Stanford evidence review separates assisted performance from independent learning

District assessment, curriculum and procurement leaders need to know whether a proposed assistant improves independent competence. Ask whether evidence measures work completed with assistance or later performance without it, and whether the learners resemble local students. Offer a bounded evidence-to-pilot plan for one instructional use. The value hypothesis is a defensible continuation decision. Do not equate a university review with product endorsement, or quote aggregate return on investment from studies with different baselines and durations.

Instrument assisted sessions separately from independent assessments. Prerequisites include approved curriculum, a comparison workflow, accessible assessment tasks and model-version records. Keep evaluation exports separate from operational student records, minimize identifiers and verify deletion with the vendor. Hosting topology must follow district requirements; this report does not establish a preferred one. Proposed validation compares pre-specified unassisted and delayed tasks against ordinary instruction, reporting missing data and review effort. A usage dashboard alone is insufficient.

The assessment director should own the evaluation plan, supported by teachers, privacy staff and an accessibility specialist. Secure assessment time and permissions, train staff to administer unassisted tasks consistently, and communicate alternatives to families. Proposed acceptance requires completed baseline and follow-up reporting, disclosed attrition, and a recorded decision against locally agreed learning and workload criteria before expansion. Risks include changes to the model during evaluation, selective reporting, unsupported transfer from older students and inadequate follow-up participation.