Boys in schools: how to lift their game

The inquiry into the education of boys was referred to the Standing Committee on Education and Training because of growing community concerns about the relative underachievement of boys and the apparent growing disparity between the achievement of boys and girls, in school education particularly, and concerns that social and economic changes over the past two decades have more adversely affected boys in education than girls. Having said that, though, we acknowledge that not all girls have coped well with these changes and that policies already in practice have not always worked to the benefit of girls either. But the focus of this report is on the education of boys.

The evidence presented to this committee clearly confirms these concerns that many have felt. On almost any indicator, boys are not doing as well in school as girls. On measures of literacy, for instance, in the year 2000, at year 3 level, there is a 3.4 per cent difference between the achievement of boys and girls in reaching national benchmark figures. At year 5 the difference grows to 4.4 per cent. An ACER research project shows that, for 14-year-olds, the difference in achieving literacy levels has grown between 1975 and 1995-over those 20 years-from three per cent fewer boys achieving a satisfactory level to a deficit of eight per cent. On many other measures the same problem exists. On school retention rates, from the position some years back of having equal retention rates, we now have 66 per cent of boys completing year 12 and 78 per cent of girls completing year 12, with the implications of school retention rates having a bearing on long-term employment prospects.

While there are some variations across the states in year 12 Higher School Certificate tertiary entrance results, in 80 to 90 per cent of the subjects, boys are underachieving compared to girls. In New South Wales in 1981 boys and girls roughly achieved the same Higher School Certificate tertiary entrance score. The difference has grown to the point that, in 1996, there was a 19.4 difference in total score between the achievement of girls and the achievement of boys. Fifty-six per cent of new university enrolments are now girls and only 44 per cent of new university enrolments are boys. Eighty per cent of students suspended from school are boys and only 20 per cent are girls. On almost any indicator, boys' achievements at school raise some concerns and these concerns need to be addressed.

The big question is why are there these changes? Why is it that boys are underachieving? Many views were put to the committee: social and economic changes, changes to family structure, increased work force involvement of both parents and possibly underparenting, media stereotyping of males that has promoted too narrow or negative an image of men, the feminisation of the teaching work force, changes to curriculum and pedagogy, changing assessment methods, a mismatch between the school environment and the changing social needs of adolescents – particularly boys. Many views were put to the committee. It is true to say that most of these reasons, perhaps all of these in some way, contribute. There is no single cause for the growing underachievement of boys. But just as there is no single cause, there is no single, simple solution. As the causes are complex, we need a multifaceted policy approach to deal with these issues.

In our report we have made 24 recommendations covering a range of these areas to try to lift the achievement of boys. I would like to focus on the three or four crucial ones.

The first is about our whole approach to the gender equity framework. The committee has recommended that the current gender equity framework be revised and recast to more appropriately consider the needs of boys and girls, to more effectively deal with both needs. It is quite true that the gender equity framework had appropriately, at the time, addressed issues of inequity that had arisen in the community, but in doing so we believe that it had become too narrowly focused and was not adequately focusing on the needs of boys in particular. In fact, at times it expressed the needs of boys in negative terms as to how they might impact on girls.

So the committee recommends that this framework be recast to focus on the positive goals of knowledge, skills, attitudes and values that we want all students – boys and girls – to achieve while they are in school. It will carry an equal focus on the needs of boys and girls so that equally we can direct boys and girls and assist them in achieving those goals and objectives of education. Further, we recommend that the achievement of boys and girls in education be evaluated against those goals that are summed up in the 1999 Adelaide declaration on education agreed to by all Commonwealth, state and territory ministers.

The second area of recommendation regards educational programs and pedagogy, that is the teaching – what actually happens in the classroom. There are three key areas of concern here. The first is that learning styles of girls and boys are not the same. I know that there are some girls who learn in the same way as most boys and there are some boys who learn in the same way as most girls, but it is clear that there are differences in the way that most girls and boys learn. Boys need more structure, they need more clearly defined instructions and they need more explicit teaching. They tend to prefer a more analytical approach rather than a verbal and linguistic approach.

The second area of concern regarding curriculum and pedagogy is the need to raise literacy levels. The implications of inadequate literacy are profound. Inadequacy in literacy is the key indicator of the tendency to leave school early. Inadequacy in literacy has a major impact on employment prospects, short-term and long-term. The committee is of the view that much more needs to be done to address literacy needs, particularly the literacy needs of boys. The third area deals with behaviour management, particularly in motivating and encouraging disengaged boys.

For this reason the committee recommends, first, that at the pre-service teacher training level much more focus is put into equipping teachers to come out as skilled practitioners. This is so that they come out with the ability to actually teach literacy and numeracy, to manage behavioural issues and to be able to address the different learning styles – and the common learning styles – of boys and girls. Second, the committee recommends that a much greater focus takes place on these areas of in-service professional development – that Commonwealth and state governments jointly raise their funding for professional development to assist teachers to better meet these needs in the class. Third, we have made some recommendations to assist parents in those very formative preschool years to be able to address these key areas of need.

The third area where the committee has made some recommendations is in equipping teachers to be better able to do their job in the classroom. The importance of quality teachers cannot be underestimated. It does not matter how many resources go into schools and it does not matter what our educational curricula are; if we do not have quality, committed teachers then we badly let down our children – boys and girls.

We need to do more. We have recommended that states and territories consider substantially raising salaries for experienced and skilled practitioners to keep them in the classroom. We have recommended that the Commonwealth government do its part by providing a substantial number of teaching scholarships in equal numbers to men and women, to encourage quality candidates into the classroom. These scholarships should be allocated on the basis of merit and in conjunction with a range of other personal attributes that we recommend be considered in encouraging people to enter into teacher training.

It is critical that we address these issues for the sake of the boys themselves and for the sake of our community, and so that all of our children, boys and girls, achieve to the maximum of their ability. I want to thank the 235 witnesses, the 231 people who made submissions, my colleagues on both sides of the House who have a passionate commitment to the welfare of our students – boys and girls – in our schools, and to the committee secretariat and particularly James Rees, who worked so hard on this report. I also want to thank all of the teachers around our country who labour tirelessly, day in and day out, for the welfare of our students-boys and girls.