A Perfect Match? Pupils’ and teachers’ views of the impact
of matching educators and learners by gender
Becky Francis, Christine Skelton, Bruce Carrington, Merryn Hutchings,
Barbara Read and Ian Hall.
Paper presented at the British Educational Research Association Annual Conference,
University of Warwick, 6-9 September 2006
Professor Becky Francis is Professor of Education at Roehampton University.
Professor Christine Skelton is Professor of Education at Roehampton University.
Professor Bruce Carrington is Head of School of Education at Glasgow University.
Professor Merryn Hutchings is Deputy Director of IPSE, London Metropolitan
University. Dr Barbara Read is Research Fellow at IPSE, London Metropolitan
University. Mr Ian Hall is Research Officer at University of Newcastle.
Contact: Becky Francis
Southlands College, Roehampton University
80 Roehampton Lane, London SW15 8SL.
e-mail: B.Francis@roehampton.ac.uk
A Perfect Match? Pupils’ and teachers’ views of the impact of matching educators and
learners by gender
Abstract:
British government policy on teacher recruitment gives a high priority to increasing the
number of male teachers, particularly to primary schools. This focus stems from concern to
challenge ‘boys’ underachievement’: policy-makers believe that ‘matching’ teachers and
pupils by gender will improve boys’ engagement with school. Yet there is little evidence to
support such assumptions which, as this article notes, are predicated on out-dated theories
of social learning. This article reports findings from a large-scale qualitative study that
sought to investigate primary pupils and teachers’ views concerning ‘gender match’ of
teacher and learner. It demonstrates that the substantial majority of pupils and teachers
rejected the salience of gender in pupil-teacher relations and learning outcomes,
prioritising instead the abilities of the individual teacher. The explanations of those pupils
and teachers who did support the notion of ‘gender match’ are also explored, showing how
some pupils drew on stereotypical gender discourses to support their constructions, and
how some (usually male) teachers were invested in the notion of male role models.
Keywords: gender, teachers, pupils, role models
A Perfect Match? Pupils’ and teachers’ views of the impact of matching educators and
learners by gender
Background
British government policy on teacher recruitment gives a high priority to increasing the number
of male teachers, particularly to primary schools. A declared strategic objective of the Training
Development Agency for Schools’ (TDA)i Corporate Plan (2003-2006, TTA) is ‘by November
2005, annually achieve an increase of a further 20 per cent of male trainees on top of the
previous year’s baseline’. To this end, the TDA has recently launched a ‘new drive for men to
train as primary school teachers’ (TDA, 2005). This policy is predicated on the widely held
notion that pupils do better when there is a ‘match’ between characteristics of pupils and teachers
in terms of gender (and ethnicity) (Carrington & Skelton, 2003). The belief in the benefits of
such ‘matching’ rests on two, often tacit, assumptions: firstly, that men teachers behave and
teach differently to their female colleagues (in ways that are more appealing to boys); and
secondly that men teachers provide boys with ‘role models’ in order to prevent their educational
disaffection and to raise their achievement (Francis & Skelton, 2001; Skelton, 2002; Ashley,
2003; Francis & Skelton, 2005).ii Hence initiatives to boost male recruitment have been
presented by government officials as a solution to what ministers have termed boys’ ‘laddish
culture’ and consequent ‘underachievement’ (Francis, 1999). Male lay mentors are also being
encouraged into primary schools (Skelton & Francis, 2005) for the same reasons.
Similar rhetoric has been used to rationalize the initiatives aimed at increasing ethnic minority
recruitment to teaching (Carrington, 2002), and the enlistment of Black (particularly Black male)
mentors from the external community into schools. For pragmatic reasons around scope and
manageability our project focuses primarily on current British education policy in terms of
genderiii.
There is, then, an apparently uncritical acceptance by policy makers of the argument that boys’
academic performance and behaviour would benefit from having more men teachers, particularly
to function as ‘role models’, yet this acceptance is not based on research evidence (Carrington &
Skelton, 2003). Indeed, there is an absence of any clear discussion of how male teachers are
expected to behave or teach, or the form of ‘acceptable masculinity’ that they are supposed to
represent to boys. Skelton (2002) speculates that policy makers assume male teachers will
provide exemplars of alternative (i.e. more compliant) forms of masculinity for disaffected
working class boys, and, thereby, counter negative attitudes towards schooling and improve
boys’ behaviour and achievement. Yet even this is speculative deduction: the form of
masculinity which male teachers are envisaged to represent, and the reasons that boys should
apparently identify with this, are never articulated in the policy material (Francis & Skelton,
2005). This signifies an important problem, given that policies are being implemented on the
back of these unsubstantiated assumptions (Hutchings, 2002).
The assumption that a gender ‘match’ between pupils (boys) and teachers (men) is beneficial to
boys’ achievement rests upon social learning and sex role theories (on which the notion of role
modelling - and role reproduction - is predicated). This reliance is intriguing given that social
learning theory has been extensively critiqued in sociology and psychology disciplines as based
on essentialised conceptions of identity as fixed, unitary and replicable. Leading critics of social
learning and sex role theory in education have demonstrated how gender and other aspects of
social identity are fluid, multiple, and accommodated and resisted (e.g. Connell, 1987; Davies,
1989; Riddell, 1989). These authors see selves as having (circumscribed) agency in drawing on
particular aspects or discourses to construct and delineate their selfhood (circumscribed due to
the impact of discourses or social structures which position them in particular ways). From these
perspectives, the notion of (say) a boy identifying automatically with a male teacher as an
exemplar of appropriate masculine behaviour, and emulating that behaviour, is ridiculously
simplistic. Indeed, other researchers have shown that processes of identification and justification
for behaviours and opinions among young children are far more complex and contradictory. For
example, studies by researchers such as Davies (1989; 1994), Buckingham (1993) and Francis
(1998) have specifically illustrated the ways in which young children draw on some examples
from their lives and ignore/reject others to support and justify what are often already strongly
internalised positions and opinions.
It comes as little surprise, then, that notions of ‘matching’ pupils and teachers by gender to
reduce boys’ disaffection with schooling and improve their achievement have been challenged
by research findings. Leaving aside the point that boys are not a homogenous group (having
distinct identities based on ‘race’, social class, sexuality, and a host of other factors besides
gender), and so could never be expected to behave in uniform ways, there is evidence that
teacher gender simply is not a point of concern for pupils. In her Finnish study of pupils’
perceptions concerning teacher gender, Lahelma (2000) found that pupils overwhelmingly
rejected gender as a salient factor in teacher-pupil relations, and tended to stress instead that
individual teaching ability has the greatest impact (see also Smedley, 1999; Ashley, 2003; Drudy
et al, 2005). It is also important to note that there is as yet no evidence to suggest that men
teachers as a group adopt different pedagogies and behaviours in the classroom to women
teachers (Skelton, 2002; Hutchings, 2002; Smedley 1999; Lahelma, 2000).
And research has shown that identification by pupils with teachers of the same gender is by no
means guaranteed: many boys do not identify with their male teachers (indeed they can be
marginalised by them) (Connolly, 1995; Skelton, 2001). There is even a suggestion in the
research that some male teachers’ methods of ‘bonding’ with their male pupils may indirectly be
impacting negatively on the achievement of these boys and on other pupils (Skelton, 2001, 2002;
Francis & Skelton, 2001; Epstein, 1998; Francis, 2000). Indeed, quantitative analysis by
Thornton & Brichenco (2002) suggests a correlation between greater concentrations of male
teachers and poorer discipline in schools. They found no positive link between higher numbers
of male teachers and increased primary schoolboy attainment.
Recent quantitative work by Dee (2006) in the United States suggests a positive link between
‘matched’ teacher gender and achievement, but his findings swim against a tide of international
quantitative work which draws the opposite conclusion. Fellow Americans Ehrenberg,
Goldhaber & Brewer (1995) have shown that matching teachers and children by gender and
ethnicity has little impact on attainment. Sokal et al’s (2005) work in Canada showed no
correlation between teacher gender and boys’ improvements at reading. In Australia quantitative
research by Martin and Marsh (2005) found no significant variation in pupil motivation and
engagement according to teacher gender. Furthermore, Carrington et al’s (2005) research into the
experiences of 11-year-olds in 413 English primary schools revealed that matching by gender
had no apparent impact on either the children’s attainments or attitudes to school. Despite this,
the study indicated that children taught by women – both boys and girls alike – were more
inclined to show positive attitudes towards school than their peers taught by men. And in relation
to mentoring, Colley’s work (2001; 2002) shows how risky it is to assume that positive relations
will be formed between mentors and mentees simply on the bases of any assumed shared social
positioning (see also Carrington, 2002). As Carrington (2002) concludes, “Matching teachers and
children by ethnicity is not a sufficient condition for winning their respect or gaining recognition
as a ‘role model’” (p.47).
Our ESRC-funded study (RES000230624) was motivated by concern at the lack of any clear
explanatory framework underpinning the funded policy strategies targeting men as recruits to
primary teaching. It has studied a range of issues concerned with pupil-teacher relations and the
extent (if any) to which these are gendered. This article focuses on pupils’ and teachers’ opinions
concerning the issue of ‘matching’ pupil and teacher gender and any benefits (or otherwise)
therein.
Research Methods
The research was conducted in 51 different Year 3 primary school classes (involving 7-8 year
old children) in London (25) and North East England (26). 25 classes were taught by a male
teacher and twenty-six by a female teacher (with an even split between London and the North
East). It was based upon classroom observation and individual interviews. Interviews were
conducted with 3 girls and 3 boys in each of the classes (307 pupils in total; 153 boys and 154
girls), randomly selected from the class register. Of these pupils, 207 are White, 52 are Black, 25
are South Asian, 5 are dual heritage, 1 is Chinese, and the ethnicity of 17 was not classified.
Only 10 of the minority ethnic pupils were located in North East England.
The semi-structured interview schedules asked pupils about those they admire in popular culture
and in their daily lives; their views of their class teacher; and their opinions on gender and
teachingiv. Children were provided with letters to their parents explaining the purposes of the
research, and the nature of their child’s potential involvement, with a consent form. Further,
pupils were themselves free to choose not to participate. (In the case of parental or child dissent,
reserve participants were then included). All interviews were audio-recorded, and the
confidentiality of interview responses guaranteed (names reported are pseudonyms).
The second aspect of the study involved observing pupils with their teachers in the classroom.
The fifty-one teachers were each tracked and observed for one working day, in order to observe
pupil-teacher relationships and interactions (for discussion of our findings in relation to the
classroom observations, see Skelton et al, forthcoming). At the end of the observation day a
semi-structured interview was conducted with the teacher involved. These asked about what
teachers wish to achieve from their work with pupils; what kinds of relationships they seek to
build with pupils; how they perceive themselves in the role of teacher; what they understand by
the notion of ‘teachers as role models’; and issues relating to gender. Of the teachers, 25 were
male, 26 female; and all were White except two Black British female teachers and two South
Asian female teachers.
A social constructionist perspective (Bryman, 2001) is applied to the qualitative data, involving
content analysis and analysis of discourse (Robson, 2002; Burman & Parker, 1992). In order to
show that the qualitative analysis is representative, numerical analysis has also been applied to
enable readers of the research findings to ascertain the proportions of respondents expressing
particular views and hence how far they are representative of the total sample (Silverman, 1993).
Findings
Pupils’ responses
Constructions regarding the impact of teacher gender
Asked, “Do you think it makes any difference whether you have a man or a lady teacher? v”, an
overwhelming majority of the pupils (198 pupils; two-thirds of the sample) said that it does not.
Only 81 (just over a quarter) said that it does make a difference. This constitutes an extremely
clear finding that pupils do not generally see teacher gender as important or relevant, and
supports Lahelma’s (2000) findings in her Finnish research. There can be no doubt that pupils
understood the question or the concepts involved, as when asked to explain their answers the
majority of these children rejecting the idea of gender ‘making a difference’ specifically drew on
a narrative of the genders as equal and ‘the same’ (Francis 1998) to support their opinion. Their
explanations were peppered with the trope words ‘the same’, as in Saffron’s (F, Black,
Shireborne School SE) response “No, I don’t think it makes much difference, I mean, in a way,
they [male and female teachers] are just exactly the same.”
This ‘sameness’ was related to gender (as when Clarissa [F, White, Snowbourn School SE]) says
that teacher gender does not make a difference because “Men and women are the same”); and
also was applied in a common view of teachers’ overriding professional ‘sameness’ precluding
any other potential differences. As Ishaaq (M, S. Asian, Riddermark School SE) asserted, there is
“no difference” according to teacher gender “Because they still teach me the same stuff and
there’s nothing really different about them, they’re both teachers, they both teach the same
thing.” Another pupil explained that, male or female, “it’s just a teacher”. As we can see from
Ishaaq’s response, this ‘sameness’ as teachers related both to their professional identity as
‘teachers first’, and to the nature/content of their pedagogy.
This discursive construction of teachers’ occupational identities and practice rendering gender
irrelevant was articulated by the majority of children - irrespective of gender and ethnicity - who
gave explanations supporting their rejection of teacher gender as salient. It reflects the way in
which children overwhelmingly see the teacher’s purpose or ‘role’ as to teach them – the
children’s concern is with the teachers’ ability to do this effectively, rather than with what they
consider to be irrelevant factors such as gender (Lahelma, 2000). Nafeeza’s (F, Black, Buckland
School SE) response is particularly illustrative in her immediate dismissal of the ‘gender
question’ in favour of a concentration on what teachers can offer children professionally:
I:
And do you think it makes a difference whether you have a man teacher or a woman
teacher?
N:
No because both of them have the same education. You just learn education from them
because it’s not like they didn’t go to school….Say if you didn’t get education, why
would you come to be a teacher for, see? Because if you didn’t have education to teach
kids, then why would you become a teacher and teach kids? Only to play? No. Kids come
to school to learn. They come to play, they come to learn they come to see their friends,
but the thing that I think they most come [for is] to get education stuff in their brain.
Gender difference in response was slight, though girls were marginally more likely than boys to
answer that teacher gender does not make a difference (92 boys, 106 girls); and boys to argue
that it does make a difference (44 boys, 37 girls). Location appeared to have very little bearing
on responses, (40 children from London and 41 from the North East said that teacher gender
makes a difference; and 95 London children said gender does not make a difference, compared to
105 from the North East)vi. Similarly, there was little difference in response according to
ethnicity: in each ethnic group more than twice as many children said that teacher gender does
not make a difference as said it does have an impact.
Analysis of the accounts provided by the small proportion of pupils that said that teacher gender
does make a difference (and gave a reason to support this view) shows substantial diversity of
explanations. They are set out in Table 1.
Table 1 here
As Table 1 illustrates, there was very little consistency in application, either to male or female
teachers, or by male or female pupils. For example, we can see that some boys and girls
perceived male teachers to shout more, or to be kinder; and others applied these attributes to
female teachers. There are gendered trends evident in the data which support dominant gender
stereotypes (for example, that men teachers are stricter and louder, women as softer etc), but it is
important to note that these were only articulated by a tiny minority of pupils. Many pupils drew
on more than one explanation. And while some children constructed certain attributes (such as
strictness, ‘loudness’, ‘softness’ etc) as positive, others constructed them as negative, again with
no clear trends emerging according to pupil gender. It seems pertinent to note that of all these
explanations only one boy (out of 307 pupils) maintained a benefit of gender ‘matching’ in his
answer:
I:
Does it make any difference to you whether you have a man teacher or a lady teacher?
S:
Well I think sometimes man teachers, cos if you’re a boy .. I think man teachers
understand a bit more about you because they’re a boy as well.
Stephen (M, White, Trafalgar School NE)
The strong rejection of gender as a salient factor in teaching was largely maintained through the
next set of interview questions (and again in these cases there was little distinction between the
North East and London responses, or responses according to gender). Asked whether they
believed anything would be easier or better if their teacher was a different gender (‘a man’ or ‘a
lady’ respectively), two-thirds of pupils (212) answered ‘no’. Again, they drew on discourses of
equality and sameness to argue that gender has no bearing. For example, Cody (F, White,
Tuckborough School SE) says there would be nothing preferable in having a male teacher
compared to her current female teacher: “It's just like the same, except for it’s a man not a lady”.
Only a small proportion of pupils (47; 15%) said that things would be improved with a teacher of
the opposite sex. It was interesting to note that of these pupils, the largest portion were boys
maintaining things would be better with a female teacher (16 boys). The explanations provided
by these children were again diverse, and were not applied to one gender or the other with any
consistency across the sample. For example, Sadiq (M, Other, Bywater School SE) argues that if
his female teacher (who did indeed shout a great deal) was a man instead ‘she wouldn’t be
shouting that much’. Conversely, Charlie (M, White, Weathertop School SE), says that if he had
a male teacher instead of his current female teacher, “It would be easier because he might be
stricter so if people do something bad he might be shouting louder.” As with the previous
question, the children’s explanations for difference did occasionally reflect common gender
stereotypes. For example Bella (F, White, Riddermark School SE) supports her current male
teacher (Dominic) in preference for a female teacher in the following way:
E:
Well, it would if it was a female, she would be less strict, she would be, well the thing
with female teachers is they, teachers they act just like we’re five.
I:
Oh really. So they act like you were younger?
B:
Yeah. And we’re about seven or eight, I’m seven.
I:
So and do you think men teachers don’t do that so much?
B:
Yeah, cos they are a bit more strict…Dominic’s strict on times tables cos he forces us to
do the three and four times tables, but I don’t know my threes and fours but I know all the
rest of it but the ladies, they might teach us about the ones and the fives and the tens, the
easy ones. I need to know my threes and my fours.
Hence Bella presents her male teacher as more strict, rigorous and challenging than female
teachers who are portrayed as cloying and insufficiently demanding (although it is interesting
that Bella, herself female, identifies with this masculinized vision of ‘hard’, challenging
pedagogy, hence herself troubling dominant constructions of gender).
Emori (F, S. Asian, Weathertop School SE) presents a converse validation of her female teacher,
arguing that male teachers are inept:
E:
If there was a boy teacher I would always be naughty
I:
Really and why would you be naughty?
E:
Because I don't like boy teachers they sleep a lot when they are speaking if someone
speaks or reads they do this {pretends to sleep}
I:
Oh they sleep, have you seen that?
E:
Yeah I saw a supply teacher called Mr --- he came and every time he says “children read
books” and someone reads he gets his apple…{pretends to sleep}...Girl teachers are more
better than mans.
And asked whether anything would be harder or worse if their teacher’s gender was different,
165 (over half, the largest group) answered ‘no’. However, although a minority, the 92 pupils (43
boys, 49 girls) stating that it would be ‘harder’ or ‘worse’ having a teacher of the other gender
constitute a sizeable group (30%). They therefore warrant further discussion. Of these pupils,
twice as many had female teachers, so were arguing that it would be worse with a male teacher
(61, of whom 30 were boys and 31 girls). In comparison to the 31 pupils (13 boys and 18 girls)
who had a male teacher, so were arguing things would be worse with a female teacher. On the
other hand, of the 61 pupils who preferred a female teacher, half (31) had never been taught by a
male teacher, hence their perceptions were clearly not based on experience. It seems likely from
their comments that their ideas are based on stereotypes of male teachers as ‘scary’, ‘hard’ or
‘loud’, which it is possible might be challenged by greater exposure to male teachers. Indeed,
there was evidence for this in the data, as several children mentioned having assumed men
teachers would be “shouting all the time” (Melody, White, Trafalgar School NE) or “telling off”
(Helen, White, Wilton School NE), until their experience changed their perceptions (Helen says
of her male teacher “I found out that he was okay”; and Melody found “I really liked him a lot”).
Constructions of gender and pupil-teacher relations
Asked whether there are any ways in which women teachers treat girls and boys differently, 178
pupils (58%) said that there are not, again expressing narratives of equity (equal opportunity) and
meritocracy (expressed as ‘fairness’). As Shelley (F, White, Loudwater School SE) explains,
“No we all must treat the same, unless, or that would not be fair”. Karin (F, White, Riddermark
School SE) agrees, “but if they [a teacher] choose lots of girls or lots of boys, it’s only because
they’ve behaved the nicest”.
76 pupils (39 girls and 37 boys – a quarter of the sample) said that there are ways in which
women teachers treat boys and girls differently, and these perceptions tended to be based on a
belief that teachers will ‘naturally’ favour their own gender. For example, 11 pupils argued that
‘men teachers prefer boys and lady teachers prefer girls’, and a further 11 argued that women
teachers ‘treat girls nicer’ (although conversely 12 pupils maintained that women teachers treat
boys better than girls). A few pupils supported their view that teachers apply gender preference
by citing teachers’ expressed reference to gender (as a classroom management strategy or
otherwise). For example, Sadiq (M, Other, Bywater School SE) complained about the
management practices operated by a classroom assistant responsible for the children’s entry and
exit from the playground:
I:
Um, do you think there are any ways in which lady teachers behave differently with girls
or boys?
S:
Yeah, um, she, they keep saying, girls go in first.
I:
Girls go in first, what, girls go in where first?
S:
No, girls go and go in the classroom first after playtime.
I:
Okay, yes, I noticed that at playtime today. So that’s your teacher helper, the teacher
assistant, isn’t it, that, that said that to you? Does Mrs. Dunn say things like that or is it
just the helpers?
S:
Just the helpers.
I:
Just the helpers, yeah, what do you think about the girls going in first?
S:
It isn’t fair.
Such practices were also bemoaned by Nathan (M, White, Trafalgar School NE) who complains,
“it’s always ‘girls go first’ and they don’t let boys go first”. Many readers may be surprised to
see strategies such as lining pupils up separately according to ‘girls and boys’ still practised in
the primary school following the extensive critiques of such approaches in the 1980s. Yet our
interviews and classroom observations suggest that they may be re-emerging. Quite apart from
the impact such practices have on perpetuating gender difference (Francis et al, 2002), our data
vividly illustrates the sense of injustice engendered among some pupils by these approaches –
feelings which are unlikely to aid inclusion or engagement with schooling (Myhill, 2006).
Similar feelings of rejection, exclusion and injustice were expressed by other pupils in response
to teachers’ evocation of gender in other circumstances. For example, in response to the question
of whether women teachers treat boys and girls differently, Ryan (M, Black, Crickhollow School
SE) relays the circumstances of a recent official ‘boys against girls’ football match – according
to Ryan, the female teacher watching colluded with the girls’ team over an incident unobserved
by the referee. He adds resentfully that, “she didn’t cheer for the boys, she just cheered for the
girls”. Importantly, asked by the interviewer if this preferential behaviour was just exercised in
the content of the football match, Ryan replies that, “Sometimes it happens in class, sometimes it
happens in play.” This illustrates how pupils may apply what teachers see as very localised and
humorous gender differentiation to other more significant aspects of school relations. Likewise,
another boy extended the example of boys and girls being separated for PE to justify his view
that teachers treat girls and boys differently in class.
Asked whether men teachers treat boys and girls differently, there was again a strong rejection of
this idea among pupils, with 175 pupils saying they do not, and only 77 (a quarter) saying that
men teachers do treat boys and girls differently (the rest did not know or qualified their answers).
Again, the responses were very similar according to gender (e.g. 87 girls and 88 boys replied
‘no’), and it is notable how similar proportions of pupils rejected (or supported) the notion of
teacher’s gender discrimination in relation to both male and female teachers. This also held true
when analysing responses according to ethnicityvii. There was slight tendency for children from
the Newcastle sample to be more likely to reject the notion of teachers practicing gender
discrimination.
In the case of men teachers’ behaviours, pupils who argued that men teachers do treat boys and
girls differently tended to make similar arguments to those noted above in relation to female
teachers (ie that men prefer pupils of their own gender, etc). As Anton (M, White, Delving
School SE) asserts of male teachers, “If a boy’s been bad, they talk to them nicely, but if a girl’s
been bad, they might talk to her nasty”. Again, there was some indication that classroom
management practices based on gender were drawn on by children to illustrate discrimination:
Nathan (M, White, Trafalgar School NE) says of men teachers “they do boys first and then
girls”, and Fatima (F, S. Asian, Crickhollow School SE) observes that male teachers sometimes
give boys and girls different tasks to work on.
That only a quarter of our pupil sample thought that teachers treat pupils differently according to
gender again constitutes a firm rejection of the notion that ‘matching’ pupils and teachers by
gender will benefit certain groups of pupils. Moreover, it is also noticeable that of the fewer
children who did see ‘matched’ gender as impacting on classroom relations, many expressed
concern and resentment at what they saw as gender injustices, rather than celebrating the benefits
of such apparent ‘matching’ outcomes.
Teachers’ responses
Asked why policy makers claim that matching teachers and pupils by gender is important, the
vast majority of teachers related this to beliefs about ‘boys’ underachievement’ and role
modelling, demonstrating broad awareness of the argument, if not support for it. For example,
June Merriweather of Crickhollow School (SE) reflects sceptically,
“Well, boys generally seem to be underachieving and they think that would solve all the
problems, to have the male role model so that the boys, I don’t know, maybe they think the
boys don’t relate to the female teachers and, I don’t know…I can’t really think why they
would [believe that]”.
There was also speculation among a few teachers that policy makers would assume male
teachers to be “stricter and able to sort out the boys’ behaviour” (June Merriweather).
These ideas were rejected out of hand by many teachers. As Jane Grey (The Meadows School,
NE) observes, “it’s a big buzz word at the minute, boys’ achievement, they think that having a
male teacher is going to raise boys’ standards, but I don’t particularly agree with that”. Some
expressed cynicism concerning politician’s motivations for utilising such arguments (e.g to win
votes, rather than for educational benefit), and others cynicism regarding politician’s
understanding of teaching. Asked whether they themselves supported the view that matching
pupils and teachers by gender might benefit boys’ educational engagement or achievement, the
majority of teachers (26) disagreed (13 supported the view, and 12 gave inconclusive answers). It
was noticeable that women teachers were more likely to disagree with the notion of gender
matching than were men (16 of 26 women teachers; compared to 10 of 25 men).
Of those rejecting the idea that gender matching may be beneficial, the vast majority pointed to
diversity in teaching ability irrespective of gender to explain their opinion. For example, Julie
Miles (West park School, NE) argues,
“it depends on how teachers, whether they’re men or they’re women, manage behaviour and
how…what their systems are to manage any kind of challenging behaviour and I don’t think
that men manage behaviour problems any better than women teachers do. It purely depends
on the teacher.”
And Craig Elsworth (Riddermark School SE) agrees, “it depends more on the teacher I reckon
rather than what sex they are: the quality of the teacher.” Hence like the children a majority of
teacher respondents constructed (individual) teacher ability as more significant than gender.
Some teachers maintained that teachers are role models, but that this is not based on gender. As
Megan Baker of Weathertop School (SE) points out, “There are lots of factors in being a role
model. Teachers that are calm and treat their children with respect is just as important, so it’s not
just gender it’s a lot of things”.
Some teachers appeared rather more reflective about the (lack of) theorisation behind the policy
arguments than are policy makers. For example, John Longhorn (Mirkwood School SE)
ruminates that politicians are “missing the point”:
…because if we want to talk about role models, what sort of role models are you looking
for? I mean, I think there’ll be problems with just saying ‘okay, more men is going to make
it be better role models for kids’ because first you’ve got to decide who you want as role
models. Who are the kids’ role models at the moment? And they’re not necessarily, you
know, they might be men but they’re not necessarily what you want as a role model. And a
lot of the role models you do see in the pop industry and in the sports industry and that sort
of thing, you’re ending up with role models who are at the end of the day pretty sexist in
their view of life…Are you looking for somebody like that because that’s what you’re going
to get. What you need, is you need more males who have a feminist output, if you want role
models.
He maintains that the current policy drive might actually exacerbate rather than alleviate boys’
alienation from schooling by affirming to boys that their educational engagement is an issue but
failing to tackle the gender constructions upon which this is based:
The very fact that [policy makers are saying to boys] you know, “You need to see a man
there to say that you’re doing education, isn’t this a big chore for us to do?” or whatever, you
know - that’s being drilled into them [boys] through basically their entire lives, everything
they come across…it’s a stereotype you’ve got to deal with and just by putting a man there,
you’re not actually dealing with the stereotype.
Another teacher expressed concern that men teachers may support, rather than ameliorate,
stereotypical gender constructions within the school, as all the male staff in her school were
leading sports clubs.
Some female teachers expressed disquiet at the policy drive for other reasons. A few were clearly
angry and/or defensive at the discursive ‘unsaid’ of the policy (cf Foucault, 1980), that women
teachers are inadequate to engage boys. June Merriweather asserts sardonically that “I don’t
think we’re [women teachers] doing anything bad enough to need them [men] to come and take
over {laughs}”. Others observed how male teachers already tend to be promoted more quickly
and/or to be disproportionately represented in positions of power within primary education.
Luisa Perez, of Delving School (SE), spoke of a male teacher relative whose career had been
progressed very quickly: she argued that rather than focusing on teacher sex, “what the
government needs to focus on is are they employing good teachers?” Craig Elsworth
(Riddermark School, SE) spoke of the ‘bitter feeling’ he had experienced from some female
colleagues who say “You’ll be Head in 5 years”, but acknowledged himself that such perceptions
might be justified, as, “there are a lot of schools with an all female staff and they have a male
head at the top.” Brenda Upton (Heathview School, NE) observes the irony that when girls
appeared to be underachieving the policy view was “oh well it’s alright, she’s a woman, she
can’t do it”, but now that boys appear to be underachieving the government is keen to address the
issue with policies and resources (a point made by many feminists, see e.g. Epstein et al, 1998).
And additionally, several teachers (male and female) expressed concerns that Government
recruitment drives (particularly those involving financial incentives) might encourage nondedicated and/or inept personnel to teaching.
Of those thirteen teachers (a quarter of the sample) who supported the notions of gender
matching reflected in government policy, a majority articulated their belief that it was important
for boys to have male role models in order to engage them with schooling and achievement. As
Patricia Davies (Tuckborough School, SE) surmises, “Yeah, I think maybe boys, there are some
boys who don’t enjoy school, and I think perhaps there are some boys who don’t enjoy school
who would enjoy it a lot more if they had a man teacher, and perhaps that brings in the idea of
the role model.” The role model was in this perspective usually understood as an ethical template
(Allen, 2000) from which boys might learn socially and/or educationally desirable behaviour:
Because from the experience I have at this school, a lot of the boys here are underachieving,
especially the Afro-Caribbean boys and also the white indigenous [unclear], and I think that’s
partly due because they haven’t got any male role models who read, for example, or who
aspire to any other profession than a manual labour our for example. So I think that a lot of
the boys think that what we do in school is rather dull and pointless and the classes I’ve
taught that’s been a big part of why they’re not achieving to the level they should be
achieving. And having 50:50 in school would give the children role models for the boys, role
models to see themselves as learners, as readers, primarily as learners really. (Andy
Monaghan, Buckland School SE )
I think there’s something to be said for it [matching by gender], a little bit to be said for it I
guess. The children often, they get a perception of what a man is from their schooling you
know and what their role in the world and society is… Yeah, I think it’s definitely a positive
thing, so that they don’t just think that men are the strict, shouty ones who do all the really
hard work but it’s you know, that boys and males in general can be creative and…whatever
all these different kinds of maybe more fluffy kind of stuff, you know (Dave Taylor,
Cloudyhead School SE)
Dave Taylor’s response reflects the perception of some respondents that male teachers will
model broader (including stereotypically feminine) behaviours than boys are used to. Other
respondents appeared to envisage a counter scenario, where boys would respond to the ‘firm
discipline’ and authority of male teachers - for example, Ruvini Kumari (F, Rohan School SE)
maintains that “men have that authority that females don’t have somehow”.
The apparent benefits of gender matched ‘role modelling’ were applied particularly frequently to
boys from single-parent (mother-led) families (see Drudy et al, 2005). Indeed, a few teachers
who rejected the notion of gender matching referred to boys from single-parent families as
possible exceptions to their argument. Hence Ewen Griffith (Bree School, SE) says that having
so many men teachers in his school “helps the children, there’s a lot of them that don’t have
father figures apart from at school and just having a male person, it just helps calm the children
down”. Fernando Garcia (Uplands School, SE) had a handful of very challenging boys in his
class, and saw himself in a (somewhat problematic) position of role model to them:
“I come back to this role models thing…I have three (boys) in here who are tough, really
tough and I know they don’t have fathers at home and I know they die for my attention all
the time, between them, and the best way to get my attention is when I am physically holding
them back from killing one another”
Teachers such as Fernando Garcia appeared torn between the notion of gender matched role
modelling as validating their position as male teachers, and seeing themselves as being dumped
on by the government:
“I think it [the issue] is massive, I think it is huge. Especially with the breakdown of family
units. We are not paid extra to be surrogate fathers but these kids spend most of their day
with me or other male teachers and if that is going to be the only time with guidance and they
are going to look up to us then I think it is massive because no on else is going to provide it”.
These views also overlap with a perception of male bonding, which was sometimes articulated
by male teachers supporting the idea of gender match. Such responses frequently included
allusion to shared interest in sports. Indeed, this was something of a trope among our male
teacher respondents: 10 male teachers mentioned shared interest in sports as a feature of their
relationships with boys, though not always to argue that this benefited boys’ educational
engagement. Joseph Smith’s (Pitside School, NE) interview is indicative of those teachers who
did present shared interest in sport as facilitating boys’ engagement:
Mr S: I mean one of the boys is erm… a Sunderland fan and when I do the spelling tests I give
him a sentence with a context in, I make as many of them as I can being derogatory about
Sunderland
I:
{laughs} Fire him up, does it work? Does it get him going?
Mr S: Well it does a bit, he’ll give a bit banter back and a few comments back… and then you
kind of like find something that you can build up a rapport with…that particular child had
a lot of behaviour problems and he still has a lot of problems but I’ve found from when I
first started his behaviour improved dramatically
However, a few of these teachers went on to argue that male role models are important not just
for the boys, but for girls as well. Joseph Smith observes, “I think, if perhaps in their home life,
whatever the circumstances are, they might be given a very negative viewpoint of men as a
whole, you know, and if there’s somebody there that can be like a positive male figure, then you
know, I think that’s just important for the girls as it is for the boys”. Others mentioned the ability
of male teachers to challenge gender stereotypes: expressing a liking for the colour pink was
provided as an example. It was notable, though, that those teachers most animated in their
support of notions concerning role modelling and bonding between boys and male teachers were
male (possible explanations for this finding are considered in the Discussion section below).
Many teachers volunteered during their interviews that it would be beneficial to have more men
teachers in primary schooling, for reasons unrelated to the argument concerning gender
matching. This view was expressed by identical numbers of male and female teachers (15
women, 15 men). Most mentioned the advantages of a teacher workforce that presented a
balanced reflection of wider society, which would offer children examples of men and women in
different roles and show that such careers are equally open to either gender. Other teachers
argued the advantage of children being taught by both women and men. Other reasons were more
localised/pragmatic: for example, a male teacher mentioned a more relaxed, ‘jokey’ staffroom
atmosphere with more men teachers, and a female teacher mentioned male technical ability to
help with classroom equipment! A few teachers pointed out logistical challenges concerning
gender representation – adequately overseeing swimming trips involving separate changing
rooms was one example provided. A number of female teachers mentioned that for equity of
representation it would be preferable to have more male teachers, just as it would be positive to
have more women working in traditionally masculine occupations.
Discussion
The evidence from our large-scale qualitative study presents a profound challenge for current
policy on primary teacher recruitment, and to the epistemology upon which it is based. The
consistency of our findings across both pupil and teacher samples in respondents’ rejection of
gender as a salient factor in primary pupil-teacher relations, or as an issue in engaging boys in
schooling, is revealing and demands recognition from policy makers. Our data provides
overwhelming support for Lahelma (2000) and Ashley’s (2003) finding that children tend not to
perceive the gender of their teacher as salient, and Lahelma’s finding that children’s concern is
with the quality/ability of the teacher, rather than whether they are male or female (see also
Drudy et al, 2005). The consistency in responses to various questions probing the notion of
gender match provides particularly strong evidence. Further, in the minority of cases where
children believed teacher gender is salient, no single explanation emerged as primary; and
certainly no clear themes emerged in relation to enhanced pupil-teacher relations, or to support
the notion of gender match. Indeed, evidence emerged of the exclusionary impact of the use of
gender as a classroom management tool. (And evidence from our observational data reported
elsewhere demonstrates the extent to which such gendered practices are being operationalised in
primary classrooms, see Skelton et al, forthcoming). Explanations supporting gender difference
were highly disparate, and sometimes contradictory, although some gender stereotypical
constructions did emerge (see also Hutchings et al, forthcoming). Indeed, our findings that
children tend to reject teacher gender as a salient factor in pupil-teacher relations is especially
intriguing given how children can and do draw on gender discourses to construct difference in so
many other aspects of interaction.
It is possible that the framing of our questions may have provoked particular patterns of
responses. For example, one of our questions asked pupils “Do you think your teacher treats
everyone the same?”. Myhill et al (2006) asked a similar question, but fore-grounded potential
gender difference: their question was “Do you think boys and girls are treated the same?” It is
not, then, surprising that fewer of our pupil respondents alluded to gender difference in
answering the question; whereas pupils in Myhill et al’s sample were far more likely to refer to
teacher gender discrimination. On the other hand, it is also the case that we asked a raft of
questions on the same theme in different ways, sometimes including allusion to treatment of
‘girls and boys’, and still obtained results where the majority of children consistently rejected
gender difference.
One explanation for the apparent divergence between pupils’ equity-oriented or ‘gender blind’
responses regarding teacher gender, and their own gendered performances of identity, is the
strength of equity discourses that might encourage pupils and teachers to provide the notionally
‘correct’ answers to our questions. For example, that the genders are equal, or equally able (see
Davies, 1989; Francis, 1998). Research has shown the prevalence of equal opportunities
discourses within primary school, and the ways in which children can reproduce these
discourses. From a Foucauldian discourse analytical perspective (see e.g. Foucault, 1980;
Burman and Parker, 1992) such reproductions of various discourses are an inherent aspect of
human subjectivity, and these constitute subjects’ identities and meaning-making: there is no
non-discursive ‘real’, or truth, hidden below discourse. Children behave and speak in different
ways depending on the discursive environment. We would argue that the variety of ways in
which we asked questions addressing the same issue to some extent illustrates the prevalence and
consistency of gender equity discourse among primary school children. But also, and perhaps
more importantly, how a discourse of individual teacher professional ability tended to over-ride
discourses of gender difference or inequality. The pupils’ rejection of the salience of teacher
gender most often appeared to reflect the prioritisation of this discursive theme of individual
professional ability. This may perhaps be explained by the strength of individualist and
meritocratic discourses, which analysts of neoliberalism have identified as central to neoliberal
themes which locate responsibility for social outcomes with individuals and individual ability,
rather than with social structures (such as gender) (see e.g. Rose, 1999; Bauman, 2005).
This notion of competing discursive productions relating to teacher ability and gender demands
further consideration. Davies (1989) argued that ‘equal opportunities’ discourses can never
challenge the gender dualism; premised as they are in a notion of genders as ‘equal but
different’. In this model ‘freedom of choice’ (and responsibility for asserting such choice) is
located in the individual subject, and hence such narratives are unable to disrupt the dominant
discursive constructions of gender as relational and power as located in the masculine. However,
Francis (1998) showed how a small number of children in her study were able to draw on a
discourse of gender equality (in which the genders were presented as equal or the same) to
maintain constructions consistently resistant to dominant gender norms. Our pupil respondents’
construction of teachers’ gender identity as submerged by their professional identity and function
maintains a discursive production of teachers as de-gendered, and in some cases children’s
consistent application of the discursive construction of male and female teachers as ‘the same’
may constitute an agentic rejection of gender difference. However, in many cases this
‘degendering’ of teachers may reflect pupils’ limited understandings of teachers’ pedagogical
practices, and their innocent belief in the fairness of systems, rather than necessarily illustrating
how gender does not impact on classroom relations (Skelton et al, forthcoming).
Nevertheless, that children tend not to see gender as salient offers a challenge to the ‘common
sense’ assumption that biological sex informs boys’ relationship with their teachers, and
consequently with their engagement with schooling. It remains possible that they do feel
alienated by their teachers, and/or relate to them in ways that are patterned by gender, but
crucially most children do not see gender as important or relevant in these regards. From the
policy assumptions and arguments forwarded by some commentators we could assume that
gender would be prioritised by children, and that gendered patterns would emerge regarding
preference for teachers of ‘matched’ gender, yet this has clearly not been the case in our
research.
Teachers were well aware of the policy onus on recruitment of male teachers, and the rationale
behind it. However, like their pupils, the majority of teachers rejected the notion of matched
pupil-teacher gender as salient in teacher-pupil relationships, and the rationale upon which the
policy drive to recruit male teachers is based; maintaining instead that individual teacher abilities
have the greatest bearing on engaging pupils. Only a quarter of teachers in our sample supported
the arguments on which the policy rests, and in some cases these respondents related the benefits
of ‘gender matching’ only to boys from single-parent (mother-led) families. However, these
(mainly male) teachers did reiterate arguments utilised by policy makers concerning male role
modelling and bonding to support their perceptions. As we saw above, men were more likely
than their female colleagues to support the notion of gender matching pupils and teachers (nine
men, and only four women, did so). We suggest two possible explanations for the greater support
of the idea among male teachers. Firstly, the policy drive is more affirming to men teachers than
to women (asserting that more of the latter are needed due to their ability to engage boys, and
hence implicitly undermining the abilities of women in this regard). It might be argued, then, that
women teachers are more invested in rejecting the notion of gender match, and men teachers
more invested in supporting it. Secondly, and related to the first explanation, this positive view
of the male teacher role, and the associated masculine discourses of bonding, paternity and
authority, may be utilised by male teachers to construct themselves as masculine and as valid in
their roles as primary school teachers. Much work has documented the public perception of
primary teaching as feminine, and the impact of this construction on male primary teachers’
gender identities (e.g. Skelton, 2001; Oyler et al, 2001). Research has suggested that some male
teachers respond by positioning themselves in ways that reassert their masculinity (Skelton,
2001; Connolly, 1995; 2004; Martino and Frank, 2006). Identification with policy drives that
affirm masculinity in primary teaching might then constitute a further resource in male teachers’
identity work.
The overwhelming rejection of matching pupil-teacher gender as a beneficial aspect in classroom
relations on the part of our pupil and teacher respondents, confirming and supported by findings
from qualitative and quantitative international research on this topic, should cause policy makers
to reconsider the rationale on which their current approach to teacher recruitment is based. In
particular, we would suggest that policy makers ought to reflect on the exclusionary and
debilitating impact of such policy discourses on women teachers. These teachers are devalued in
‘gender match’ arguments as unable to sufficiently engage with, or relate to boys, in spite of a
lack of presented evidence to support these claims. As we have seen, the responses of many of
the women teachers in our study reflected their frustration and wounded feelings regarding the
implicit message given to them by these policy arguments. Our findings suggest that the current
attention to biological sex might be best replaced by investigation of the diverse ways in which
gender is performed by teachers and pupils in the classroom, and the impact on educational
engagement and learning.
References:
ALLEN, A. (2000) The role model argument and faculty diversity. Available:
http://onlineethics.org/abstracts/fac-diverse.html
ARCHER, L. & FRANCIS, B. (2006) Understanding Minority Ethnic Achievement: Race,
gender, class and ‘success’ (London: Routledge).
ASHLEY, M. & LEE (2003) Women Teaching Boys, Stoke-on-Trent: Trentham Books.
BRYMAN, A. (2001) Social Research Methods (Oxford: Oxford University Press).
BUCKINGHAM, D. (1993) Children Talking Television (London: Falmer).
BURMAN, E. & PARKER, I. (1992) Discourse Analytical Research (London: Routledge).
CARRINGTON, B. (2002) Ethnicity, “Role Models” and Teaching, Journal of Research in
Education, 2002, 12 (1) 1-10.
CARRINGTON, B. & SKELTON, C. (2003) Re-thinking ‘Role Models’: Equal Opportunities in
Teacher Recruitment in England and Wales, Journal of Education Policy, 18(3): 1-13.
CARRINGTON, B., TYMMS, P. & MERRELL, C. (2005) Role models, school improvement
and the ‘gender gap’ - Do men bring out the best in boys and women the best in girls? Paper
presented to the European Association for Research on Learning and Instruction, University of
Nicosia. Available: http://www.cemcentre.org/news/
COLLEY, H. (2001) Righting re-writings of the myth of mentor, British Journal of Guidance
and Counselling, 29 (2) 177-198.
COLLEY, H. (2003) Engagement Mentoring for ‘Disaffected’ Youth: a new model of mentoring
for social inclusion, British Educational Research Journal, 29: 521-542.
COLLINS et al (2000)
CONNELL, R. (1987) Gender and Power, Cambridge: Polity.
CONNOLLY, P. (1995) Boys will be boys? Racism, sexuality and the construction of masculine
identities among infant boys, in J. Holland and M. Blair (eds) Equality and difference: Debates
and Issues in Feminist Research and Pedagogy (Clevedon: Multilingual Matters).
CONNOLLY, P. (1998) Racism, Gender Identities and Young Children, London: Routledge.
CONNOLLY, P. (2004) Boys and Schooling in the Early Years, London: RoutledgeFalmer.
DAVIES, B. (1989) Frogs and Snails and Feminist Tales (Sydney, Allen & Unwin).
DAVIES, B. (1993) Shards of Glass (Sydney, Allen & Unwin).
DEE, T. (2006) reported in ‘Boys and Girls Do Better at School When Taught by Their Own
Sex, The Daily Mail, 31/8/06.
DRUDY, S., MARTIN, M. Woods, M. & O’Flynn, J. (2005) Men and the Classroom: Teachers
in Today’s Primary Schools (London: Routledge).
EHRENBERG, R. G., Goldhaber, D. D., & Brewer, D. J. (1995). Do teachers' race, gender, and
ethnicity matter? Evidence from the National Education Longitudinal Study of 1988, Industrial
and Labor Relations Review, 48, 547-561.
EPSTEIN, D. Elwood, J. Hey, V. and Maw, J. (1998) Schoolboy frictions: feminism and ‘failing
boys’, in D. Epstein, J. Elwood, V. Hey and J. Maw (eds) Failing Boys? Buckingham, Open
University Press.
FOUCAULT, M. (1980) Power/Knowledge: Selected Interviews and Other Writings 1972-1977
(New York: Pantheon).
FRANCIS, B. (1998) Power Plays: Children’s Constructions of Gender, Power & Adult Work
(Stoke-on-Trent, Trentham Books).
FRANCIS B. (1999) Lads, Lasses and (New) Labour: 14-16 year old student’ responses to the
‘laddish behaviour and boys’ underachievement’ debate, British Journal of Sociology of
Education, 20: 357-373.
FRANCIS, B. (2000) Boys, Girls and Achievement: Addressing the Classroom Issues, (London,
Routledge/Falmer).
FRANCIS, B. & SKELTON, C. (2001) Men teachers’ constructions of masculinity in the
classroom, Sex Education, 1 (1) 1-17.
FRANCIS, B., SKELTON, C. & ARCHER, L. (2002) A Systematic review of Classroom
Strategies for Reducing Stereotypical gender Constructions Among Girls and Boys in Mixed-sex
UK Primary Schools (London: EPPI-Centre, SSRU, Institute of Education).
FRANCIS, B. & SKELTON, C. (2005) Reassessing Gender and Achievement, London:
Routledge.
HUTCHINGS, M. (2002) A representative profession? Gender issues, in: M and J.
HALLGARTEN (eds) From Victims of Change to Agents of Change: The Future of the
Teaching Profession. London: IPPR.
HUTCHINGS, M., Skelton, C., Francis, B., Carrington, C., Read, B. (under review).
GILLBORN, D. & MIRZA, H. (2000) Educational Inequality: Mapping Race, Class and
Gender (London, HMI).
LAHELMA, E. (2000). Lack of male teachers: A problem for students or teachers? Pedagogy,
Culture and Society, 8 (2) 173-85.
LEWIS, A. & LINDSAY, G. (2000) Researching Children’s Perspectives (Buckingham, Open
University Press).
MARTIN, A. & MARSH, H. (2005) Motivating boys and motivating girls: Does teacher gender
really make a difference? Australian Journal of Education, 49 (3) 320-334.
MARTINO, W. & FRANK, B. (2006) The tyranny of surveillance: Male teachers and the
policing of masculinities in single sex schools, Gender and Education, 18 (1) 17-33.
MYHILL, D. & JONES, S. (2006) ‘She Doesn’t Shout at No Girls’ Cambridge Journal of
Education, 36 (1) 99-113.
OYLER, C., JENNINGS, G. & LOZADA, P. (2001) Silenced gender: the construction of a male
primary educator, Teaching and Teacher Education, 17, 367-379.
RIDDELL, S. (1989) Polities and the Gender of the Curriculum. London: Routledge
ROBSON, C. (2002) Real World Research, 2nd ed. (London: Blackwell).
SILVERMAN, D. (1993) Interpreting Qualitative Data (London, Sage).
SKELTON, C. (2001) Schooling the Boys: Masculinities and Primary Education (Buckingham,
Open University Press).
SKELTON, C. (2002) The ‘Feminisation of Schooling’ or ‘Re-masculinising Primary
Education? International Studies in Sociology of Education, 12 (1) 77-96.
SKELTON, C., Francis, B., Carrington, B., Hutchings, C., Read, B. & Hall, I. (under review)
‘Boy Teachers’ and ‘Girl Teachers’: pupils’ perceptions and experiences of classroom practices.
SMEDLEY, S. (1999) Don’t Rock the Boat’: Men student teachers’ understanding of gender and
equality. Paper presented at BERA ’99, University of Sussex,2nd Sep.
SOKAL, L., Katz, H. Sych-Yereniuk, A., Chochinov-Harder, L., Adkins, M., Grills, T., Stewart,
C. & Priddle, G. (2005) Male Reading Teachers: Effects on Inner-city Boys (SSHRCC).
THORNTON M. & BRICHENCO, P. (2002) Staff Gender Balance in Primary Schools. Paper
presented at BERA 2002, University of Exeter, 12-14 Sep.
TEACHER DEVELOPMENT AGENCY (2005) News Release: Parents Call for More male
Primary Teachers, 13/10/05. http://www.tda.gov.uk/about/mediarelations/2005/20051013.aspx
TEACHER TRAINING AGENCY (2003) Corporate Plan, Available online:
http://www.tta.gov.uk/about/reports/corp-op-plan/index.htm
Table 1. Children’s Explanations as to Why Teacher Gender makes a Difference
EXPLANATION
No. of
girls
No of
boys
Total using
explanation
Men teachers shout more
Men teachers are stricter/tougher
Men teachers are kinder/nicer
Men teachers are funny
Men teachers are louder
Men teachers are more challenging
I don’t like ladies/girls
Men teachers are scary
Men teachers are better at sorting out problems
Men teachers are more sneaky than women
Men teachers do more sport
Men teachers don’t shout at girls
Men teachers teach more things
Men teachers understand more about boys
Their voices/bodies/hair/clothes are different
Women teachers are good / ‘gooder’better?
Women teachers are kinder/nicer
Women teachers are more encouraging and fun
Women teachers are softer
Women teachers are stricter
Women teachers shout more
6
3
2
1
1
0
0
1
1
0
0
1
0
0
5
0
2
1
0
0
1
5
3
2
2
2
3
2
1
0
1
1
0
1
1
1
2
1
0
2
3
1
11
6
4
3
3
3
2
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
6
2
3
1
2
3
2
i
Previously the Teacher Training Agency (TTA)
Of course, the extent of ‘boys’ underachievement’ remains controversial and contested. The point that
social class and ethnicity continue to have a greater impact than gender as predictors of achievement for the
vast majority of pupils in Britain (Gillborn & Mirza, 2000; Francis & Skelton, 2005; Archer & Francis,
2006) has led many researchers to adopt the ‘Which Boys? Which Girls’ approach to gender and
achievement advocated by Collins et al (2000). For further detailed analysis of issues pertaining to gender
and achievement see Francis & Skelton (2005).
iii
It is not our intention to suggest that gender is more important than, or can be simplistically
separated from, other issues (such as age, social class, ethnicity and so on). However, our aim is to
discover whether or not there are any bases for the popular assumptions that we discuss here.
ii
iv
Phrasing questions in ways that children are able to understand was challenging, particularly with respect
to some of the complex issues discussed in this paper. The interview schedule was be designed in
consultation with teachers, and piloted with children, in order to ensure maximum clarity (Connolly, 1997;
Lewis & Lindsay, 2000).
v
We adopted the term ‘lady teacher’ in keeping with the terminology used by children during our piloting
phase.
vi
As in the case of other questions, some pupils did not respond to our question.
vii
Between half to two-thirds of pupils from each analysable ethnic group rejected the idea of male or
female teachers treating pupils differently according to gender, with the exception of Black girls and boys
in relation to male teachers - only 27 of 57 Black pupils thought male teachers would not discriminate by
gender.