How this works, and what we don't claim
Most learning apps say “research-backed” and stop there. This is the longer version, including the part where we tell you what we cannot prove.
Most learning apps tell you they are “research-backed” and leave it there. Here is the longer, more honest version: what we built, why we think it works, and the claims we will not make.
The problem we built for
In a 2023 Gallup survey for Learning Heroes, around 90% of parents said they believed their child was performing at or above grade level in reading and maths. On the national assessment, about 38% actually are.
That fifty-point gap is not parents failing to pay attention. It is a reporting problem. Report cards mix effort, behaviour and completion in with mastery, so a child who works hard and hands work in can carry a B while missing foundational skills — and nothing in the process tells you.
And when you finally are told something, it is usually a number. A 514. A “Level 2.” A percentile. Not a skill. Not something you can do anything with on a Tuesday night.
What we actually do
- Check your child against your own state's standards — Alabama, South Carolina or Florida — for their grade. Short parts, not a marathon.
- Name the specific skill. Not “maths.” Not “Number and Operations.” Fractions on a number line — he counts the marks, not the spaces.
- Put the gaps in order. Some skills unlock others. The one blocking the rest comes first.
- Give you one thing to do. About fifteen minutes, with what to say.
- Re-check only what was missed, spaced out over time, so you can see whether it moved.
Why we think that shape works
We are drawing on established research about how learning works. None of it is a study of our product, and we will not pretend it is.
| What we rely on | Where it comes from |
|---|---|
| Frequent low-stakes checks that feed into what happens next | Black & Wiliam's work on formative assessment |
| Feedback only helps when it says what to do next — a score alone does not | Hattie & Timperley, The Power of Feedback |
| Securing prerequisite skills before moving on | Bloom's mastery learning |
| Practice spread out over time beats cramming | Dunlosky and colleagues on effective learning techniques |
| Parents helping with learning at home is associated with attainment | Jeynes' meta-analyses — associative, not proof of cause |
What we do not claim
We have no evidence that this product raises test scores, grades or proficiency — and we will not say or imply that it does. It has not been used at scale yet. Anyone telling you their app raises scores should be asked to show you the study.
In the language districts use, we sit at ESSA Tier 4 — Demonstrates a Rationale. That means a properly specified logic model grounded in existing research, plus a real plan to evaluate. It is the starting point, and it is honest about being the starting point.
For comparison: i-Ready's Alabama study reached Tier 3 — Promising, across 15,264 students. We are not there. We say so in district meetings too.
How we intend to earn better evidence
The Parent App is free to every family in Alabama, South Carolina and Florida for the whole 2026–27 school year. That is not only generosity. It is how we get an evidence base we cannot otherwise buy.
Across the year we will track which gaps were identified, which closed, how long that took, and whether families kept using it in real life. In spring we will publish what we found — including the parts that did not work.
One limitation, stated up front: a single group measured before and after, with no comparison group, cannot prove cause. Children grow over a school year anyway. Year one will be described as what it is — descriptive and first-year.
Read the full rationale
The complete logic model, the research base link by link, the evaluation design and its limitations, and the list of claims we have bound ourselves not to make.
The full Tier 4 document