Transcript What About the Boys - Alberta Teachers' Association

“What about the
boys?”
Reconsidering gender
equitable education
Janice Wallace
Educational Policy Studies
University of Alberta
[email protected]
 Why now?
 Which boys?
 What are the strategies that
have been tried?
 Where should we go from here?
Why now?
 Growing attention to high stakes
standardized tests
 Media attention to “failing” and
“disadvantaged” boys increases
political pressure to act
 Growing attention to high stakes
standardized tests
Media attention to “failing” and
“disadvantaged” boys increases political
pressure to act
 Does not recognize that boys have
not being doing well in literacy
measures relative to girls for decades
(e.g. Stanchfield, 1973)…nor that
reading scores for both boys
and girls have been improving
overall.
Influential theories
Traditional…
 “war” against boys
 “toxic” gender
roles
 biological brain
differences
 failure to produce
“real men”
Critical…traditional
theories are
 strategies of the
right and economic
interests to
naturalize
preferred ways of
being a boy
 do not explore the
complexity of boys’
lives/multiple ways
of being
Questions to consider…
 Who is best prepared to work with boys?
 What do we understand about forms of
masculinity?
 What forms of masculinity are preferred
and why?
 Whose interests are served by preferred
forms of masculinity?
 How are these forms linked to
particular social, political, ideological,
and economic interests?
Which boys?
 Traditional arguments that are shaping
changes in school practices portray all
boys as “an undifferentiated group of
‘underachievers’, who are all victims of
their own biology” (Greig, 2003, p. 39) or
feminism, or liberal parenting or…the list
goes on.
 BUT research tells us that it is particular
boys who are less likely to succeed
 “Race and social class have a greater
impact on achievement than gender.”
(Weaver-Hightower, 2005)
 “In high migrant density working-class suburbs in
western Melbourne, for instance, one in three
boys could expect to fail university-accredited
English if he chose to take it, compared with an
anticipated failure rate for girls of one in five.
And yet boys from the wealthy inner east
suburbs do better than groups of girls from
working-class and rural areas, their results
being exceeded only by girls from similar socioeconomic backgrounds”
(Gilbert & Gilbert, 1998)
The sons of doctors, accountants and
other professionals will continue to make
it into university. But Coulter points out
that in the past, people didn't worry much
about the boys of working class families
because in so many cases, as soon as they
were old enough and strong enough, they
joined their fathers working in factories.
But as unskilled jobs dwindle, opportunities
for boys to leave high school and land good
jobs that provide a foundation for the
future are becoming rare. More parents
are pinning their children's future on them
getting a university education.
(Rebecca Coulter in London Free Press,
Saturday, October 29, 2005, accessed on-line)
…Gay boys and boys with disabilities
have profoundly different experiences
of school than heterosexual and nondisabled students. […] If researchers are
not careful and nuanced in their
examination of the issues, they may
misrecognize disadvantages as affecting
all boys, when really boys who are white,
heterosexual, able-bodied, middle class,
and traditionally masculine tend – on
average – to do quite well. For boys of
color (e.g., Ferguson, 2000; Sewell, 1997)
and gay boys (e.g., Friend, 1993), however,
the conditions are much more grim.
(Weaver-Hightower, 2005)
Changing definitions of literacy…
 Blair and Sanford (2004) argue,
traditional definitions of literacy do not
factor in the forms of technological
literacy in which many boys engage
outside the classroom. It could be, they
argue, that some boys have moved on to
other forms of literacy that are not
privileged in the classroom but with
which they exhibit higher levels of
competency than girls.
What are the strategies
that have been tried?
 “Boy friendly” books
 Technology and boys
 Increase the number of male
teachers and male role models
 Single sex settings
What about “boy friendly” books?
 essentializes boys – i.e., suggests that all
boys prefer action-oriented or information
books and no boys like to read poetry or
fiction
 does not recognize that differences
between boys and boys, and girls and girls
are just as significant as those between
boys and girls *
 considers only the interests of traditional
notions of masculinity and does not at all
consider the affirmation and expression of
other ways of ‘doing’ masculinity.
“boy friendly” books continued…
 “…perpetuates a rigid binary between
fixed gender identities.” (Greig,
2003, p. 43)
 may valorize violence or physical
aggressiveness without questioning
these behaviors as normative for
males.
 females and non-traditional males
may be alienated and boys may not be
encouraged to explore multiple
ways of being
Technology and boys…
 Technology is not neutral pedagogical
terrain
 Pedagogy often perpetuates narrowly
defined masculine norms to the
exclusion of females and multiple
expressions of masculinity.
 Schools may actually be perpetuating
inequity at the same time that they
are pursuing it.
Increase the number of male
elementary teachers and male
role models…
 “Studies designed to support these ideas
provide little support.” Instead, “boys who
have male teachers do not have fewer
problems in school and are not better
adjusted than other boys.” (Coulter &
McNay, 1995)
 Presumes a homogenous category that
does not recognize the many performances
of masculinity that a male teacher may
bring with him to the classroom
 There are a complex set of interrelated economic, social, and political
factors that are at play in the choices
males and females make when
considering a career in education.
 Males contemplating teaching
positions that are most stereotypically
attached to female interests are
caught between the feminized
expectations for working with young
children, traditional masculine ideals,
and unchallenged homophobia that fuel
fears about men working with
young children. *
…Male and female teachers working
together need to foster more
reflective dialogue and debates
regarding the construction of gender.
It means men and women, through
conversations and dialogue with
students to raise awareness and
promote discussions about acceptable
male behaviour, must raise critical
questions about the performance of
gender, challenge the privileged
position of hegemonic masculinity, and
create safe, equitable places for all
students. (Greig, 2003)
Single sex schooling
 Is immediately pro-active, therefore
politically desirable
 Associated with a long history of
prestigious male institutions
 BUT there is no significant advantage
according to research
 May respond to perceptions that boys are
more talkative and active with “stricter
discipline, a competitive atmosphere, and
more physical activities.”
 strategy may negate the very male
characteristics they have been set
up to accommodate
 may further marginalize boys who
are already not succeeding because
they do not fit into traditional male
behaviours
 may reinforce the very behaviours
that do not serve boys well in
school.
Where should we go from here?
 We have a moral obligation to act in the
best interests of all students
 We need to act…but wisely rather than
precipitously
“There is no one simple solution, no ‘tips
for teachers’ (Lingard et al., 2002) that
can ‘fix’ boys. Nor do all boys need ‘fixing’”
(Weaver-Hightower, 2003).
“Find out which boys are truly in
need, find out what their
problems are and what the roots
of the problems are, and develop
smart, non-stereotypical ways to
help boys live in a world that
demands masculinity to be
reconceptualized as something
more inclusive” (WeaverHightower, 2003).
Politicians, school administrators and parents
need to listen to what boys have to say about
education. If they did, he says they'd learn that
boys aren't yearning for more action-packed
reading materials or more male teachers. "It's
what the teacher actually does in the classroom"
that makes the difference for boys, Martino
says.
He said student success comes from the
capacity of a teacher to engage students in
learning, how well teachers of either gender
explain and how well they listen. (Helen Connell
quoting Wayne Martino (UWO),London Free
Press, Saturday, October 29, 2005)
Strategies to consider…
 Encourage in your students a
sense of competence, control,
and challenge
 Design literacy tasks that have a
clear and immediate purpose
 Respond to students personally
and with genuine interest
 Encourage students to develop selfefficacy through allowing them to
have some control of the knowledge
they acquire
 Allow for inquiry based learning,
individual choice, and accommodation
of students’ interests
 Make learning relevant to real life
contexts
In other words, excellent teaching
strategies work for boys and for
other students in your class!
 Promote dialogue, model, and act in ways
that affirm genuine and multiple
possibilities for young boys (Greig, 2003)
 In English classes, add explicit attention
to boys’ emotional vocabulary
 Use critical literacy strategies
 Develop action research projects to
develop a deeper understanding of how
particular boys are taking up literacy
strategies (Weaver-Hightower,
2005)
“Basing plans … on deep
knowledge of the particular
students and contexts, we can as
a profession, avoid entrenching
harmful versions of masculinity,
wasting time on … gimmicks, and
… rolling back the gains of girls.”
(Weaver-Hightower, 2005)