In the ideal world, we would be able to define a "perfectly" random sample, the most appropriate test and one definitive conclusion. We simply cannot. What we can do is try to optimise all stages of our research to minimise sources of uncertainty. When presenting P values some groups find it helpful to use the asterisk rating system as well as quoting the P value:
The (or hypotheses -- there may be more than one) is our working hypothesis -- our prediction, or what we expect to happen. It is also called the - because it is an alternative to the null hypothesis. Technically, the claim of the research hypothesis is that with respect to the outcome variable, our samples are from different populations (remember that refers to the group from which the sample is drawn). If we predict that math tutoring results in better performance, than we are predicting that after the treatment (tutoring), the treated sample truly is different from the untreated one (and therefore, from a different population).
A two-sided alternative hypothesis (also known as a nondirectional hypothesis) is appropriate because the researcher is interested in determining whether the scores are either less than or greater than the national average.