1
Wanted! Male Teachers.
The extent to which principals want
and encourage a gender balance on school staff
Penni Cushman
Paper presented at the British Educational Research Association Annual Conference, University of Warwick, 6-9 September 2006
The dearth of male teachers in primary schools and the perceived challenges this presents for students and schools continue to capture media attention. The issues surrounding the place and importance of male teachers are complex and contentious and attract considerable academic debate. Current research suggests that the links between male teachers and the academic and behavioural outcomes of students are tenuous. In this climate of uncertainty, the extent to which principals in fact want more male teachers on their staff has received little if any research attention. The purpose of this survey of New Zealand primary school principals, therefore, is to investigate whether principals do desire a more equitable gender balance on their staff and, if such intent exists, whether their employment practices indicate a favouring of male applicants.
Introduction
In my role at a teacher education institution, I meet with many school principals in the course of the academic year. After 15 years, it no longer surprises me when principals ask if I know of any about-to-graduate male students whom I might recommend to join their teaching staff. The work of the majority of principals is couched in a female-dominated profession, and both academic literature and popular media continually highlight issues commonly associated with this situation, often positing it as a predicament (see, for example, Middleton, 2005; Mills, Martino, & Lingard, 2004; Ross, 2003). Topics such as the number of children lacking positive role models in the home, the disparity between the educational outcomes of boys and of girls, and the feminisation of primary schools provide popular media fodder.
To date, however, the New Zealand media has avoided serious debate around the reasons commonly given as to why a staff gender balance in primary school classrooms is desirable. If strategies to increase the numbers of male teachers are to be implemented, as is already happening internationally, and is from time to time proposed in New Zealand, it would seem logical that the ‘need’, as such, is first verified. One might also suppose, from the publicity the issue receives, that all principals support the need for more male teachers. This study therefore set out to investigate the extent of principals’ support for more male teachers and also to determine whether, in their (assumed) quest to achieve a more equitable gender balance, principals deliberately or inadvertently favour male applicants in the interview and employment process.
Background
The last decade has seen the call for more male teachers in primary schools intensify. This has been in response to both the falling number of male teachers in the classroom and the perceived benefits that a staff gender balance would bring. That the numbers of male teachers has decreased is a well-established, internationally recognised phenomenon in developed countries (Fratt, 2004; Skelton, 2003). The reasons why the numbers have dropped are universally accepted as closely linked to the status and salary of teachers, the perceived feminisation of schools, and issues to do with highly publicised cases of child abuse (Carrington, 2002; Cushman, 2005; Thornton & Bricheno, 2000). While governments have responded to the trend by implementing strategies designed to attract and recruit males to teacher education (Lyng & Blichfeldt, 2003; Queensland Government, 2002; Training and Development Agency for Schools, 2005), the importance of the male teacher is a topic of contention. Although there has been much written about the need for male role models for boys, there is increasing debate about the responsibility male teachers should shoulder in this regard, and whether an increased number of males would affect educational outcomes.
An over-riding concern in the call for more male teachers is the disparity in achievement between male and female school students. As recently as 2004, the Australian federal government stated that the imbalance of male and female teachers and consequently the lack of male role models for boys and girls was having a detrimental impact on boys’ education (Lyons, 2005). Underpinning this argument are assumptions that male and female teachers have different teaching styles and that each gender interacts differently with boys and girls. If there is a relationship between the gender of the teachers and the academic achievement of the student, there is an added inference that boys are disadvantaged through the lack of male teachers. However Skelton (2001) and Harnett and Lee (2001) have disputed the clarity of links between male teachers and boys’ behaviour, attitudes to learning and levels of achievement. Both Skelton (2001) and Foster and Newman (2005) found current assumptions linking boys’ underachievement to the imbalance of male and female teachers not to be supported by research evidence.
Similarly, Carrington and Tymms’ (2005) study of almost 9000 children showed that the gender of the teacher had no discernible impact on boys’ or girls’ achievement or attitudes to school. Furthermore, at Year 6, they found that children taught by women were more inclined to show positive attitudes to school than were their peers taught by men. These issues of achievement, motivation, attitude and behaviour, commonly grouped under, and referred to as, ‘the problem with boys’ (Ashley, 2003) are no new phenomenon. Because the minority number of male teachers in primary schools has also been an issue for a long time, both are often seen by educationalists as related. The links, however, are tenuous, leading Ashley to conclude that the role model argument and the consequent call for more male teachers is probably ‘naïve’.
Notwithstanding such findings in academic literature, appeals for more male teachers in primary schools continue to attract media attention. Furthermore, Foster and Newman (2005) suggest that such an ‘overemphasis’ on the importance of males as role models in the primary school may have raised expectations among potential male student-teachers who believe the teacher education journey and early teaching years will be enhanced due to their scarcity. Two of the earliest studies drawing international attention to such gender discrimination were those by Williams (1992) and Allan (1993). At the time, Allan (1993) attributed such practices to a school’s commitment to affirmative action, the desire of male principals for male companionship and support (especially when there was a shared interest in sport), and the public’s demand for male role models in the classroom. William’s (1992) investigation of men’s experiences in a number of female-dominated professions, including primary school teaching, found that while any minority group experiences discrimination in hiring practices, sexism against women outweighs discrimination against men in these female-dominated professions. Williams found marked differences between the experiences of men in female-dominated professions and the experiences of women in male-dominated professions. Whereas women tended to experience a ‘glass-ceiling’, or level above which they could not rise, men in female-dominated professions experienced a ‘glass escalator’ that advantaged their promotion opportunities.
More recent studies by Thornton and Bricheno (2000) and Burn (2002) found males still felt their gender advantaged them over women in selection and promotion decisions. Smith (2004) found male pre-service students had heard anecdotal evidence that they would receive positive discrimination in securing employment, and most hoped this would be the case. On the other hand,
in Cameron and Grundnoff’s (1992) study of employment practices in New Zealand primary schools, principals claimed they chose the person considered the best person for the job, and personal factors such as gender were only considered when applicants were of equal worth. This same study, however, found that proportionately more men got jobs, leading the authors to conclude that males were clearly advantaged in the appointment process and also more likely to win permanent rather than relieving positions. Twelve years later, again in New Zealand, Brooking (2004) found the official discourses of equal employment, human rights and gender equity frequently acknowledged but simultaneously disregarded in actions. ‘Such comments as “we appoint the best person for the job” or “gender didn’t come into the decision,” signals an awareness of official discourse but there is considerable evidence of sexism and homophobia’ (Brooking, p. 28). Lingard (2003) blames appointment decisions that favour male role models on media-provoked panic around feminised schooling and the failing boys discourse. In addition, a public perception that more male role models are needed to make up for the lack of a male presence in some families and the associated need to redress the gender imbalance in schools might signify a possibility that male job applicants are regarded favourably.
While principals apparently claim that they select ‘the best person for the job’, the process of deciding who is the ‘best’ person is not without its own set of challenges. Lichtenberg and Luban (1998) in their investigation of principles of employment suggest that ‘merit’ is a socially constructed phenomena complicated by the complex and problematic notion of ‘ability’. They question what constitutes merit for a particular job and how it might best be determined. Their position is that often those who win jobs are those who do not possess the most merit. They also draw attention to studies that show job applications from male and female candidates may be valued differently. In relation to employment within the teaching sector, Lichtenberg and Luban suggest that being a member of a certain group whose members might act as role models should count as a qualification or ‘plus factor’. They argue that as the male primary school teacher plays an exemplary role for all children, parents and the community, few people would endorse employment by ‘merit’ alone, and so would want to consider other values or principles.
It appears, then, that the process of employment is complex and liable to influence from a myriad of factors. A further complicating factor is the sex similarity–attraction paradigm. This suggests that same-sex applicants will be regarded as more similar than opposite-sex applicants, and that applicants who are perceived as similar will be evaluated more favourably (Cardy and Dobbins, 1986; Gallois, Callan, & Palmer, 1992). In a country where 58% (Ministry of Education, 2005) of primary school principals are male, such a paradigm might contribute to the preponderance of successful male job applicants. While such a seemingly simplistic theory necessarily warrants further investigation, Graves and Powell (1995) also found the perceived similarity in terms of gender influences the degree of interpersonal attraction and therefore results in more favourable evaluation. Of interest, however, is their further finding that ‘female recruiters saw male applicants as more similar to themselves than female applicants’ in the employment interview (p. 94). Thus, male applicants received more favourable evaluations from both male and female recruiters than female applicants did.
Based on these literature findings, it would appear that the reasons for male role models in the primary school and issues associated with their employment are no longer as straightforward as they appeared a decade ago. Such debate has been largely overlooked by the media, where a tendency to simply focus on the low number of male teachers persists. With earlier data documenting the favouring of male applicants for teaching positions in New Zealand, it is opportune not only to investigate the extent to which New Zealand principals desire a male presence in their schools but also to determine if, and why, males applicants might receive preferential treatment.
Method
In 2005, I mailed a survey to 250 New Zealand primary school principals, randomly selected through the use of a random number generator and a numbered, alphabetical list of New Zealand, contributing primary, full primary, and intermediate schools. State, private, and integrated schools were included. This number represented 12% of New Zealand primary schools or 250 out of a possible 2,120.
The survey questionnaire consisted of 15 questions set out in two parts. The first 10 sought information on the demographic attributes of the represented school and the gender balance of teaching and management staff. Questions 11 to 15 sought to elicit the respondents’ attitudes towards gender balance, employment preferences and practices and their understanding of the term ‘male role model’. Questions 11, 12, and 13 involved the use of Likert-type scales (five points ranging from ‘very important’ to ‘definitely not important’) and provided for additional optional comment. The following presentation of findings and discussion is limited to questions 11 and 12:
11. How important to you is a gender balance on the staff?
- Would you be more likely to interview or employ an applicant to a teaching position in your school because that person is male?
Analysis of data comprised grouping on the basis of similarity and relatedness for both the quantitative and qualitative sections. ANOVA and chi-square tests were carried out to determine the significance of results related to the age, gender, type of school and decile level.
Results and Discussion
At the time of analysis, four weeks after the mail-out, I had received replies from 169 schools, a response rate of 67.6%. Between them, the 169 schools represented a wide range of geographical locations, authorities, and school types. The 169 schools employed 2,134 teachers, with 409 (19%) of them male. One hundred and eight (63%) of the school principals were male, and 61 (37%) were female. These figures closely approximate (and so are representative of) corresponding official statistics for New Zealand education (Ministry of Education, 2005).
An overwhelming majority of principals (80%) believed that a staff gender balance is important. Twenty-eight percent of the principals rated is it as ‘very important’, 52% as ‘important’, 5% were ‘not sure’, 12% rated it as ‘not important’, and 2% rated it as ‘definitely not important’. Thus, the vast majority favoured a staffing situation they were unlikely to have experienced. That their desire for an unfamiliar situation was so strong must be based on the belief that such gender equity bodes well in terms of outcomes for young people. The continual onslaught of media attention to the falling roll of male teachers, the need of children, especially boys, for male role models, the feminisation of primary schooling and the disparity in achievement between boys and girls can be held partly responsible for such widespread beliefs (Lingard, 2003).
Attitudes regarding the need for gender balance were largely unaffected by the gender of the principal and the decile level (socio-economicstatus) of the school. Seventy-nine percent of the female principals and 80% of the male principals believed a gender balance to be important. However, 35% of the male principals rated it as ‘very important’ compared to 15% of the female principals.
At first glance, the age of the principal had little bearing on their attitude to gender balance. Seventy-seven percent of principals aged between 30 and 39 rated a gender balance as ‘important’ or ‘very important’. Eighty-five percent of those aged 40 to 49, 78% of those aged 50 to 59 and 83% of those over 60, agreed. Interestingly, when I further broke down the analysis into ‘important’ and ‘very important’, I found that percentages for ‘very important’ increased markedly with age. Eleven percent of those aged 30 to 39 rated a gender balance as ‘very important’, as did 19% of those aged 40 to 49, 31% of those aged 50 to 59, and 41% of those over 60. It is possible that principals who have been engaged in the teaching world for over 40 years might remember a time when the percentage of male teachers hovered at a (comparatively) healthy40% (Ministry of Education, 1996). On the other hand, young principals, with fewer means of comparison, may tend to be more accepting and less critical of the current status quo.
The decile level of the school appeared to have little effect on the attitude of the principal towards a gender balance on staff. Seventy-nine percent of principals from low decile (1 to 5) schools rated a gender balance as very important or important compared with 83% from high decile (6 to10) schools. A further breakdown of decile levels produced no significant differences in attitudes to a gender balance. However, the following response from a Decile 1 school principal suggests that Brooking’s (2004) finding that official discourses are frequently acknowledged but simultaneously disregarded in actions may well hold true.
‘Gender balance and cultural balance are definitely considered when appointing staff. However the priority is to appoint competent teachers who have proven experience with strengths that match the job criteria.’ (57-year-old female principal from Decile 1 school)
It is difficult to ascertain to what extent, if any, schools compromise in order to ensure that the needs of students and their school community are met. Who is ‘the best person for the job’ in such situations is highly contentious. For example, two schools commented on their need for male teachers to perform cultural practices inappropriate for females. Several principals commented on community pressure to employ male role models for those children living in sole-parent (female) families. Twenty-eight percent of the principals emphasised, however, that the quality and suitability of teaching staff was more important than a gender balance.