How we review evidence

These are evidence reviews, not formal systematic reviews. Each report explains its questions, scope, sources, access limits and last substantive review date.

Start with the question

We examine the underlying need, existing alternatives and the proposed product response separately. U.S. K-12 evidence is a starting context, with Arkansas evidence where relevant. Each report states departures from that scope.

Read sources in context

We prioritize official datasets, original studies, evidence syntheses and relevant institutional sources. Publication dates, measured periods, populations and study designs matter. A vendor description can establish a capability, but does not independently establish effectiveness. Abstract-only findings and unresolved access limits are identified in the report.

Keep uncertainty visible

We consider supportive, contradictory and null findings. Association is not causation, and evidence about a category is not evidence that an Education Angel Group product works. Proposed mechanisms remain hypotheses until they are evaluated. Figures retain units, denominators, timeframes and text equivalents.

Disclose our interest

Education Angel Group develops the projects discussed here and has an interest in their success. Reports carry an Education Angel Group byline. AI tools assisted research and drafting; source review and stated limitations remain necessary. The reports do not claim independent peer review or formal methodological certification.

Review dates and corrections

A review date records a substantive evidence review, not the day a file was downloaded or a page was built. An edition may be marked as needing an update or withdrawn. To flag an error, include the report title, section, source and suggested correction.