> And after 30 minutes, she told us, most of the children have had enough and want to go and play outside. Reassuring for anyone who, like me, would rather not have a child who prefers apps to apples.<p>But why? Faced with straightforward evidence of better performance, even for UK children, why should we be relieved that the app fails at 30 minutes?<p>We should be talking about making games that teach kids for hours! That little tablet is way more engaging than 99% of the experiences impoverished Malawi children are going to have. Perhaps sadly, the tablet is way more engaging that some large majority of experiences UK children will have too.<p>It's obvious to anyone who plays video games that achieving that level of attention is possible. And with games like Civilization and Europa Universalis, you can certainly make a long-play game that teaches kids traditional educational knowledge.<p>I hate the conspiracy idea that educators are opposed to this technology out-of-hand because it threatens them as an institution. And I'm relieved that there are researchers with government backing showing games teaching kids in rich Western countries.<p>At some point though, parents will have to confront teachers to do what improves performance. The question is not, when will games be capable of improving educational performance? That has already happened, and the evidence will mount inevitably.<p>The question is, when will we abandon the pastoral fantasy of today's schooling? When will parents have no opinion whether a child "prefers apps to apples," whatever that means?<p>The dark-age Carolingians made the template for today's public schooling. If a magic book capable of delivering all the world's knowledge (i.e., an iPad) were available to them, don't you think they'd make a very different education system?