Research and evidence
HELP Math 1.0 has a substantial historical evidence record, including one randomized study that the U.S. Department of Education’s What Works Clearinghouse found met standards without reservations. Each result below is tied to its version, source, and limitations.
Evidence register
A program overview describing HELP Math’s intended learners, academic-language supports, lesson design, historical curriculum scale, and research narrative.
Useful for understanding design intent. Specific counts and outcome statements require confirmation against the edition and underlying primary sources.
Local archive: About HELP Math.pdf
A proposal connecting HELP Math modernization to multimedia learning, sheltered instruction, scaffolding, segmentation, vocabulary development, and virtual manipulation.
Documents a proposed modernization direction. A proposal is not evidence that every proposed feature was implemented or evaluated.
Local archive: BoulderLearning.PhaseI.HMwithHTML5.pdf
A planning document describing a larger learning-platform vision, diagnostic assessment, customizable support, content expansion, and technology updates.
Shows product ambition, not current website functionality. Proposed features are not described as available unless separately verified.
Local archive: HELP Math 2.0 Scope.pdf
The U.S. Department of Education’s What Works Clearinghouse reviewed a randomized controlled study of 146 English language learners in Grade 6 and higher. WWC found that the study met evidence standards without reservations and reported a statistically significant positive effect on mathematics achievement.
WWC reported an effect size of 0.89 and an improvement index of +31. This is the strongest verified statement: one well-implemented HELP Math 1.0 study met WWC standards without reservations. It should not be restated as an award or a blanket product rating, and WWC did not validate the study’s grade-subgroup percentages.
Primary source: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, What Works Clearinghouse
The archived evaluation reports a 42.1% score increase for HELP Math students versus 4.6% for the control group. It reports Grade 6 gains of 75% versus 13% and Grade 7 gains of 71% versus 3%—figures summarized in legacy materials as averages of 73% versus 8%.
These percentages come from the program’s archived evaluation white paper and describe students retained in its final analytic sample. They are not additional WWC-validated subgroup findings and should not be generalized to HELP Math 2.0.
Historical source: HELP Math Evaluation White Paper (May 2013)
A separate randomized study of 396 English language learners found that both HELP Math and comparison groups improved, but it did not find an overall between-group main effect; reported subgroup patterns were not statistically significant.
Including this result prevents selective reporting. The historical evidence is promising and includes a WWC-qualified study, but it is not uniform across every evaluation, population, or outcome.
Bibliographic source: ERIC record EJ1023032
EdTech Digest’s official winners list identifies HELP Math as a 2011 Cool Tool Award winner in the special-needs category. HELP Math development was also supported in part through U.S. Department of Education funding.
The legacy site calls this a “National Award for Excellence in Education,” but that is not the award’s official name. Archived pages also conflict on the federal share—40% versus 46%—so the modern site does not select either percentage.
Primary context: EdTech Digest winners list and U.S. Department of Education program/grant records
Evidence policy
Every substantive effectiveness or recognition claim should point to a source that readers can inspect. When a source is unavailable or describes an earlier product version, the limitation travels with the claim.