Shop Update

On June 25, 2026June 27, 2026 By Aimee HorsleyIn UncategorizedLeave a comment

Hi everyone,
You should now find that you can pay via Apple Pay, Google Pay, PayPal and Debit/Credit in the shop. You will also receive your resource immediately on the completion page of your purchase. Internet browser Edge is posing some issues with PayPal that I am trying to rectify, so Chrome and Safari are currently the best search engines to use. If you encounter any issues please let me know via ‘Contact me’ and if you would refer your resources to be sent via email, just let me know. Many thanks 🙂

Coaching…Therapy for Teachers (BASIC Coaching Model)

On June 27, 2026June 27, 2026 By Aimee HorsleyIn CPDLeave a comment

I’ve been coaching staff on and off for years now, so you won’t be surprised that I’m writing about coaching again. But this time feels different. Recently, I had the chance to take part in some in house training at my college, where we explored Andy Buck’s BASIC coaching model in depth. We practised the techniques, received honest feedback and had the space to reflect properly on how we coach. It was one of those rare bits of CPD that actually shifts something in you. It reminded me why coaching matters and why this particular model feels so right for education.

What struck me most is how proactive this model is. BASIC coaching is grounded in real issues, real emotions and real professional challenges. It blends practical guidance with something that feels more like therapy — the good kind — where someone listens, really listens and helps you think clearly. And although the coach’s role is primarily to draw out thinking, the model recognises that sometimes, when it’s genuinely needed, the coach can offer guidance or solutions. That balance is why I’ve warmed to it so quickly.

Why BASIC Coaching Works in Schools

One of the strengths of BASIC coaching is the balance it strikes. It helps move someone from a comfortable, familiar mindset (where behaviour is repeated) into a stretch zone where growth happens but without tipping them into panic. It’s high challenge with low threat, exactly the environment we teachers thrive. Andy Buck, in his book ‘The BASIC Coaching Method’ describes a coaching continuum that runs from modelling and advising at one end, through to asking and listening at the other. Most coaching sits somewhere in the middle, often overlapping with mentoring. The skill lies in knowing when to push and when to pull. But none of this works without trust. That was my biggest takeaway from the training: trust the process because it does work but only when there is genuine trust between coach and coachee. Trust is built through active listening, open and authentic conversations (even when they’re difficult) and the ability to suspend judgement. It’s about empathy rather than sympathy and about asking ‘what’ and ‘how’ questions rather than “why”, which can feel accusatory.

Playback is essential too — checking that you’ve heard correctly (“So what I’m hearing is…”) and giving the coachee the chance to clarify or deepen their thinking. I was surprised by how powerful different question styles can be. They open up avenues you don’t expect and often reveal deeper issues beneath the surface. It’s a bit like going to the doctor for a sore knee and ending up talking about stress. Coaching conversations often work the same way, what someone starts talking about isn’t always what they’re really there for. I also learned that silence is powerful. Allowing space for thought can be just as important as the questions themselves. Your job as a coach is to help them uncover the real issue, not to guess it.

One of the most useful ideas from the training was the rhythm of match – pace – lead:
• Match their emotional state
• Pace the conversation so they feel understood
• Lead them gently toward new thinking
You’re not dragging them somewhere — you’re walking with them. It’s subtle but incredibly effective. And it works best when you let them talk first, before you dive into solutions. You need the background. Let them unload. This establishes the foundation for the whole conversation.

Good coaching questions help someone see the issue from new angles:
• “What do you want to achieve?”
• “What does success look like?”
• “What are your concerns?”
• “What’s at stake if nothing changes?” This one is especially motivating. Change becomes easier when the cost of staying the same becomes clear.

A Few Reflections from My Feedback

During the training, I received some lovely feedback from our trainee that reinforced what BASIC coaching is all about. I was told that my opening question — “What do you want to talk about today?” — created a safe, open space. My listening, curiosity and warm body language helped build trust quickly. Questions like “How do they respond to feedback from you?” and “Any other challenges ahead?” opened up deeper thinking and helped the coachee explore the situation more honestly.There were also some helpful development points: making more notes, linking actions to feelings and reminding the coachee what’s at stake if nothing changes. All of these will strengthen my practice going forward.

Why I’m Sharing This

I’m sharing this because BASIC coaching isn’t just a model — it’s a mindset. It’s a way of supporting staff that feels empowering and genuinely developmental. After this training, I’m more convinced than ever that coaching, when done well, is one of the most powerful tools we have in education. It helps people feel heard, valued and capable of change.

So yes — keep coaching. Keep listening. Keep asking the right questions. And above all, keep trusting the process. BASIC coaching isn’t just about performance — it’s about engagement, wellbeing, and helping staff feel supported rather than scrutinised. When people feel heard, they’re more open to reflection, challenge and change. And in a profession where emotional labour is huge, BASIC coaching gives teachers a safe, structured way to think, reflect and move forward.

DCT 2026 Exam Predictions

On June 14, 2026June 14, 2026 By Aimee HorsleyIn Uncategorized1 Comment

What was with that Ethics paper?!? Luckily, from the feedback I have received it appears that students on the whole were happy with the exam paper, so that is all that matters. However for me…they repeated three topics from the previous year, that is the sixth time they have asked a question on euthanasia (and the fourth time it has been euthanasia on its own without application), fifth NL Q and seventh meta ethics…yet there has NEVER been a question on Utilitarianism and only one on SE! It is just frustrating because teachers cover all materials, students revise all topics and yes some of us use our ‘psychic’ skills of pattern analysis to try predict questions but that does not mean regurgitating the same topics/ questions year after year. I don’t understand the need to potentially evade teachers predicating exam questions because even if we are successful (3 out of 4 for philosophy was pretty good going) does not mean that students are all going to ace the questions because the technique needed for RS essays is still hard and the content challenging – especially compared to other A levels – I just don’t understand the reasoning.

But anyway, you are here for my DCT predictions. As always you must revise everything (I know it is a lot of content) and we have to be prepared for repeat topics or small parts of the spec to be asked. However unlike Philosophy and Ethics, where there are clear and obvious gaps from the spec that have not been asked, DCT on the whole has provided an array of topics and questions over the years. This however makes it extremely hard to predict, as there are few obvious gaps and all topics have been asked. So if I was going to write a paper these would be my choices:

Moral Action: “The cost of discipleship is too unrealistic.” Discuss. Only two questions have been asked on Bonhoeffer in the second year and no question have ever been asked specifically on discipleship or grace. See Past Q video for Q asked in first-year exam, as examiners often repeat similar wording (Q asked in the first year include: civil disobedience, suffering, costly grace, community).
Knowledge of God: “God can be known through reason alone” Discuss or “The Fall has completely removed all-natural human knowledge of God” Discuss or “Natural knowledge of God is the same as revealed knowledge of God.” Discuss or To what extent is faith the only means of knowing God? (asked in the first-year exam 2018 but never in the second year)
Death and Afterlife: A specific Q on hell or purgatory has not been asked (only a combination Q in both first and second year) and election (limited/unlimited) has never appeared. So, “Hell is an actual place where a person may go after death and experience physical and emotional punishment.” Discuss or “Purgatory is a state through which everyone goes.” Discuss. The examiners might repeat a question from the first year: Critically assess the view that in Christian teaching all people will be saved. (asked 2017) or Critically discuss Jesus’ parable of The Sheep and the Goats (Matthew 25:31-46) (asked 2019).
Moral Principles: “Christian ethics are not distinctive” Discuss or Whether or not Christian ethics are personal or communal. You might be asked a Q from the first year exam such as ‘The most important source for Christian ethics is Church teaching.’ Discuss (asked 2018)
Gender and Theology: “Christianity can be changed and should not be abandoned.” Discuss or “Christianity is essentially sexist” Discuss. Just because we are missing it! Only two questions have been asked, one on Daly (2018) the other on Reuther (2022). I think a general question that links to both these feminist is possible. This topic has not been asked for 3 years so could be any area.

Other possibilities: Gender and Society: A Q on Christian teachings on the roles of men and women in the family and society including reference to: Mulieris Dignitatem 18–19 or Whether or not motherhood is liberating or restricting. Pluralism and Society: A Q on the development of contemporary multi-faith societies or a repeat of an area that has appeared in a previous Q such as ‘Inter-faith dialogue strengthens Christian communities.’ Discuss (asked 2019) Or To what extent are the methods and aims of the scriptural reasoning movement realistic? (asked2020)

Good luck to all of you! You have worked very hard, so this is your final opportunity to show off! Don’t forget to join the live stream on Sunday14th June at 6.00 for last minute exam support:

*Note: I sometimes refer to the exams by the first and second year. This is because OCR still set a paper for students who wish to sit the exam in the first year of the course (formerly known as the AS year), however most colleges no longer do this. The second year refers to the full A level exam (sat by everyone who completes the course) covering all 32 units.

Ethics 2026 Exam Predictions

On June 6, 2026 By Aimee HorsleyIn UncategorizedLeave a comment

Whose celebrating the Philosophy paper….We are!!! Really impressed with OCR’s first set of questions, not just because I successfully predicted the areas but because they were different from previous years (focusing on gaps in the spec rather than repeating similar questions i.e. RE), challenging enough that students could demonstrate all the hard work they have done and interesting for varied discussions. Still sad no NOG (I’m biased though as I LOVE this tropic) but we can all guess what my first predication next year will be (…goodbye John Hick bring in NOG!)

As always when it comes to ethics, it is notoriously hard to predict because there are many question variations (topics asked on their own or as application) and a significant number of areas have already been asked over the years. On this note, I must be clear that I do not share my predictions with you to be correct, I share them with you to give you an idea of what to expect or what to be prepared for. I make my predictions simply by looking at previous questions, recognizing the obvious gaps (using the spec) and making possible questions from here. The question is…are OCR going to ask questions that focus on areas in the spec that have never been asked, a curve ball like last year with no direct application Q’s (maybe a year of ONLY application questions…the horror) or repeat similar questions that have already been asked? So here goes, if I was to write a paper these would be my choices…

Specific questions could be:

Euthanasia (with NL or Se) and/or Situation Ethics: You could get a specific question on Situation Ethics. E.g. the six propositions (or four working principles asked in 2024 in first year) or “Fletcher’s understanding of agape means nothing more than wanting the best for the person involved in a given situation.” Discuss.You might also be asked an application question such as: Assess the view that situation ethics is of no help with regard to the issue of euthanasia (last asked in second year 2021) or Assess the view that natural law is of no help with regard to the issue of euthanasia/moral decision making (last asked in the second year 2018). There are also a number of areas of the spec for situation ethics that have never been asked. Also, whilst euthanasia came up last year, it has been many years since they have asked an application question for euthanasia. Don’t forget you could get a question on both SE and euthanasia in the same paper (and yes you can answer both if you want to).
Utilitarianism: Never been asked in the second year, so any question on utility, hedonic calculus or act vs rule are possible. You might also get a question such as “The strengths of Bentham’s utilitarianism outweighs its weaknesses.” Discuss. Or “It is not possible to reach a moral decision based on the measure of pleasure.” Discuss. Most obvious choice…but is it too obvious? Don’t forget you could be asked a question that just wants you to discuss the normative theory and not apply it to an ethical situation (in this case business).
Business Ethics: Every Q asked in the second-year exam specifies either Kant or Util. So a specific Q just on business is likely. Looking at the first-year questions gives us some idea of what might be asked: The only purpose of business is to make a profit” Discuss (asked 2017) or ‘Good business decisions are always good ethical decisions.’ Discuss (asked 2019) or To what extent is corporate social responsibility more important than profit‑making for business? (asked 2024) Globalisation has never been asked in either exam.
Sex Ethics: Specifically on premarital sex, extramarital sex or homosexuality e.g. “No theory is useful when dealing with issues surrounding homosexuality.” Discuss. Or specific to Kant e.g. ‘To what extent can issues surrounding sex ethics be judged as good, bad, right or wrong based on the extent to which duty is best served.’ You could also get a general question such as: To what extent do religious beliefs and practices have a continuing role in the area of sexual ethics. I would be extremely surprised if a sex ethics question is not asked this year. Historically examiners usually ask at least two application questions and since there were no application last year, plus a lot of areas of sex ethics that have not been asked (e.g. Kant with Sex ethics or a specific issue) I think it is a strong contender.

Other possibilities (even though both topics came up last year, they may ask it again):

Euthanasia “Voluntary euthanasia should be recognised as always morally acceptable.” Discuss (asked in first year 2023)
Conscience: focusing on guilt or a broad question on conscience as an umbrella term.

Good luck to all of you! You have worked very hard, so this is your opportunity to show off! Don’t forget to join the live stream on Monday 8th June at 6.00 for last minute exam support:

*Important Update* – in the first year exam they have asked 1. ‘In decisions about euthanasia, the religious concept of sanctity of life is the only important issue.’ Discuss 2. Assess the view that in business, whistleblowing should never be allowed. 3. ‘Duty is the most important part of Kantian ethics.’ Discuss

Philosophy 2026 Exam Predictions

On June 3, 2026 By Aimee HorsleyIn UncategorizedLeave a comment

Last year’s Philosophy exam reminded us to always expect the unexpected…Religious Experience was asked for the third year running. With this in mind, we have to be prepared that the exam board could ask curveball questions to avoid people like me ‘accurately’ predicting the questions (I still predicted two out of four topics correctly). This means that they may ask RE for a fourth year running (I doubt it but they still haven’t asked a question on psychological/physiological). Last year they also asked Body/Mind/Soul and RE in both the first year and second year exams. The first year exam this year was Aristotle, Problem of Evil and RE (3 times in 4 years…giving more weight to RE maybe coming up once more in the second year).

I am regularly asked how I decide upon my predictions, I simply judge what hasn’t been asked in a while, study the patterns over previous years (including links between the first year and second year exams) and spot the areas of the spec that have never been asked. You can do the same by checking out my ppt on previously asked questions:

With all this in mind, these predictions are just my own musings and may be completely wrong, so you must still revise all areas on the spec. But if I were going to write an exam paper this is how I would do it…

Plato/Aristotle: A comparison between Plato and Aristotle -Evaluate the claim that Aristotle’s Prime Mover is far clearer than Plato’s Form of the Good (asked in the first year 2023) or a comparison on reason vs empiricism. Or Aristotle on his own e.g. Critically discuss Aristotle’s understanding of reality (asked in the first year 2018), 4 causes (asked second year 2019) or Prime Move (asked first year 2024/ second year 2022). Examiners like compare questions as they are more challenging. Aristotle has also not been asked in the second year since 2022 but there are no obvious gaps, probably a repeat Q if he does appear on his own.
Teleological or Cosmological: You might get a question on evolution or logical fallacies that is open (you can link to either Teleo and/or Cosmo) or specific to one topic. “The challenge of evolution far outweighs the evidence of a designer God.” Discuss or “The logical fallacies in Aquinas’ 3 ways cannot be over come.” Discuss. These are areas of the spec that have never been asked in the first or second-year exam. Or Teleological on its own e.g. Paley (asked in the first year 2025 but not since 2020 second year). Or Cosmological on its own (only one question asked in the second year in 2024) e.g To what extent does Aquinas’ cosmological argument successfully reach the conclusion that there is a transcendent creator? (asked in the first-year exam 2017)
Problem of Evil: ‘Hick’s reworking of the Irenaean theodicy gives some purpose to natural evil’ Discuss. Or ‘The need to create a ‘vale of soul-making’ cannot justify the existence or extent of evils.’ Discuss. It must come up!!!! I’ve been waiting for this one for years. I think the examiners have forgotten that this is part of the spec. Poor John Hick. Is this going to be the year? I would also prepare for Augustine (asked second year 2022), God’s responsibility, logical vs evidential (second year 2019).
Nature of God: Any question is possible as not asked in 3 years but obvious gaps could be “Swinburne successfully resolves the problems surrounding God’s omniscience and human freewill.” Discuss. Or “God cannot have divine foreknowledge and be fully benevolent.” Discuss.

Alternative Q (I think these are more unlikely but are obvious gaps from the spec that have not been asked):

Soul, Mind and Body: ‘Aristotle presents the most comprehensive view of the soul.’ Or “The mind-body distinction is a category error” Discuss. (Unlikely though as came up in both first and second year exams last year – however examiners have over recent years been repeating topics over multiple years).
Teleological/ Cosmological/ Ontological: “An a posteriori argument is far more persuasive than an a priori argument.” Discuss. Discussion point on the spec that has never been asked – would be a challenging question to control the description and keep it evaluative.
Religious Experience: “Religious experiences can be explained as a psychological effect.” Discuss. Or “Religious experiences can be explained as a product of a physiological effect not God.” Discuss. (Very much doubt a Q on RE as it has appeared on last three exams but you never know!) I doubt this very much because that would mean Religious Experience has appeared in the last four exams but just in case, this is a massive part of the spec that has never featured on the exam.
Religious Language: Never been asked: ‘Critically discuss the view that the apophatic way enables effective understanding of theological discussion’. (via negativa) I doubt this one either but it is the only part of Religious Language to never been asked in the exam. Also the examiners like to sometimes ask challenging questions, so by using the term ‘apophatic way’ this might catch a few students out if you are not prepared. Language Games have not been asked since 2019.