Among students receiving at least 24 hours of Air Tutors tutoring, no statistically significant long-term effect on statewide math assessments was detected¶

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · causal r2 · q3 · i0 negligible
Currency · newest study 2026 · not yet checked against its sources · not reviewed by a person

Subclaims¶

q3 i0 For students who received at least 24 hours of tutoring (about 80 percent of the intended 30-hour dosage), the pooled effect on spring 2025 statewide math scores was small and not statistically significant (effect size = –0.012, p = .804). → Fong 2026

Evidence¶

Fong 2026¶

Fong, A., Chen-Gaddini, M., & Huang, M. (2026). An Evaluation of the Air Tutors Program: A 1-Year Follow-Up on Math Achievement. WestEd. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED681370

q3 · i0 · causal · r2

24-hour dosage analysis comparing 404 treatment students who met the 24-hour threshold with 1,070 comparison students on spring 2025 statewide assessments. The article reports the combined effect size was "–0.012, and this difference was not statistically significant (p = .804)"; district-specific estimates were near zero.

"The combined effect size across District A and District B was –0.012, and this difference was not statistically significant (p = .804; see Table 4 for details)."

Discussion¶

Related Claims¶

• 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) — related
• 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 — related
• One year after tutoring, full-sample Air Tutors participation shows no statistically significant impact on statewide math assessment scores — related
• Short-term gains from Air Tutors tutoring on district benchmark assessments did not persist to statewide math assessments 1 year later — possibly the same claim (merge candidate)
• 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
• 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
• Pairing an AI literacy platform with an engagement-focused human tutor does not improve elementary reading achievement — related
• Scenario-based tutor lessons produced a significant pooled 7.4% learning gain, driven by three lessons with established construct validity while three newer lessons showed no significant gains — related
• Enhanced math instruction adapted to after-school settings produced modest but statistically significant math gains after one year, while enhanced reading instruction showed no differences — related
• Participating in SES (averaging about 21 hours) shows no statistically significant impact on reading or math achievement for students near the cutoff — related