Educating Boys: getting some of it right

During October 2002, the Commonwealth House of Representatives Standing Committee on Education and Training released its long awaited and anticipated report on the inquiry into the education of boys, Boys: Getting it right.

The Inquiry was a response to recent debates on girls' and boys' achievement and concerns expressed by some about the education of boys. Its stated aims were to examine evidence of boys' disengagement from formal learning and the educational under-achievement of boys, and to evaluate strategies being used in schools to address these areas. For some commentators, the boys' education agenda provides a conduit for anti-feminist beliefs and the denigration of the teaching profession more generally and unfortunately recent media around the release of the report has focussed on this. There were 231 written submissions to the Inquiry and 235 witnesses appeared before the Committee. The AEU Federal Office in consultation with Branches and Associated Bodies made a submission and appeared at the public hearings during 2000. The report was started when Dr David Kemp was Federal Minister for Education and some suggest the moderate tone of report reflects the leadership of Brendan Nelson the current Federal Education Minister.

The Committee's conclusion that many of the concerns about boys' education are justified and that these are not being adequately addressed within current frameworks is one which the QTU would challenge and one that is not largely reflected in the recommendations of the report. Many of the assumptions and much of the body of the report the QTU would challenge but some of the recommendations of the Committee the QTU would support. It is disappointing to see that the analysis in the report is largely of "boys" and doesn't differentiate between different boys. Key determinants of success such as socioeconomic status, parental education level and aspirations for their child, ethnicity, geographical location and access to education are commented upon in a cursory manner. The defining a whole group of boys or a whole group of girls is simplistic at best. This poor analysis creates simplistic reactionary 'solutions'. These include the removal of targeted strategies for girls and their replacement with more general strategies for boys. Most strikingly the issues for Aboriginal students, perhaps the students most in "crisis", have been dealt with in a very small section and are not seen as significant enough to warrant special consideration.

The Committee recognised, that many schools and individual teachers are helping both boys and girls to achieve excellent outcomes - a position asserted strongly by the QTU. In addition, the Committee is careful to point out in drawing its conclusions that the aim of the educational system must be to maximise the achievement of all students - again a position the QTU would support strongly.

The QTU believes that the issue of boys' education is not a battle between "competing victims". Gender equity in education is about improving educational outcomes for both boys and girls. The QTU sees boys' and girls' needs as intertwined, parallel priorities. Efforts to improve educational outcomes for boys could be undertaken, says the Committee, without threatening the gains made by girls in recent decades. This is a proposition consistently expressed by the QTU.

The four areas addressed within the structure of the report, with a number of recommendations attached to each are:

• labour market, social and policy change;
• curriculum and pedagogy;
• literacy and numeracy, and;
• schools, teachers and role models.

The report begins by considering school and post-school outcomes for boys. While acknowledging that the question 'which boys and which girls' is a valid one, the report contends that boys are underachieving compared to girls in almost every socio-economic group.

International research such as the Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA) an initiative of the OECD challenges this finding. SES and gender together are still a powerful combination and the Committee's simple assertion does not give a true picture of students' achievements in Australia.

The Committee's first recommendation seeks to have MCEETYA revise Gender Equity: A Framework for Australian Schools. The QTU does not support such a proposition as the document was written at a particular point in time and many of the key objectives of this document have still not been achieved. Should new guidelines need to be written to encompass the Committee's recommendations this should be done, but not by rewriting history.

Many of the recommendations in relation to teacher training and professional development the QTU would support but draw attention to the fact that the Committee seems to place the major onus for this "crisis" with teachers and the educational system without taking into account the broader role of parents, the community and the government.

In the area of curriculum and pedagogy, there is a recommendation that a major focus of preservice and inservice teacher education should be on better preparing teachers to develop balanced, effective and practical teaching strategies that will enable them to work with the differences and commonalties in the learning styles of boys and girls.