Click here to go back to the issue outlines list
Related issue outlines: 1999 - Are single-sex schools of benefit to students?
2001 - Should schools alter to better meet the needs of male students?
Dictionary: Double-click on any word in the text to bring up a dictionary definition of that word in a new window (IE only).
Analysing the language of the news media: Click here to read a useful document on media language analysis
Age, Herald-Sun and Australian items: Click here for a list of items relevant to this topic, from the Echo's Year 2002 file.
Sydney Morning Herald index: Click here to use the State Library of NSW's online index to the Sydney Morning Herald
Sections in this issue outline (in order):
1. What they said. 2 The issue at a glance. 3 Background. 4 Internet information links. 5 and 6 Arguments for / against. 7 Further implications on this issue. 8 Newspaper items used in the compilation of the outline.
Are schools doing sufficient to address the educational needs of boys?
What they said ...
'For males, the evidence linking low educational attainment, unemployment, drug and alcohol abuse and imprisonment is clear'
The House of Representatives Committee on Education and Training Report, 'Boys: Getting it Right', a parliamentary inquiry into the education of boys
'If there was evidence that boys across the board or in particular areas were not doing well, we'd put in place a broad strategy'
Victorian Education Minister, Lynne Kosky
The issue at a glance
On October 21, 2002, the House of Representatives Education Committee released its report on the education of boys. 'Boys: Getting It Right'. The report painted a disturbing picture of the social and academic problems apparently facing boys in schools and called for a series of reforms to better address the needs of male students.
The report has not meet with unanimous support. While there are those who accept its findings and recommendations, there have been others who consider it a misleading oversimplification and consider that some of its recommendations may be counterproductive.
Background
The House of Representatives Education Committee released a report on the education of boys titled, 'Boys: Getting It Right'. The report makes 24 recommendations in the areas of gender equity policy, teacher education, literacy teaching, male teachers, men in schools and topics requiring further research.
Key recommendations aim to:
establish a new national policy framework providing for joint and complementary education strategies for boys and girls;
provide merit-based HECS-free scholarships to equal numbers of men and women to undertake teacher training;
promote strategies that teachers can use to more effectively engage all boys and girls by taking into account their different learning styles;
promote integrated approaches to teaching literacy which include a strong element of explicit, intensive phonics instruction; and
ensure that pre-service and in-service teacher education adequately addresses literacy issues, pedagogy and the importance of good student/teacher relationships as the necessary basis of good teaching.
The Committee Chair, Mr Kerry Bartlett MP, said: "The Committee has considered boys' underachievement in its social and economic context and concluded that just as there is no single cause of the underachievement of boys, there is no single solution.
"However, the Committee is convinced that the current Gender Equity Framework does not adequately address boys' needs and should be revised to more effectively address the needs of boys as well as girls.
Mr Bartlett has also noted, 'Other keys to improving boys' educational engagement and achievement include promoting higher literacy achievement, the adoption of more appropriate teaching strategies for boys, and supporting teachers to build productive relationships with all students. Much of it boils down to boys feeling respected and valued because teachers and parents listen to them and take a genuine interest in their concerns.
In seeking to change the current framework to address boys' needs in education, the Committee has been mindful that many girls also underachieve and their interests also need to be considered.
While the focus of the report is on strategies to support boys, many of the recommendations promote strategies that will support all underachieving students and none should adversely affect any particular group of students.'
Internet information
The House of Representatives Committee on Education and Training Report, 'Boys: Getting it Right' was released on 21 October, 2002.
The Report can be found at http://www.aph.gov.au/house/committee/edt/EofB/report.htm
This Internet address takes you to the Report's index page. If you click on any of its subsections you while be taken to a pdf file for which you will need Adobe Acrobat reader.
The report is the result of two year's of debate, discussion and the consideration of 202 submissions.
An executive summary, including its recommendations, can be found on page 15 at the following http://www.aph.gov.au/house/committee/edt/EofB/report/front.pdf
A clickable index of the submissions received by the House of Representatives Committee on Education and Training in producing the report, 'Boys: Getting it Right', can be found at http://www.aph.gov.au/house/committee/edt/eofb/subs.htm
These are a valuable source of information and opinion, representing a wide range of views on the issue of boys' education.
On October 21, 2002, the current federal minister for Education, Scinece and Training, Dr Brendan Nelson issued a media statement welcoming House of Representatives Committee on Education and Training report on boys' education.
The release gives some background to the issue and an overview of the report. It can be found at http://www.dest.gov.au/ministers/nelson/oct02/n216_211002.htm
On March 18, 2002, the ABC's Asia pacific Radio program English Bites presented a discussion of the problems facing boys in education and the steps being taken to address them.
A transcript of this program can be found at http://abcasiapacific.com/englishbites/stories/s505257.htm
Apparently prepared with non-English speakers in mind this is a clear and informative account of the issue.
On November 2000 the federal Minister for Education, Training and Youth Affairs, Dr David Kemp, addressed a symposium on boys' education. The full text of that address can be found at http://www.dest.gov.au/archive/ministers/kemp/nov00/k0230_221100.htm
In 1994 the NSW Government Advisory Committee Report on Boys' Education covered much of the same territory as the House of Representatives Committee on Education and Training Report, 'Boys: Getting it Right'
The earlier NSW report can be found at http://www.shadoweducation.nsw.gov.au/boys/chap1.htm
Arguments suggesting that schools are not doing sufficient to address the educational needs of boys
1. Boys exhibit more educational and social problems than girls.
Recent trends in education indicate that boys have educational needs that are not being met. Nationally, 78 percent of girls finish year 12 compared to 66 percent of boys. Girls outperform boys in 80 to 90 percent of year 12 subjects. 56 percent of new university enrolments are girls. 4.4 percent fewer year 5 boys than girls are reaching the national literacy benchmarks. In addition, 80 percent of suspended students are boys.
Evidence also seems to suggest that the educational gap between male and female students is worsening.
These are some of the findings of 'Boys: Getting it Right', a recent parliamentary inquiry into the education of boys. Richard Fletcher, the originator of the University of Newcastle's 'Boys in Schools' program, has stated, 'The evidence highlighted by the inquiry vindicates what parents and teachers have been telling us for years ... We've met hundreds of parents worried about their sons, teachers worried about what they see not happening for boys in schools.'
There is also concern that men are facing greater social problems than woman. The suicide rate is higher among men and has been growing among young men. Further, men have a far greater likelihood of committing a criminal offence and of being imprisoned than do women.
2. School programs and teaching strategies are better suited to girls.
It has been claimed that schools now offer programs and present information in ways that suit girls better than boys. 'Boys: Getting it Right', a recent parliamentary inquiry into the education of boys has concluded that the increasing emphasis on literacy skills in the curriculum has put boys at a disadvantage as boys typically develop language skills later than girls. Further, the report suggests that schools offer passive rather than active learning situations and that this better suits girls than boys.
The report states, 'Boys tend to need more explicit teaching than girls and tend to prefer active, hands-on methods of instruction.'
It also suggests that a higher percentage of boys suffer auditory processing difficulties, learning difficulties and attention deficit disorders. The report claims that schools are not adequately addressing these specific learning problems.
Mr Rod Sawyer, the deputy chairman of the House of Representatives Committee on Education and Training has claimed that while 1950 to 1970 was a distinctly boy-friendly period, 1970 to 1990 was a period of relative balance, while from 1990 onwards there was too much emphasis placed on catering for girls. Other critics of current education provision have claimed that an excessive focus on educating girls began in the 1980s.
The problem of programs that do not provide appropriately for boys has even been raised among those who work with infants. Edith Stankey, a teacher at the at the Salamander Child Care Centre, has suggested that even at this level teachers need to make sure that they are offering boys the sort of experiences from which they can learn. 'I think we need to put on our "boy glasses" every now and again and say, "From a boy's point of view is this catering to me as a person and a learner?"'
3. There are insufficient male teachers.
The House of Representatives Committee on Education and Training Report, 'Boys: Getting it Right', recently recommended that the federal government should provide scholarships targeted to increase the number of males in teaching. The Committee contended that a relative shortage of male teachers was adding to the problems many boys appeared to be facing in school.
The Committee chairperson, Kerry Bartlett, said the two-year inquiry had shown that a lack of male role models had contributed to under-achievement in boys. It has been suggested that one of the factors limiting the achievements of male students in primary schools is that men form only 20.5 percent of Victorian primary school teachers. In an attempt to address this problem the House of Representatives Committee on Education and Training has recommended that HECs-free teaching scholarships be made available in equal numbers to male and female trainee teachers.
4. There need to be more single sex schools.
There are those who claim that for some boys the best learning situation is an all boys school. Mr Rowan Brown, the deputy headmaster of Trinity Grammar School, has made this point. Mr Brown has claimed, 'I think there is some acknowledgement that boys schools can work very well.'
Mr Brown argues that most boys have quite specific learning styles and preferences and, as these can be at odds with the preferred learning styles of girls, separate provision is sometimes necessary.
Mr Brown states that boys prefer fast, hands-on work that delivered right and wrong answers. That they generally perform well under exam conditions but do not do as well as girls on extended assignments that required reworking and revision. Mr Brown claims that boys are generally louder than girls and tend to verbalise their responses more than girls, and will more readily argue when challenged on issues.
5. Gender equity programs have advantaged girls and damaged boys.
It has been claimed that government promoted gender equity policies have operated in a way that protected the special interests of girls but ignored the special requirements of boys.
In 1997 the Ministerial Council on Education, Employment, Training and Youth Affairs issued the Gender Equity Framework, a gender policy statement. Though it was developed from a national action plan for girls, it was also supposed to address boys' educational needs. However, the House of Representatives Committee on Education and Training judged that the Gender Equity Framework may have acted against the educational interests of boys. The Committee's report states, 'We have to honestly consider to what extent the Gender equity framework has been responsible for letting down boys and their families.'
The Committee concluded that the framework defined sexual equity too narrowly by focusing mainly on areas such as sexual harassment, where boys' behaviour interferes with girls' progress, rather than also addressing the problems facing boys.
6. Improving boys' education outcomes does not have to be at the expense of girls.
There are those who claim that appropriate educational policies and teaching practices can cater equally for both girls and boys. Those who maintain this position argue that addressing the educational needs of boys does not have to mean that female students will suffer.
Among the recommendations of the House of Representatives Committee on Education and Training is that teachers be trained to use teaching strategies that better meet the learning needs of all students, male and female. The chairman of the Committee, Mr Kerry Bartlett, has stated, 'The issue is using teaching strategies to clearly address the needs of boys and girls ... We need to better equip out teachers to be skilled practitioners in the classroom.'
It has also been argued that another of the Committee's recommendations, that class sizes be reduced, will benefit all students, boys and girls. Mary Bluett, the Victorian president of the Australian education Union, has noted that reducing class sizes will help teachers to better accommodate the individual learning styles of all students.
Arguments suggesting that schools are doing sufficient to address the educational needs of boys
1. The educational disadvantage faced by boys has been exaggerated.
There are those who claim that the general picture being painted of boys alienated from education is too unshaded and an exaggeration. It is also claimed that it overlooks the many girls who are also either under performing or disengaged from school.
Richard Teese, professor of education at Melbourne University, has queried whether a lack of engagement with education is actually a gender issue at all. Professor Teese has observed, 'We need to raise the question of which boys and which girls. Are we talking about alienation of all boys or only groups of boys, and are there no girls alienated?'
It has also been argued that the House of Representatives Committee on Education and Training Report, 'Boys: Getting it Right', simplifies the reasons for underperformance among male students. Critics claim that the primary causal factor is not gender. Victoria Foster, and adjunct associate professor at Canberra University, claims that the report has glossed over identifying which boys were under-performing. She says that without this identification of types of problem and causes educators will not be able to use the most appropriate strategies to assist struggling male students.
A similar position has also been put by the Victorian Education Minister, Lynne Kosky, who also believes that disengagement from school is not a gender specific issue. 'If there was evidence that boys across the board or in particular areas were not doing well, we'd put in place a broad strategy.'
2. Males are still over-represented within the commercial and political elites of Australian society.
There are those who claim that males do not require educational redress as, once they reach adulthood, they still occupy a disproportionate number of power positions within our society.
Rosemary Neil, writing in The Australian, noted 'the over-representation of private school old boys among our political and business elites'. She also noted that more than half the current federal cabinet is male and from a similar social and educational background - wealthy, all-male private schools.
Similarly there are those who fear that if deliberate endeavours are made to improve the position of boys within schools it will be at the expense of girls and will confirm the relative economic and social disadvantage women still face. The parliamentary inquiry into the education of boys titled, 'Boys: Getting it Right' noted a widespread concern that improving provision for boys would 'undermine ongoing support for strategies for girls'.
3. Many of the problems faced by boys are the result of changes in employment patterns and the social status of manual labourers.
It has been claimed that many of the problems facing boys and young men are not the result of an education system that does inadequately caters for them. Instead, it has been argued, the patterns of employment in our society have been shifting in ways that disadvantage a significant portion of the male population.
According to this line of argument, a majority of men were formerly employed in manual labour. Lindsay Tanner, the federal Labor MP for Melbourne, has claimed, 'Through that process of contribution to the economy ... men in our society had status, a sense of recognition and a sense of dignity.'
As the number of manual jobs has declined, however, a significant proportion of our male population has effectively been left behind without any obvious role in contemporary society. Lindsay Tanner has summed up the results of this lack of an established role, stating, 'All around us ... we can see the rage, alienation, disaffection and disconnection from our society that is evident in many young men.'
Some social commentators note that this problem is not one of inadequate educational provision, but rather one of changes in the nature of work that have left a significant part of the male work force without an occupation which matches their skills.
4. Many of the problems faced by boys result from poor role modelling within the home.
It is claimed that many of the problems faced by boys at school stem not from inadequate educational provision but from unbalanced parenting. According to this line of argument, mothers are still the predominant child carers and educators within the home. This means that boys are likely to associate education with women and perhaps see it as a female rather than a male concern.
Those who maintain this view argue that fathers should take a more active part in their children's education, so that their sons would then be more likely to believe that what happens at school is relevant to them.
An editorial published in The Australian on October 22, 2002, notes 'Fathers ... must become more involved in their children's schools. Dads who barrack for their sons at Saturday sports but leave mum to do canteen duty, attend the P & C meetings, read to kids in class and before they go to bed, might pause and consider what teaching sons - and daughters - well is really all about.'
5. Some of the educational problems faced by boys appear to be developmental.
It has been claimed that research indicates that some of the educational problems faced by boys are developmental in nature. According to this line of argument, boys generally acquire linguistic competence later than girls. They also have poorer impulse control, are more aggressive and develop later socially.
It has been suggested that many of these differences are not absolutes, but represent a developmental delay that is overcome as the boys mature.
According to this line of argument, it would be inappropriate for schools to devote a significant proportion of their resources to addressing problems that the boys in question are likely to grow out of.
6. Some of the 'solutions' to boys' educational problems have significant disadvantages.
There are those who argue that educational provision shaped specifically for boys encourages a range of undesirable behaviours that may harm the boys concerned and are damaging for society as a whole.
This claim is made particularly with regard to single sex private boys schools, which, it is claimed, have a tradition of encouraging competitiveness, bullying and intolerance. Scott Poynting and Mike Donaldson of the University of Western Sydney have argued that exclusive boys schools tend to be 'brutalising environments in which humiliation and sexual violence are normalised; bullies are admired ...; dobbing and close male friendships are taboo; student hierarchies are sacrosanct; and differences (sexual and ethnic) are picked on.'
It has further been suggested that the aggression and sense of privilege acquired in some single sex boys schools are carried into adulthood by men who become business and community leaders and display a similar ruthlessness and sense of automatic entitlement. Rosemary Neill, writing in the Australian, has claimed, 'Those who are groomed to consider themselves a cut above are adept at getting their cut.'
It has also been suggested that the proposal that boys' educational outcomes would be improved if there were a greater number of male teachers is an over-simplification. Dr Victoria Foster, an adjunct associate professor in education at Canberra University, has questioned the idea that more male role models in schools would make a significant difference. For Dr Foster it is the quality of the teacher, rather than his or her gender, which is the issue. Dr Foster has asked, 'What are these role models? Are they going to be trained? Or are they naturally supportive and caring?'
Dr Foster believes that the argument that boys need male teachers as role models confuses the roles of parenting and teaching.
Further implications
One of the functions expected of schools is that they address issues of disadvantage. Though we may no longer believe in the possibility of equality of outcomes, the rhetoric of education still embraces equality of opportunity.
It was in this spirit that through the 1980s and beyond schools were urged to do their part in rectifying the social and educational disadvantage faced by girls. It was argued that girls were under-represented in tertiary courses and in the better-paid and more influential areas of employment - that we had too few female doctors, lawyers and politicians. Girls, it was claimed, left school too early and, even those who did not, studied humanities subjects that substantially limited their employment opportunities.
Policies were put in place to encourage girls to study maths and science, to do metalwork and woodwork and to apply for trade apprenticeships.
It is now being argued that these policies have had a number of unforeseen and undesirable consequences. Boys, it is argued, are being left behind. A higher percentage of girls than boys is completing secondary education and undertaking tertiary courses. Girls, it is claimed, are outperforming boys in most subject areas, while boys are excessively represented among juvenile offenders and among youth suicides.
However, some of the concern created by this situation seems misdirected. While it is true that more girls than boys are now completing secondary school and going on to further study, it is also true that relative to a generation ago there are more boys than there were undertaking year 12. What is causing apprehension is that the number of girls doing so has increased at a greater rate. It does not follow, however, that policy changes in education can be held responsible for the large number of girls either performing well in literacy tests or going on to complete secondary school.
Critics have lamented what they refer to as the feminisation of education. What actually appears to be happening is that the workplace is becoming feminised. Many of the areas of employment growth (in the hospitality industry, communications and public relations, for example,) are ones to which women are particularly well suited. While many traditional areas of male employment, especially in many forms of manual labour, are in decline.
It would appear that girls have always been more linguistically able than boys and thus are likely to have always been more literate. It is also the case that boys have traditionally been more likely to have discipline problems at school and to commit a crime at some time in their lives. What have changed are employment and childbearing patterns.
Most women now expect to work when they leave school, once they marry or cohabit, and after they have children. There are a growing number of women deciding not to have children at all. At the same time the workplace has changed in ways that have given women greater employment opportunities.
Combine the likelihood of a lifelong career with girls' greater linguistic competence and social maturity and it is hardly surprising that growing numbers of young women are staying on at school and then entering university.
Altering how schools treat boys is, at best, a partial answer to the alienation of young males. As a society we must consider not just how we educate boys, but how we can find a meaningful place for those boys who appear unsuited to the forms of employment that are currently on offer.
Sources
The Age
22/10/02 page 3 news item by Sophie Douez and Amanda Dunn, 'Boys performing badly: teaching, pay, classes the key'
22/10/02 page 3 news item by Amanda Douez, 'Single-sex schools on comeback'
23/10/02 page 17 comment by Lindsay Tanner, 'Confronting men's alienation is our urgent task'
27/10/02 page 13 analysis by Bettina Arndt, 'Boys performing badly'
27/10/02 page 13 analysis by Erica Cervini, 'Report draws mixed reaction from educators'
27/10/02 page 13 news item by Erica Cervini, 'Open for business: tailor-made education'
The Australian
2/9/02 page 13 analysis by Ebru Yaman, 'Gender trial put boys in a class by themselves'
4/10/02 page 11 opinion by Rosemary O'Neill, 'Born to rule, or break them'
22/10/02 page 5 news item by Sophie Morris, 'male call for quota system on teachers'
22/10/02 page 10 editorial, 'Barracking for boys' education'
The Herald Sun
22/10/02 page 15 news item by Andrew Probyn, 'Girls in class of their own'