One year after tutoring, full-sample Air Tutors participation shows no statistically significant impact on statewide math assessment scores¶

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 Students who attended at least one Air Tutors session scored slightly lower than matched comparison students on the spring 2025 statewide math assessment, but the difference was not statistically significant (effect size = –0.035, p = .332). → 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

Quasi-experimental matched comparison (Mahalanobis distance matching) of 926 treatment students who attended at least one Air Tutors session against 1,791 comparison students, on spring 2025 statewide math assessments. The combined effect size was "–0.035, and this difference was not statistically significant (p = .332)". District-specific estimates were also small, negative, and non-significant.

"The combined effect size across District A and District B was –0.035, and this difference was not statistically significant (p = .332; see Table 2 for details)."

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 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 — reports the opposite
• 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
• 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
• Pairing an AI literacy platform with an engagement-focused human tutor does not improve elementary reading achievement — related
• Short-term, non-longitudinal training programmes pose challenges for estimating long-term skill retention — 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