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¶

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · causal r2 · q2
Currency · newest study 2026 · not yet checked against its sources · not reviewed by a person

Subclaims¶

q2 i? The 2025 evaluation found short-term impacts varied by outcome measure: negative significant statewide effects in the full sample, but positive significant benchmark gains for 24-hour dosage students in both districts. → 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

q2 · i? · causal · r2

The brief reports, citing its own 2025 evaluation (Fong et al., 2025), that in the 24-hour dosage analysis there were "positive and statistically significant gains on district benchmark assessments in both districts". No effect sizes for those short-term gains are printed in this brief.

"For the 24-hour dosage analysis, there were no statistically significant impacts on statewide math assessments, but there were positive and statistically significant gains on district benchmark assessments in both districts, highlighting the program’s potential to improve math achievement when students received sufficient tutoring dosage."

Discussion¶

Learner Variables¶

• Time and Continuity — moderator: an instructional effect differs with it

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) — 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
• 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 — possibly the same claim (merge candidate)
• 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
• Short-term gains from Air Tutors tutoring on district benchmark assessments did not persist to statewide math assessments 1 year later — 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
• Progressively larger treatment estimates among intervention students crossing engagement thresholds are hypothesis-generating only — related