TC09497 - [2025] UKFTT 00460 (TC)

Fecha: 08-Abr-2025

The Barbados Study

The Barbados Study

32.

One part of the dispute between HMRC and GM was what conclusions should be drawn from a report of a pilot of ConquerMaths in Barbados, which had been put into evidence by GM. It was noteworthy that the feedback made almost no reference to assessments but rather included phrases that suggested the teachers and pupils giving feedback believed the product was providing teaching. The feedback included phrases such as “the work that they give to help us learn”, “I think ConquerMaths was fun and educating”, “I think … ConquerMaths ... teaches me more”, “ConquerMaths helps when your teacher was not around”, “the video tutorials on ConquerMaths have been very insightful and helpful”, “I think that is a helpful programme and I really like the way the tutorials are set up”. In the teacher’s questionnaire the overwhelming majority of the questions focused on ConquerMaths as a teaching solution, e.g. parts of the questionnaire headed “quality of the lessons”. HMRC argued that this showed the perception of students and teachers was that the product was teaching. When taken to this feedback Mr. Constable’s evidence was that the reason the feedback did not mention assessments but instead focused on learning was because much of the feedback was from primary school children who would not understand the nature of the product. That did not explain why the feedback from teachers focussed on the product as a means of teaching. We did not find Mr Constable’s evidence on this issue to be convincing. In our judgment, the reason the feedback focused on teaching was because ConquerMaths is a teaching product and consequently the feedback that was sought and provided was as to how effective it was as a teaching product in the eyes of pupils and teachers.

33.

Mr Khokhar also gave evidence about this issue. Towards the end of his evidence for the first time he asserted that although the product itself was the same, the way ConquerMaths was used in the Barbados pilot was not the same as the way in which ConquerMaths is typically used. Mr Khokhar asserted that:

(1)

the pilot was looking at whether ConquerMaths could be used with a greater scope than typically used;

(2)

the typical use is for assessment, followed by a limited number of remedial lessons, followed by further assessment;

(3)

the product was chosen for this pilot because of similarities between the UK and Barbadian education system and a desire to drive up the standard of maths education in Barbados;

(4)

the pilot had sought to provide data as to whether ConquerMaths could be used as a resource for all schools in Barbados; and

(5)

the pilot was exploratory and was not eventually rolled out more widely.

34.

We accepted that the data for the use of ConquerMaths in Barbados did relate to a pilot but we were not convinced by Mr Khokhar's evidence that the pilot proposed the use of ConquerMaths in a way that was fundamentally different to the way the product is marketed and used elsewhere. We noted that this alleged difference put forward by Mr Khokhar was not mentioned in his witness statement or by the other witnesses and was only brought up by Mr Khokhar towards the end of his evidence as he sought to explain why the feedback from the pilot appeared to focus on teaching. We found as a fact that the product used in Barbados was the same as that used elsewhere and we were not persuaded that there was a material difference in the use of the product which would account for the feedback from the pilot focusing on teaching aspects of the product rather than assessments.