Start with local learning needs.
Schools used student information to form groups and identify standards or domains for tutoring. Teachers could sequence the focus, or use Cignition’s grade-level scope and sequence.
← All case studiesStatewide reach.
Ohio statewide tutoring · 2023–24
Statewide reach.
School-by-school
learning.
Cignition’s first statewide Ohio program brought live virtual math and ELA tutoring to a wide range of school settings. One year offers a closer look at the progress, routines, and local decisions behind the work.
- Program year
- 2023–24 · First Ohio statewide rollout
- Local schedules
- 25–50 minutes · Two to five times weekly
- Learning context
- Tutoring alongside school instruction
Mastery-check results
A different picture
at the final check.
Tutors assessed more than an answer. Students also showed their work or used text evidence, and explained their thinking. Explore how the report’s mastery ratings changed from baseline to final.
Overall · final mastery checks
62.7%Rated Proficient
at the final check.
Compared with 33.5% at baseline. These figures describe the report’s mastery-check distributions for the standards assessed in this program.
2023–24 Ohio program · Report, page 16
From the first check to the final view.
Share of mastery-check results in each rating category
0%50%100%
Baseline33.5% Proficient
Final62.7% Proficient
- Emerging
- Partially Proficient
- Approaching Proficient
- Proficient
View the exact breakdown
| Rating | Baseline | Final |
|---|---|---|
| Emerging | 22.1% | 3.2% |
| Partially Proficient | 19.9% | 10.3% |
| Approaching Proficient | 24.5% | 23.8% |
| Proficient | 33.5% | 62.7% |
Percentages are reproduced as reported and may not total 100% because of rounding.
Math · final mastery checks
58.3%Rated Proficient
at the final check.
Compared with 29.0% at baseline. These figures describe the report’s mastery-check distributions for the standards assessed in this program.
2023–24 Ohio program · Report, page 17
From the first check to the final view.
Share of mastery-check results in each rating category
0%50%100%
Baseline29.0% Proficient
Final58.3% Proficient
- Emerging
- Partially Proficient
- Approaching Proficient
- Proficient
View the exact breakdown
| Rating | Baseline | Final |
|---|---|---|
| Emerging | 25.0% | 4.3% |
| Partially Proficient | 22.7% | 12.7% |
| Approaching Proficient | 23.3% | 24.7% |
| Proficient | 29.0% | 58.3% |
Percentages are reproduced as reported and may not total 100% because of rounding.
ELA / reading · final mastery checks
68.7%Rated Proficient
at the final check.
Compared with 39.7% at baseline. These figures describe the report’s mastery-check distributions for the standards assessed in this program.
2023–24 Ohio program · Report, page 18
From the first check to the final view.
Share of mastery-check results in each rating category
0%50%100%
Baseline39.7% Proficient
Final68.7% Proficient
- Emerging
- Partially Proficient
- Approaching Proficient
- Proficient
View the exact breakdown
| Rating | Baseline | Final |
|---|---|---|
| Emerging | 18.1% | 1.8% |
| Partially Proficient | 16.1% | 7.0% |
| Approaching Proficient | 26.1% | 22.6% |
| Proficient | 39.7% | 68.7% |
Percentages are reproduced as reported and may not total 100% because of rounding.
63.2%Understand the measures
Of qualified students met the program’s growth goal.
Qualified students had at least one complete mastery-check series. This is a separate result from the mastery-rating distributions above.
Program-aligned mastery checks · Ohio, 2023–24. These results are not state-test proficiency rates or a prediction for another program.
Local implementation
One framework.
Many school realities.
Traditional schools, virtual learning, public charters, nonpublic schools, and credit-recovery settings brought different schedules and student needs to the same statewide initiative.
A shared design. Local decisions.
The program targeted collaborative groups of four. The average ratio was 3.4 students per tutor, reflecting local program choices.
Make the routine workable.
Sessions used consistent days and times, with a designated school contact supporting implementation. Program managers notified school contacts when no students had joined five minutes after a session’s start.
Keep the evidence in use.
Teachers and leaders could access attendance, tutor feedback, student surveys, and progress information through a portal. Recurring reports supported conversations with school, district, and state teams.
Participation & experience
Three views of
the learning routine.
Attendance, tutor observations, and student feedback answer different questions. Together, they helped the team see how the program was running.
Attendance records
80.3%Average attendance.
The share of scheduled sessions students attended.
Tutor observations
84.5%Tutor-rated participation.
An average across perseverance, active listening, and participation in discussion.
Student responses
94.4%Positive survey responses.
“Strongly Agree” or “Somewhat Agree” across questions about the learning experience.
These are separate implementation measures. Survey responses describe students’ reported experience; they are not academic assessment results.
An implementation lesson
Time to learn
has to be protected.
Programs launched at different points from October 2023 through March 2024. Most concluded by the end of May, while one continued into summer. Start dates and local logistics shaped the tutoring time available.
Design target and analysis threshold
50hours
The school-year contact-time goal in the original program design.
25hours
The lower contact-time benchmark used for engagement comparisons in the report.
A target is not the same as time received. The report notes that most students did not reach the original school-year goal.
Read the evidence
Clear measures.
Useful context.
Look at the assessment process, the people included in each result, and the limits of comparisons across different settings.
Figures and definitions from the Ohio statewide program report, 2023–24.What did the mastery checks assess?
Tutors looked for a correct answer, supporting work in math or text evidence in ELA, and an explanation of the student’s thinking. Ratings ranged from Emerging to Partially Proficient, Approaching Proficient, and Proficient. These were embedded program assessments, not state tests.
What do the baseline and final percentages represent?
The charts reproduce the distributions in the report’s overall, math, and ELA figures. They show the share of mastery-check results in each rating category. They should not be read as the percentage of all enrolled students who became grade-level proficient. The initial check established the baseline; the report used the highest subsequent check as the final measure.
Who is included in the 63.2% growth-goal result?
The report defines qualified students as those with at least one complete mastery-check series. Of that group, 63.2% met its Standards Progress growth goal. This is a different measure and population from the share of mastery-check results rated Proficient.
How should school-to-school comparisons be read?
Programs varied in start date, schedule, group composition, school setting, contact time, and students’ starting knowledge. The report also notes that growth scores depend on the baseline: students starting closer to the top of a scale have less room to increase their score. These results do not establish that one school, tutor, or model caused a stronger outcome.
What can this case study tell us?
It documents the first year of a statewide implementation and the progress and experience recorded during it. Schools’ core instruction continued alongside tutoring. These observational results help describe the implementation; they do not isolate tutoring’s effect or guarantee outcomes in another setting.
More of the Ohio story
Look closer.
Then look ahead.
Explore the foundational-literacy implementation from the same year, or the following statewide program. Each case has its own population, measures, and implementation context.
From statewide evidence to your school
What would a useful
program look like for you?
Start with your students, the time you can protect, and the evidence your team needs to keep learning.