Among students receiving at least 24 hours of Air Tutors tutoring, the program showed no significant impact on statewide summative assessments but a positive, statistically significant impact on district benchmark assessments in both districts (effect sizes 0.13 and 0.33)¶

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study (2 entries) · causal r2 · q2 · i1 small
Currency · newest study 2025 · not yet checked against its sources · not reviewed by a person

Subclaims¶

q2 i? The 24-hour dosage analysis found no statistically significant impact on statewide summative assessments. → Fong 2025 q2 i1 The 24-hour dosage analysis found a positive, statistically significant impact on district benchmark assessments in both districts, with estimated effect sizes of 0.13 in District A and 0.33 in District B. → Fong 2025 (2)

Evidence¶

Fong 2025¶

Fong, A., Chen-Gaddini, M., & Huang, M. (2025). An evaluation of the Air Tutors Program: Findings from an Arnold Ventures grant. WestEd. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED673538

q2 · i? · causal · r2

The 24-hour dosage analysis restricted the treatment group to students receiving at least 24 hours (80 percent of the 30-hour full dosage). It found "no statistically significant impact" on statewide summative assessments; equivalence was not tested and no effect size is printed for this outcome.

"This 24-hour dosage analysis found no statistically significant impact of the Air Tutors program on the statewide summative assessments but did find a positive and statistically significant impact on the district benchmark assessments in both districts."

Fong 2025 (2)¶

Fong, A., Chen-Gaddini, M., & Huang, M. (2025). An evaluation of the Air Tutors Program: Findings from an Arnold Ventures grant. WestEd. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED673538

q2 · i1 · causal · r2

In the same 24-hour dosage analysis of benchmark growth, the program's estimated effect sizes were 0.13 in District A and 0.33 in District B, both positive and statistically significant per the report; both are small-to-moderate standardized effects, with 0.13 coded here as small.

"the program had an estimated effect size of 0.13 in District A and 0.33 in District B for the district benchmark assessments when using the 24-hour dosage threshold"

Discussion¶

Related Claims¶

• In the prior 2025 evaluation, Air Tutors showed positive short-term benchmark gains at sufficient dosage but negative short-term statewide effects in the full sample — possibly the same claim (merge candidate)
• Among students receiving at least 24 hours of Air Tutors tutoring, no statistically significant long-term effect on statewide math assessments was detected — related
• Short-term gains from Air Tutors tutoring on district benchmark assessments did not persist to statewide math assessments 1 year later — related
• In the full-sample analysis, Air Tutors students performed worse than matched peers on the statewide summative assessment (significant overall and in District B) but showed more benchmark growth in District A and no significant benchmark difference in District B — related
• One year after tutoring, full-sample Air Tutors participation shows no statistically significant impact on statewide math assessment scores — related
• Student participation in Air Tutors varied greatly across districts: 93 percent of District A students met the 24-hour threshold versus 16 percent in District B, where 62 percent received 15 or fewer hours — related
• Progressively larger treatment estimates among intervention students crossing engagement thresholds are hypothesis-generating only — related
• Tier 2 dosage and scheduling findings are mixed: more frequent kindergarten sessions helped, but first-grade studies found no outcome differences across 16-hour and 32-hour schedules — related
• Program dosage was low for many participants: nearly half of Talent Search participants received 10 or fewer hours of services a year — related