I didn’t leave teaching. I changed classrooms.

The work underneath never changed

Teaching was never really about delivering information. It was about helping someone move from where they are now to what they’re capable of doing next. That meant reading the room, working out where each person was starting from, explaining complicated things clearly, finding the next step someone could actually take, and noticing when a plan wasn’t working so I could change it.

Early in my career I realised I wasn’t just a PDHPE teacher. I was a teacher of young people, and people are different. They learn in different ways, think in different ways and need different things. That instinct, that the same destination can need a different path for different people, is still how I work.

I also used to think learning only really happened in schools, because that’s what the institution teaches you to believe. Then I stepped back and realised I could use all of this somewhere else.

So now, instead of asking what a student needs to understand next, I’m asking what a founder needs to understand before an AI workflow will make sense. Instead of “how do I differentiate this lesson?”, it’s “how do we introduce this system without overwhelming the least confident person on the team?” And instead of “did they learn it?”, it’s “is anyone actually using the thing we built?” Different classroom. Same instincts.

I was always the one trying the new thing

I didn’t suddenly get interested in technology when generative AI arrived. In schools I was usually the person who tried the new tool first, worked out where it was useful, and then showed colleagues how to use it, including through a learning management system change.

I’ll be honest, though. Early on, the excitement of a new tool could be the reason to use it. Teaching knocked that out of me. A new tool isn’t automatically a better learning experience, and a new system isn’t automatically a better process. So the sequence changed: start with the outcome, understand the human, work backwards, and then choose the tool. That sequence became the start of BUILD, the method I use with clients now.

Curious enough to try early. Experienced enough not to confuse new with better.

Why it’s more human, not less

I became a teacher for the human work. The relationships, the conversations, the moment someone goes from “I can’t do this” to “oh, I get it”. And over time I watched more and more of that time get eaten by admin: data entry, formatting, processes that existed because that was just how things were done.

That’s where my view of technology comes from. It isn’t an AI slogan. I want technology to carry more of the work that doesn’t need a human, so there’s more room for the work that does.

Leading technology change in schools taught me something else, too: your resistor might be the most useful person in the room. If you actually listen to what they’re resistant about, they often ask the question that makes the whole thing better, and once they’re on board, they become your allies.

It started on the couch

The business didn’t start with a plan. It started on the couch, after I’d sent a friend something I’d built for fun: a little quiz for her baking business that matched people to one of her recipes. She wrote back: “You have found your thing. This is what you need to do.”

I think I already knew. I’d been the early adopter, experimenting on a cheap AI plan, quietly building useful things and giving them away. What I hadn’t done yet was back myself.

I don’t know this yet, but I can learn it, test it, figure it out, and then share what I learn with you.

What I actually do now

I work with people and small organisations whose value comes from what they know: solo founders, coaches, course creators, membership owners, consultants, educators, professional services and small expertise-led teams.

I look at three things together. Where your people are actually at. Whether your systems work in real life. And where the real human value sits. Then we work out what should change, and build the useful version. Sometimes I build it for you. Sometimes we build it together, with your hands on the keyboard. Either way, I want you to understand enough to own it, because build skills, build capability, not just tools.

You bring the expertise in your field. I bring learning, change, systems and technology, with translation running through the middle. And fair warning: a call with me will probably end with me sending you a Loom afterwards.

Four things I am, all at once

• The foundation

  Teacher

  Teaching is my qualification and my character. It’s how I understand learning, behaviour, capability and change.

• The engine

  Curious early adopter

  I want to know what’s changing, and I’m happy to test it early, so you don’t have to spend your week keeping up.

• The bridge

  Translator

  The question I care about most: okay, but what does this actually mean for you?

• The proof

  Builder

  Building tools is my creative outlet. Building people’s skills and capacity is what fills my cup.

If you’re curious what I actually build with, and more usefully what I’ve stopped using and why, the whole stack is written down.