SEN EdTech Funding for Maths | Times Tables Software

Most of the conversation around SEN and maths focuses on broader numeracy, but times tables sit in a particularly uncomfortable spot. The traditional approach, fast-paced oral drills, timed tests, random-order recitation, is almost perfectly designed to trigger anxiety in children whose brains process information differently.

For children with ADHD, the sustained attention required by drill-and-kill methods is one of the first barriers. A child who cannot hold focus for thirty seconds of rapid-fire questions is not failing maths. They are being asked to perform in a format that does not suit how they learn. For children with dyslexia, the visual and phonological confusion between similar-sounding numbers (six and seven, thirteen and thirty) compounds the difficulty significantly. For children with dyscalculia, rote memorisation without conceptual grounding is genuinely close to impossible — they are being asked to recall strings of arbitrary sounds rather than understand relationships between quantities.

What I keep hearing from the schools we speak to, and from parents of children who have been through this, is that the anxiety outlasts the lesson. Children who have been put on the spot in front of peers carry that experience home. It colours how they feel about maths at secondary school and, in some cases, for life.

The term "neuro-inclusive" appears in the LEA grant language, but I notice it is not always defined clearly. From everything I have read and the conversations we have had, what schools are actually looking for comes down to a few concrete things.

First, a learning environment that removes time pressure as the primary measure of success. Speed is not the same as understanding, and for many neurodiverse children it actively prevents understanding.

Second, multiple representations of the same concept. A child who cannot grasp a multiplication fact from a number sentence alone may immediately understand it from a visual array, a physical game, or a pattern they spot themselves. Offering more than one way in is not a luxury, it is basic inclusion.

Third, low-stakes repetition. The research case for spaced repetition in building long-term memory is solid, but the word "repetition" alone should not mean grinding. Repetition inside a game that the child is genuinely enjoying is neurologically different from a worksheet. The emotional context matters.

And fourth, flagging tools for educators. A SENCO managing twenty pupils with different profiles needs data that surfaces who is struggling and where, not a uniform progress report that flattens individual differences.

As our founder Gal Darrash puts it, *"We built the flags and the analytics because we know teachers are stretched — the last thing a SENCO needs is another tool that creates more admin rather than less."*

I want to be straightforward about who we are: XTables Champions is a young, founder-led company. We are not a giant platform with decades of institutional research. What we have built is a multiplayer game-based platform that takes the games children already play, Snap, Connect Four, Bingo, Guess Who, Battleships, Sudoku, Dominoes, and rebuilds them around times tables content. The games are social. They remove the spotlight of individual timed performance. They allow children to engage at their own pace, within a structure that still builds genuine fluency.

The SENCO flags within the platform are designed to surface patterns that matter to inclusion leads: which children are disengaging, which are showing consistent error patterns, which might benefit from a different approach. The "Show Me How" visual breakdowns give children a conceptual scaffold for each fact rather than presenting bare memorisation as the only option.

When I look at what Midlands LEAs are describing as grant-eligible technology, the criteria consistently mention reducing anxiety, supporting diverse learning profiles, and providing educator oversight. Those are not aspirational extras for us. They are what we built from the start.

If you are a SENCO, inclusion coordinator, or headteacher looking at this funding round, here is what I would suggest doing now.

First, pull together your current data on which pupils are formally identified with ADHD, dyslexia, or dyscalculia and are also underperforming in maths. Grant applications are much stronger when they connect the funding ask directly to a named pupil need.

Second, review what your LEA's specific grant documentation says about evidence requirements. Some rounds ask for a rationale, others ask for a trial or pilot plan. Knowing that in advance means you can gather the right evidence before you submit rather than scrambling afterwards.

Third, think about implementation, not just acquisition. A tool that sits unused because no one had the training or the time to embed it is wasted regardless of how good it is. If you are writing a bid, include a realistic note on how it will actually be used, whether that is a lunchtime club, a guided group session, or home access for parents to continue the practice.

Finally, talk to your SENCO before talking to your maths lead. The most effective SEN EdTech bids come from schools where the inclusion perspective shapes the purchase, not where it is added as an afterthought.

If you are a UK primary school, a SENCO, or an inclusion lead in the Midlands and you want to understand whether XTables Champions fits the criteria for this round of neuro-inclusive EdTech funding, please get in touch directly. We are a small, founder-led team and we have real conversations, not automated funnels.

We can walk you through how the platform works, show you the SENCO flags and analytics in practice, and help you think through whether it is the right fit for your pupils. You can reach us through xtableschampions.com. Reach out now while the funding window is open — we would genuinely love to help.