the way back

Here are a few thoughts thrown together about teaching - which seem to have escaped certain  non-class-based  educators from my 15 years experience in London schools.  Maybe they were overworked.  Maybe they had forgotten what it was like to be class-based.  Maybe they had forgotten the very foundations of teaching, respect and integrity.  Maybe they couldn’t have cared less.  Anyway, i n no particular order, I give you: Attributes that do not make a good teacher: Diplomas/being able to pontificate about pedagogical ideas du jour .  Weeks and weeks of meetings  on fashionable topics such as adaptive teaching, creative curriculum, restorative justice, etc. sometimes only seem to serve the purpose of box-ticking, when far more pressing concerns (such as behaviour management and mental health for instance) could be discussed, and potential solutions implemented.  Being able to create attractive excel spreadsheets , including impractica...

It is a sad state of affairs that in today's world, especially education, nondisclosure agreements  (NDAs)  have developed from agreements genuinely used to  maintain trade secrets to documents serving to primarily protect management by covering up workplace wrongdoing. This is commonplace despite guidelines such as these,  found on the ACAS  website : A non-disclosure agreement should not be used: to cover up inappropriate behaviour or misconduct, especially if there's a risk of it happening again to avoid addressing disputes or problems if it could cause serious moral or ethical issues if it could cause any other negative outcomes or effects I  chanced upon an  article online which looks in more detail at the implications of nondisclosure agreements. Here are some extracts:   "NDAs are supposed to prevent people from sharing technical secrets—trade secrets,” said Kim Scott, author and co-founder of Radical Candor. “They were not supposed to be u...

 To all dictatorial micro-managing heads/SLT out there, I give you this: (courtesy of Modern Toss)

And so the gaslighting and/or incompetence of the AA continues. Fourteen months after our accident. As I explained in my last post on the blog, I was given incontrovertible proof that the other driver had been convicted of driving without due care and attention thereby -you’d think- completely quashing the AA’s position that I was liable.   I explained this and expressed my dismay to the AA. They demanded that they have two months to investigate, despite the accident being over a year ago at that stage. Below is what I received last week:   Dear Mr Alex Gwinnett,   (…)   Following your dissatisfaction with regards to the service received following your recent claim, your file has been passed to myself to review. I am now able to respond to you with our final decision. I would like to take this opportunity to sincerely apologise that you have felt it necessary to escalate your concerns [1] and can assure you that we always undertake a thorough review when any compla...

Well, well, well... I'm back. Not to rant about academisation or psychopathic behaviours of rogue head teachers. No, today's rant pertains to the incompetence, or gaslighting (or both) in the world of car insurance. More specifically the AA - or one of their 'partners'. It's hard to keep up. Background: I had a car accident on 02/10/24. This is what I wrote at the time:   our car was rammed by a reckless driver. We were pulling out of a side street. The third party was desperate to get through some lights which had just turned green. He wanted to turn right before oncoming traffic could start moving. He overtook the lane we were pulling out of. He was significantly over the 20mph speed and ploughed straight into us - driver side. More detail here . Then, over a year later, on 03/10/25, we received an email from the AA informing us that we had been found liable. However, the Met and legal system do not seem to be in agreement with our AA chums. As soon as informed th...