TC09497 - [2025] UKFTT 00460 (TC)

Fecha: 08-Abr-2025

Mr Hunter’s Evidence

Mr Hunter’s Evidence

35.

Mr Hunter evidence was:

(1)

ConquerMaths was designed to be an assessment tool, helping students and educators identify areas of an individual’s strengths and weaknesses in mathematics through structured, automated assessments;

(2)

The product’s core functionality lies in its ability to provide detailed, data-driven insights into a student’s starting position and ongoing performance, allowing for targeted intervention and self-directed learning based on assessment outcomes;

(3)

while certain features were prominently showcased on the landing pages to attract a broad audience, the assessment capabilities of ConquerMaths have always been at the heart of its design and functionality. The automated testing, progress tracking, and detailed reporting features are integral components that serve as the backbone of the product, differentiating it from traditional tuition services;

(4)

each GM module was self-standing and age-appropriate, aimed at school age children. Each topic had resources available for it which included diagnostic assessments to set a baseline and identify strengths and weaknesses which the school or tutor could then address through tuition. A mastery report provided further information to the tutor;

(5)

the GM product did include remedial teaching resources but these were short, typically 3-5 minute videos, and very much a part of the assessment process; and

(6)

the GM offering included “worksheets“ in an exam format which could be worked through in paper form by the pupil and then fed into the system and used to generate feedback. A worksheet is a type of assessment in this context.

36.

We accepted these aspects of Mr Hunter’s evidence, save to the extent that his use of the terms “assessments” (rather than say “diagnostic tests”) to describe Conquermaths did not provide any evidence as to whether the product was within Note 4 or not since that depended among others things on the meaning of “assessments” in Note 4.

37.

Mr Hunter also gave evidence that that:

(1)

sometimes the language used by GM on their website was somewhat “softer” than might be expected of an assessment product because words such as “test” and “assessment“ might be off putting for pupils so they were avoided;

(2)

teachers looked at the various assessment results;

(3)

a parent would buy ConquerMaths to identify gaps in their child’s knowledge;

(4)

a pupil would use the ConquerMaths product because without assessment the pupil and their tutor would not know what the pupil did not know. ConquerMaths therefore helped identify gaps in knowledge; and

(5)

a pupil using ConquerMaths would have a teacher at school and typically take the results of the ConquerMaths assessments to the teacher in order to get additional teaching on topics identified as needing attention.

38.

We found these elements of Mr Hunter's evidence unconvincing. The evidence seemed to be unsupported assertion. Mr. Hunter could not explain how many schools used ConquerMaths; how many teachers looked at the assessment results; or why a parent would buy it and encourage their child to use it, other than in expectation of the learning effect described on the ConquerMaths landing page. We were not convinced the presentation of ConquerMaths on the GM website was “softer” so as not to put off pupils; rather we thought the language reflected what the product really was.