Skip to main content
Get Started
← All case studies

Ohio · Statewide program · 2024–25

A second year.
A stronger place
in the school day.

Ohio schools built on their first year of virtual tutoring, making math and ELA support part of more students’ regular learning routines.

Explore the resultsThe implementation story
Partnership
Second statewide program year
Subjects
Mathematics & English Language Arts
Delivery
Live virtual tutoring
Initiative
Future Forward Ohio · 2024–25

The implementation story

Less starting over.
More building on
what worked.

The 2024–25 program followed Ohio’s first statewide year in 2023–24. Returning schools brought experience with the schedules, routines, and coordination that virtual tutoring requires.

Explore the first-year case study
01 · Protect the time

Give tutoring a place in the schedule.

Many districts incorporated sessions into their master schedules, making tutoring a planned part of the school day.

02 · Connect the instruction

Keep school teams and tutors aligned.

Teachers, administrators, and tutors coordinated support with classroom instruction while responding to students’ learning needs.

03 · Keep adjusting

Use the next data point.

Mastery checks, attendance, and tutor feedback helped teams refine instruction and address scheduling challenges throughout the year.

Academic progress

More students in
the highest mastery level.

Baseline and final program checks show how the mastery distribution shifted in each subject. These percentages describe a different measure from the 44.6% overall growth figure.

Mathematics

Highest mastery level
27.1%→66.6%
Baseline
27.1%
Final
66.6%

Share in the highest level of the program’s four-point mastery scale.

View original data chartOriginal Mathematics chart showing the baseline and final distribution across four mastery levels

English Language Arts

Highest mastery level
32.7%→69.6%
Baseline
32.7%
Final
69.6%

Share in the highest level of the program’s four-point mastery scale.

View original data chartOriginal English Language Arts chart showing the baseline and final distribution across four mastery levels

Foundational reading

Another view of progress.

10months of average
reported reading growth
2.8tutoring hours per month
of reading growth for K–3 learners

Reading growth uses the program’s reading measure. It is separate from mastery-check results and is not a guarantee of the same pace for other students.

The published summary also reported 92.4% of standards encountered at mastery or near mastery. Results varied by school; Plymouth High’s reported standards progress exceeded 132%.

Read the measurement notes

Participation matters

Show the engagement.
Then look at the learning.

Attendance, active participation, and contact hours offer three distinct views of implementation. Statewide averages also make the remaining scheduling challenge visible.

77.5%

Attendance

Average of participating school and district program attendance rates.

90%+

Active participation

Tutor-reported participation, averaged by program.

22.3

Contact hours

Average hours per student, compared with a statewide goal of 50 hours.

Three benchmarks, one fuller picture

70.1%

Met all three engagement benchmarks.

Students meeting more benchmarks also averaged more standards mastered or improved. This comparison shows an association within the program; it does not isolate cause and effect.

Average standards mastered or improved per student
036912 standards
0benchmarks met
0.4
1benchmark met
3.8
2benchmarks met
7.5
3benchmarks met
10.4

Grouped by number of engagement benchmarks met: attendance, participation, and contact hours.

The student experience

Confidence shows up
in more than a score.

Student survey responses add another perspective: relationships, collaboration, understanding, and persistence.

96.9%

Tutor relationships

Reported strong, positive relationships with their tutors.

96.2%

Collaboration

Said sessions encouraged meaningful collaboration.

93.8%

Conceptual understanding

Reported developing a stronger understanding of concepts.

94.2%

Productive struggle

Reported learning to persist through meaningful challenges.

Percentages reflect reported student survey responses from this implementation.

Our 6-8 ELA teacher recently shared an inspiring moment that occurred before our winter benchmark testing. A seventh grader said she was excited to take the reading diagnostic because she felt she was going to do really well, thanks to what she was learning in tutoring with Cignition. She grew 100 points from fall to winter, which was the encouragement she needed to continue her positive growth mindset.
Miranda MeffleyInstructional Coach · Lima City SchoolsOne student’s experience, shared by a school partner; not a programwide diagnostic result.

Read the evidence in context

Different measures.
Different questions.

This case describes the 2024–25 Ohio implementation. Schools served different students and operated under different scheduling conditions.

These observational findings do not establish that tutoring alone caused the outcomes, or predict results for another school.

What does 44.6% growth mean?

The published summary reports overall percentage growth from baseline to final program mastery checks across key math and ELA standards. It is not a 44.6-percentage-point gain or a state-test proficiency rate.

How do the subject charts differ?

The subject charts show the share in the highest level of a four-point mastery scale: math moved from 27.1% to 66.6%, and ELA from 32.7% to 69.6%. These are distributions at two points in time, rather than the overall growth calculation.

What does reading growth describe?

The program reported 10 months of average reading growth. For K–3 participants, it reported one month of reading growth per 2.8 tutoring hours. These estimates use a separate reading measure and should not be compared directly with mastery percentages.

What do the engagement and survey figures describe?

Attendance and active participation were averaged by program; participation was tutor-reported. Contact time was reported as average hours per student. Student survey percentages describe students’ reported experiences, not independent academic assessments.

Build on the lessons

Make tutoring part of
your school’s learning routine.

Start with your students’ needs, the time available, and how your team will use evidence to keep improving.

Talk with our teamExplore another program