There are many reasons why it's important for men in schools to work on issues of boys' education, masculinity and gender relations. But they mightn't be what you think.
Popular responses to issues of boys' education often suggest that more male teachers are what boys need. Some argue that such men will reinforce traditional male roles, thus providing boys with clear models. Others suggest that more male teachers will demonstrate to boys that men too can be nurturing and understanding, just like women. Both stances assume certain qualities, though somewhat contradictory in nature, among male teachers because of their sex.
Research has not established a link between male teachers and improved outcomes for boys, but there is some evidence that the sex of the model is less important than the modelled behaviour itself. Gilbert and Gilbert (1998) suggest that if having more male teachers was an indication that career gender divisions were breaking down, and that the sexism and anti-intellectualism that labels teaching as effeminate was disappearing, effects on children should be positive.
Research suggests that the personal and professional qualities of teachers, not their sex, impacts on student learning, so Gilbert and Gilbert may be right in fearing that 'if men (and women) who are encouraged to teach, provide restrictive, stereotyped discipline styles, gender attitudes and subject preferences, they will simply do more harm than good' (1998:244).
Along with same-sex teacher role models, same-sex classes and schools are sometimes suggested as solutions to concerns about boys' education. Again, research is inconclusive.
During the 1970s and 80s single-sex classes were used as a strategy to increase the participation of girls in traditionally 'masculine' subjects with some success. However, single-sex classes for boys, for example in literacy, are relatively new and the results largely anecdotal. Biddulph (1997) refers to an unpublished UK example of single-sex English classes with startling improvements for both boys and girls, but since the program also changed the curriculum, made classes smaller and introduced other intervention strategies the possible effect of any specific variable is a matter of conjecture. Informal feedback from schools trialling single-sex classes suggests that behavioural difficulties can be exacerbated in such circumstances. It all depends on the curriculum, the teachers, diversity among the students, and so on.
|
Read how Benowa State School trialled single-sex classes. |
Research into single-sex versus coeducational schools has found no specific academic advantage for either sex (Dale 1974, Steedman 1985, Daley 1994, American Association of University Women 1999). There is some evidence that coeducation can create more positive social outcomes for boys and girls than single-sex schools (Dale 1974, Harris 1986).
If work within a gender equity framework is to succeed in schools, educational leaders and administrators must take a strong leadership role. Research and experience indicate the need for visible, frequent, unequivocal support for gender equity principles by senior men and women to ensure the success of gender equity programs. This includes:
Success in schools is most likely if men and women work in partnership, demonstrating a shared approach to gender equity issues. This avoids the marginalisation of gender issues as 'women's work' and ensures that boys (and girls) are encouraged to take it seriously. It also facilitates collaboration with parents, students and others in the school community, optimising the range of masculinities practised locally that can be enlisted to help.
The voices of the local football heroes, graziers, fathers, youth workers, mechanics and politicians … may be more convincing to boys in the short term than the clearly identifiable 'non-traditional' model (such as) the dancer.
(Martinez 1999:8)
Copyright |
Disclaimer |
Privacy |
Access keys |
Other languages
© The State of Queensland (Department of Education, Training and the Arts) 2002.