…which I don’t do often enough, do your read Alex Bellos? He writes regularly in the Guardian and published one of my favourite non-fiction books, Alex’s Adventures in Numberland

I found his New Year’s challenge stimulating and, well, very hard. All you had to do was insert operators into the digits 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 and 0, keeping the digits in the same order, and arrive at the answer = 2014. Could you? Have a look at the responses and see the many, many different ways of doing it. Fun!

That’s just where it began. His online column introduced me to these mathematical thinkpieces. Why not fritter away a few minutes with them…

The only thing “sexy” about this is the title, which is a cheap way of introducing fun with prime numbers.

Here’s a game that had me absolutely hooked. So simple and yet so clever.

Two accessible videos that make maths so exciting!

I occasionally like to read The Daily Mail. It’s like eating a vindaloo curry, inflaming me and reminding me what my brain is for.

So as I was sitting in the cafe yesterday morning, I picked up a copy on the table, flicked through the frankly very silly articles and reached Andrew Pierce. Here’s what he said about us. You know, teachers.

With his radical plans for hundreds more free schools, Education Secretary Michael Gove is the chief bogeyman of the Left.

But it’s not just his enlightened mission to end their decades-old stranglehold on the schools system that inflames the powerful teaching unions.

They claim Mr Gove is unwilling to meet them to discuss their grievances.

Teaching unions claim Michael Gove is unwilling to hear their grievances. But he has met with officials 28 times.

But they are — as usual — in denial of the facts.

For the truth is that, as an official document shows, Education Department civil servants have held 146 meetings with teachers’ union officials in the past two years to discuss ‘pay, pensions and conditions of service’.

As for Mr Gove himself, he met union officials on a further 28 occasions over the same period.

The document also reveals that Mr Gove has invited the general-secretaries of the two biggest teaching unions, the NUT and the NASUWT, to ‘attend a programme of talks about the implementation of education policy, including in those areas covered by their trade disputes’.

Such co-operation seems very admirable — although some people might argue that the Education Secretary’s willingness to meet up so frequently has given the unions too much, not too little, input into Government policy. meet up so frequently has given the unions too much, not too little, input into Government policy.

The beauty of the modern age is that I could sit there and reply to him. I find that the best way to approach a debate is with an empty mind, setting aside any antipathy. So I treated it as I would a piece of extended writing, to be remarked upon for its merits as well as its shortcomings. And I replied:

Dear Andrew,

Here are two points to consider.

Firstly, inviting people to a meeting doesn't necessarily equate to accepting their point of view. I spent twenty years in management consultancy, in the public and private sectors, was seconded to an agency of the Treasury for two years and consulted with those opposed to the CrossRail Bill. I've seen a fair few meetings that had little to do with consultation.

Secondly, "halfway" implies a balance in points of view. I must exclude myself from a personal interest in this as I gladly gave up a six figure salary to become a primary school teacher and I teach out of love for my calling and for the children. But as a newcomer, with my experience of introducing change to organisations, the government's position cannot be met half way without rendering the teaching profession a singularly unattractive prospect for the young, bright people alongside whom I trained for a year.

Finally, I'd like to congratulate you on your eye-catching editorial: however much I may disagree with it, your writing held my attention and got me thinking.

Regards, etc

So far, so “Disgruntled of Tunbridge Wells”. And here, as a digression, I must mention my A level history teacher from back in the 1970s. He told us that he used to pen letters to The Telegraph from supposedly retired army officers, taking such obviously reactionary views that he daily expected to be uncovered, but instead found himself published in the ‘Readers’ Letters’ section, and agreed with by the paper’s regulars. And now back to the main feature.

As I sat in my car at the local recycling centre, this message pinged at me. The name at the top caught my eye. Andrew Pierce himself!

You make some interesting points and thankyou for the compliment about the writing. Im in every Monday so I hope you if you’re not already, you become a regular reader. And belated Happy New Year.

Now, apart from the ‘next steps’ I’d be writing at the bottom of this hastily Blackberried message, I was delighted that a) I’d kept my cool and actually engaged in civilised debate, and b) civilised debate occurred.

I’m not sure I’ll be a regular reader (and for all I know, Mr Pierce may have some starving intern managing his email traffic) but it sets an example that I may well use at school. We need more respectful debate amongst our current and future citizens.

One of the joys of teaching ‘Britain since the 1930s’ is that it so neatly fits my personal experience. My Dad began quite close to the beginning of the topic (and my father-in-law even before that). I kicked in somewhere in the middle. And my daughter is following on behind, ushering the children in my class before her.

So when I get to watch the creaky BBC videos about the period, and they reach the 1970s, I think, “Yay, this is MY history! I can do this from memory!”

And one of the exciting aspects of the period, for me, was the promise offered by North Sea oil and gas at the end of the 1979s. We’d lived through a rubbishy decade in which we’d begun to realise that a) we didn’t have an Empire any more and b) we were nigh on broke. Then the big rigs started to go up and the flares appeared on our TV screens. Future generations were going to be OK!

This Guardian ‘Comment is Free’ article tells another story, comparing our country’s approach to that of Norway. Bias alert: it blames the Conservatives, but I think the black gold was still pouring out of the ground in 1997. In fact, the article and the comments thereupon, on reflection – offer a marvellous exercise in ‘spot the bias’.

But as I said to my class at the time, “Sorry, we used it all up while you weren’t there.”

Simon Smith has marvellously married up-to-date footage of London with cinematographer Claude Friese-Greene’s work from 1927. Plus ca change…

I can’t recommend this enough for a starter or conclusion to ‘Britain since the 1930s’. Oh no – that’s history now.

Here’s a word or two about science, from a hero of mine: Carl Sagan.

I love science: I love the childish way it questions everything. My parents didn’t always appreciate my habit of taking everything apart and asking “Why?” But it helped my intellectual growth, and continues to do so.

As educators, we must foster this impertinent curiosity; otherwise, as Sagan tells us, we will be prey for charlatans.

Here’s an interesting view, from the American National Council of Teachers of English, on the right of students to read.

http://www.ncte.org/positions/statements/righttoreadguideline

I believe that this country is far more enlightened: we may be the ‘Old World’ but we retain liberal traditions.

See what you think.

…knows no age barriers.

http://m.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-25663992

Some 500 miles and forty-five years away from my upbringing in Lahore, Aitzaz Hasan embodies what is good about Pakistan, just as Malala Yousafzai does. I loved the country and fear for it.

This is our future: we must cherish it.

Here is an email from the BBC complaints department, in response to my, er, complaint.

I’d said (and I censor my own email for the sake of decency here):

I am a Year 6 teacher and, as part of my drive for improved literacy and oracy, have recommended Radio 4 to the parents of my pupils. I grew up with Radio 4 as a background influence on my education and can partly attribute my two first class degrees to that experience. I cringe to think of my 10 and 11 year-old pupils sitting in their bedrooms listening to characters calling each other “*******”. I’ve heard the BBC’s arrogant and complacent response before: it doesn’t wash.

The BBC’s response was as follows:

Thanks for contacting us regarding ‘Saturday Drama: Otherwise Engaged’ broadcast on the 28 December.

We understand you were unhappy with the language used during the programme particularly as you had recommended Radio 4 to the parents of your pupils.

Concerns were raised with the programme’s Executive Producer, David Hunter and he stated that he feels that the language in this play was suitable for broadcast on a Saturday afternoon. He felt the language wasn’t gratuitous and was in line with the characterisation of the play.

Radio 4 does not operate a watershed but the following presentation announcement was made before the programme:

“The late Simon Gray, known to many as the author of the painful and funny ‘Smoking Diaries’, was one of the most distinguished playwrights of his generation. His dark comedies, like ‘Quartermaine’s Terms’, ‘Butley’ and ‘Otherwise Engaged’, had extended runs in the West End and on Broadway. Radio 4 now presents the latter play, a witty if irreverent and outspoken parable from this master of genial outrage. It contains strong language.”

I agree that the language wasn’t gratuitous.  It was a very good play: I’d have loved to listen to it in the evening.  But broadcasting these in the middle of the afternoon doesn’t seem right, and positioning a warning at the beginning of a programme doesn’t work with radio: listeners tune in at times that don’t always coincide with the beginning of programmes.

When I recommend a book for my children to read, I want to stretch them. Sometimes they ask to read a particular book, so I sit and read every word before they do – just in case there is inappropriate content.

So, in the light of this email from the BBC, I’d advise you to check the schedule beforehand.  Listening to Radio 4 may harm your child.

Redefining Girly by Melissa Atkins Wardy | Review.

I’ve decided to follow Blogs (as if I had nothing better to do).

It struck me that I was in danger of engaging in a dramatic mental monologue, so I looked up WordPress’s top book bloggers.  Tara Anderson’s blog, ‘The Librarian who doesn’t say shhh!‘ was a lucky find: here is the first nugget I’ve panned.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LBpX0pkWKDY

I only heard about this speech today.  It’s from Charlie Chaplin’s 1940 film, The Great Dictator.  He speaks to me across 73 years: I dare you not to be moved by it.

I’m sorry, but I don’t want to be an emperor. That’s not my business. I don’t want to rule or conquer anyone. I should like to help everyone if possible; Jew, Gentile, black man, white. We all want to help one another. Human beings are like that. We want to live by each other’s happiness, not by each other’s misery. We don’t want to hate and despise one another.

In this world there is room for everyone, and the good earth is rich and can provide for everyone. The way of life can be free and beautiful, but we have lost the way. Greed has poisoned men’s souls, has barricaded the world with hate, has goose-stepped us into misery and bloodshed. We have developed speed, but we have shut ourselves in. Machinery that gives abundance has left us in want. Our knowledge has made us cynical; our cleverness, hard and unkind. We think too much and feel too little.

More than machinery, we need humanity. More than cleverness, we need kindness and gentleness. Without these qualities, life will be violent and all will be lost. The airplane and the radio have brought us closer together. The very nature of these inventions cries out for the goodness in men; cries out for universal brotherhood; for the unity of us all.

Even now my voice is reaching millions throughout the world, millions of despairing men, women, and little children, victims of a system that makes men torture and imprison innocent people. To those who can hear me, I say, do not despair. The misery that is now upon us is but the passing of greed, the bitterness of men who fear the way of human progress. The hate of men will pass, and dictators die, and the power they took from the people will return to the people. And so long as men die, liberty will never perish.

Soldiers! Don’t give yourselves to brutes, men who despise you, enslave you; who regiment your lives, tell you what to do, what to think and what to feel! Who drill you, diet you, treat you like cattle, use you as cannon fodder. Don’t give yourselves to these unnatural men – machine men with machine minds and machine hearts! You are not machines, you are not cattle, you are men! You have the love of humanity in your hearts! You don’t hate! Only the unloved hate; the unloved and the unnatural. Soldiers! Don’t fight for slavery! Fight for liberty!

In the seventeenth chapter of St. Luke, it is written that the kingdom of God is within man, not one man nor a group of men, but in all men! In you! You, the people, have the power, the power to create machines, the power to create happiness! You, the people, have the power to make this life free and beautiful, to make this life a wonderful adventure.

Then in the name of democracy, let us use that power. Let us all unite. Let us fight for a new world, a decent world that will give men a chance to work, that will give youth a future and old age a security. By the promise of these things, brutes have risen to power. But they lie! They do not fulfil that promise. They never will! Dictators free themselves but they enslave the people.

Now let us fight to fulfil that promise. Let us fight to free the world! To do away with national barriers! To do away with greed, with hate and intolerance! Let us fight for a world of reason, a world where science and progress will lead to all men’s happiness. Soldiers, in the name of democracy, let us all unite!