, Inc. "Reports Fourth Quarter 2024 Results," 2025. https://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/grand-canyon-education-inc-reports-fourth-quarter-2024-results-302380595.html
18. Nerdy, Inc. "Nerdy Announces Fourth Quarter 2024 Financial Results," 2025. https://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20250227303890/en/Nerdy-Announces-Fourth-Quarter-2024-Financial-Results
19. EdTech Innovation Hub. "Chegg reports revenue drop, sues Google over AI impact on online learning," 2025. https://www.edtechinnovationhub.com/news/chegg-reports-24-revenue-drop-sues-google-over-ai-impact-on-online-learning
20. McGraw Hill, Inc. SEC Form 10-Q / 10-K filings (revenue; July 2025 IPO, NYSE: MH; Platinum Equity sponsor). https://www.sec.gov/cgi-bin/browse-edgar?action=getcompany&CIK=MH
21. Bain Capital. "PowerSchool to be Acquired by Bain Capital in $5.6 Billion Transaction," 2024. https://www.baincapital.com/news/powerschool-be-acquired-bain-capital-56-billion-transaction
22. K-12 Dive. "Instructure to be acquired by KKR for $4.8B," 2024. https://www.k12dive.com/news/instructure-kkr-acquisition-ed-tech/723020/
23. Veritas Capital / Cambium Learning Group. "About Us" (curriculum, assessment, literacy, intervention). https://www.cambiumlearning.com/about-us
24. McKinsey & Company. "When the money runs out: K-12 schools brace for stimulus-free budgets" (ESSER funding cliff), 2024. https://www.mckinsey.com/industries/education/our-insights/when-the-money-runs-out-k-12-schools-brace-for-stimulus-free-budgets
25. Education Week. "Districts Try New Approach to Contracts: Tying Payments to Student Learning" (outcomes-based contracting), 2023. https://www.edweek.org/leadership/districts-try-new-approach-to-contracts-tying-payments-to-student-learning/2023/05
26. National Student Support Accelerator (Stanford University). "2024-25 Snapshot of State Tutoring Policies," 2025. https://nssa.stanford.edu/briefs/2024-25-snapshot-state-tutoring-policies
27. National Center for Education Statistics (NCES). School Pulse Panel, 2023-24 (share of public schools offering high-dosage tutoring; perceived effectiveness). https://nces.ed.gov/surveys/spp/
28. Institute of International Education. "Open Doors 2025: International Student Enrollment Data" (1,177,766 students, 2024-25). https://www.iie.org/news/open-doors-2025-press-release/
29. U.S. Department of Education, Student Privacy Policy Office. "Who Is a 'School Official' Under FERPA?" https://studentprivacy.ed.gov/faq/who-school-official-under-ferpa
30. U.S. Department of Education. "Every Student Succeeds Act: Assessment Factsheet" (annual grades 3-8 and once-in-high-school testing). https://www.ed.gov/policy/elsec/leg/essa/essaassessmentfactsheet1207.pdf
31. Federal Trade Commission. "Complying with COPPA: Frequently Asked Questions." https://www.ftc.gov/business-guidance/resources/complying-coppa-frequently-asked-questions
32. U.S. Department of Education. "Disability Discrimination: Technology Accessibility" (Section 504 / ADA Title II). https://www.ed.gov/laws-and-policy/civil-rights-laws/disability-discrimination/disability-discrimination-key-issues/disability-discrimination-technology-accessibility