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¶

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

Subclaims¶

q2 i? Air Tutors students performed worse than their matched peers on the statewide summative assessment, significantly for the combined sample and for District B. → Fong 2025 q2 i? On the district benchmark assessment, Air Tutors students in District A experienced more growth than matched peers, with no statistically significant difference 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

Full-sample quasi-experimental analysis matching any student who attended at least one Air Tutors session to observationally similar non-tutored peers via Mahalanobis distance matching with OLS regression. The report states Air Tutors students "performed worse than their matched peers did" on the statewide summative assessment, significant for the combined sample and District B; no effect size is printed for this finding.

"When the outcome measure was the statewide summative assessment, Air Tutors students performed worse than their matched peers did, with the difference being statistically significant for the combined sample and for District B."

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 · i? · causal · r2

Same full-sample matched analysis, using growth of adaptive diagnostic benchmark scale scores from fall 2023 to spring 2024 as the outcome. Air Tutors students "experienced more growth on the benchmark assessment in District A"; the District B difference was not statistically significant, and equivalence was not tested. No effect size is printed.

"When the outcome assessment was the district benchmark assessment, Air Tutors students experienced more growth on the benchmark assessment in District A, but there was no statistically significant difference within District B."

Discussion¶

Related Claims¶

• Among students receiving at least 24 hours of Air Tutors tutoring, no statistically significant long-term effect on statewide math assessments was detected — 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 — possibly the same claim (merge candidate)
• 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
• Short-term gains from Air Tutors tutoring on district benchmark assessments did not persist to statewide math assessments 1 year later — related
• One year after tutoring, full-sample Air Tutors participation shows no statistically significant impact on statewide math assessment scores — reports the opposite
• 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