Nodding Dog Syndrome

Does this picture seem familiar to you?

A large room is full of primary teachers released from their classrooms, at great expense and to the relief of many, although a few have been ‘sent’ because they are ‘looking after’ *****cy as the last coordinator left and no appointment was made. Pads are unflipped, notebooks opened, a couple of PDAs are prodded into life. Large piles of paper are arranged in neat piles around the room.

A frighteningly young looking adviser who was a good classroom teacher for a couple of years brings the room to order and fires up a PowerPoint presentation. The PPT betrays all the hallmarks of government work: a dash of colour and a logo decorate each slide, bullet-pointed text begins to appear in an endless stream of edubabble, accompanied by a stylised commentary, punctuated by smiles. A story emerges of concerns raised by teachers (no-one asks who), achievement, standards, delivery, empowerment, objectives ….. on and on. Vague references are made to research findings no-one has heard of or known anyone involved in.

There is a pause for questions, there are none. As the presenter gains eye-contact with participants and attempts to discuss the significance of what has just been presented, the little nods begin to appear from various heads around the room – not the shy ones: heads bent down, still writing copious notes. Not the small group of crusties at the back, who are still cracking whispered jokes to each other about how awful this all is. But in various parts of the room, individuals are half-smiling or making a serious face at the presenter, all the while making little nods of the head, just like one of those little dashboard doggies I have never had in any of my cars (why were they ALWAYS brown?)

What do those little nods indicate? Is it agreement tending to approval? very doubtful, you would have to really understand and believe the basis for this presentation, have faith that there was an identification of need, a widespread consultation, expert data collection and analysis, endless meetings of top educationalists to agree a new approach. I am convinced they are a sign of submission, equivalent to a dog rolling over to have its tummy tickled, they indicate that the nodder will continue to sit there and listen, making notes but not questioning the basis for anything they hear or analysing any views put forward. The presenter continues, reassured by the number of nods.

Video clips are shown in which neat ranks of children respond enthusiastically and with skill beyond the experience of most in the room to whatever *****cy activity is on display. No-one points out that none of the children is being sick or acting up, playtime arguments have all been settled, no child has brought their stickers or cards in, the children with emotional or behavioural problems are engaged elsewhere, it does not rain, the equipment is all in place and it all works, there are no interruptions to the teacher’s highly scripted flow, there are adult helpers working with groups all over the place, the teacher is able to work uninterrupted with a small, serious group. The video glides silkily to an end. Not a murmur of protest is heard (except from the crusties, who are giggling), no-one questions the authenticity or relevance to their own setting of what they have just seen. Participants nod in proportion to how impressed they think they are supposed to be with what they have just witnessed.

More slides follow, more bullet points. The efficacy, efficiency, necessity and miraculous educative effect of the new strategy, initiative, resource, tool or pack is re-affirmed. The nods increase, notes are scribbled, more frantically now as the listeners begin to perceive that they will most likely have to lead a staff meeting on this stuff they have been nodding along to. They’ve not really taken it all in, much of it is alien because the problems highlighted were not the problems they know at their school, the solutions seemed fanciful but worth a nod, you wouldn’t want to be seen to be swimming against the stream, would you?

Then the training pack/tool/website/CD is introduced. The crusties groan. A collective sigh of relief is perceptible in the non-audible range from the nodders as they realise they will simply have to run a DVD (mental notes are made that they will have to skip huge chunks as their staff will laugh at them) then run a cut-down PPT, reading each bullet point aloud and handing out hardcopy with all the text on them and with space for notes which will never, ever see the light of day again. The presenter begins to relax, no-one asked any of the how, why, who questions a couple of people on the consultants course had raised and the trainer was unable to answer convincingly. Only another 15 cohorts of teachers to go!

As the session runs down, there is more nodding, more acquiescence, the participants are exhorted to carry this new message of hope, a clarion call to action, back to their schools and galvanise their colleagues into new ways of teaching. Packs are handed out, evaluation sheets full of platitudes and half-lies are filled in and everyone goes home early. A few linger in the room or the car park expressing how valuable or important the session was.

A few weeks later, back at school, the *****cy person runs their training session in a mainly silent staffroom, reading out a similar script to the one they were subjected to. Now and then a few colleagues pipe up with questions or comments about time, resources, the effort involved in re-jigging everything set up in the last few years but alternatives are not mentioned, opposition is silenced, but not by more powerful pedagogic arguments. It is firmly explained that this is the way it is going in *****cy and that OFSTED will be looking for this new strategy, initiative, resource or tool to be in place and in use. The implied question hangs in the air: what if the school ended up failing an inspection as a result of your inability to change??

A few of the staff nod….