What we don't claim

We have not run efficacy studies. Nobody has measured whether children who use Professor Paws learn more than children who do not — not us, not anyone. Everything on these pages is about method, and a citation for a method is not evidence that our version of it works.

Reading comprehension has no manipulative. The evidence says the teaching is talk and stories, so the passage simply stays on the page and every question is answered with the text in reach.

Times tables are typed drills. That part of the app is about quick recall of facts already taught with a picture elsewhere. Putting a manipulative on a speed drill would work against the point of it.

One rejection we currently earn. Our own record for Adding, within twenty says a teaching surface should not do this: “counting every counter from one as the taught method, with no route to a derived fact” — and ours currently does. It is here because the record says it, and a record that only described what we had already built would not be worth publishing.

Written but not built. A fraction as equal parts of one whole — the representation is chosen and the surface is not in the app yet.

A citation is not an endorsement. A quoted source means that is where the representation came from. It does not mean the researchers studied our app or predict anything about your child.

We never compare your child to a year group. Curriculum codes are recorded for accuracy about a standard's wording. The app cannot compute a comparison against a grade, and it is built not to.