When Labour MP Emily Darlington raised concerns about TT Rockstars at the Commons Science Committee, she identified a problem that extends far beyond one maths app. The app, used in 17,000 schools and over 100,000 households, rewards children for 'length of time rather than quality of time spent online,' according to Darlington. This distinction matters enormously. An app that makes learning enjoyable through engagement is valuable; one that hooks children through gamification and competition is something else entirely.
The company's response reveals the tension at the heart of EdTech. Bruno Reddy, founder of Maths Circle, argues that TT Rockstars was designed to 'boost learning in the classroom: recognising progress, celebrating achievement and making learning enjoyable.' He claims the app discourages excessive use, noting that 'every game in TTRS is deliberately short' and that the company's recommendation is 'three minutes, four or five times a week.' Yet Reddy also acknowledges that children often exceed these guidelines. In September, he admits, 'a typical child played on three days, for about six minutes each time'—double the recommended duration per session. The company's promised fixes, implemented from November 24th with curfews and time limits 'switched on,' suggest these problems were predictable and preventable.
What's most revealing is Reddy's insistence that 'there's no advertising and schools pay the same subscription however much their students play, so we have no commercial reason to want children on screen for longer.' This disclaimer proves too much. If schools are paying subscriptions regardless of usage, then the company's incentive structure is fundamentally misaligned with children's wellbeing. When an app's business model remains profitable whether children spend three minutes or thirty minutes playing, the company has eliminated its only natural brake on excessive engagement.
Early years education minister Paul Waugh was direct about the problem: 'Gamification isn't the way to learn. That's the propaganda they will give you but it is all about driving their screen time and their screen use. So it's profit driven.' Whether or not Reddy's intentions are sincere, the structure of EdTech creates perverse incentives. Competitive leaderboards and virtual rewards are powerful psychological tools. Darlington noted that 'when gamification is used, children spend hours online to 'earn' the latest outfit,' creating 'conflict on time spent on devices and the pressure to perform against classmates.'
The government is currently drawing up screen time guidelines for five to 16-year-olds. These guidelines must reckon with a hard truth: EdTech companies will always claim their products are educational while designing them to be engaging. Until there is robust evidence that gamified learning tools actually improve outcomes without harm, schools should follow Charlotte Ashton's advice from Generation Focus and 'stick to proven teaching methods.' A child who learns times tables without addictive design patterns is a child who has genuinely benefited from technology.