The inquiry into educating boys: getting it right some of the time

The third theme is teacher training. The report makes the point that effective teaching is paramount in delivering good educational outcomes, and that teacher education must therefore be practical, of high quality and responsive to the needs of all children.

All of these recommendations make good sense and can be implemented almost immediately. Others, such as a call for an unconditional increase in teacher salaries and a reduction in class sizes, are ill-considered and impractical.

There are certainly good reasons for teachers to be better paid, but salary increases should be tied to performance, to on-going education that enhances teaching, and to the contribution teachers make to their school. That is, good teachers should be better paid, not all teachers.

As for class size, there is no conclusive evidence of a relationship between class size and learning. The research most frequently invoked as showing that smaller classes have lasting benefits — Project STAR in Tennessee — suffers from a fundamental methodological flaw, known as the ‘Hawthorne Effect’, that renders it meaningless. In Project STAR, teachers and students were aware that they were part of a study of class sizes and had a vested interest in ensuring that smaller classes had better results. That is, it is impossible to conclude that the better learning in smaller classes was due to smaller class size, not the greater effort of teachers in those classes.

There is also a question of efficiency. Class size reduction comes at enormous expense, which includes not just the cost of more teachers and their education, but more classrooms and more classroom resources. Given the equivocal findings on the benefits of class size, it is arguable that spending money in different ways, such as on teacher education and training or curriculum resources would achieve superior results.

That the report finds in favour of higher teacher pay and smaller class sizes is perhaps not so surprising. After all, it is state and territory governments budgets, not the Commonwealth’s, that would be affected. What is most surprising is the way the report deals with the role of families in the education of boys.

In 1998, another Commonwealth parliamentary inquiry, To Have and To Hold, concluded that two-parent families conferred benefits on their children beyond the advantage of higher average income. Likewise, in the inquiry into the education of boys, a number of submissions demonstrated that changes in family structure and stability are involved in the decline in boys’ educational achievement. Research and anecdotal evidence of a link between increasing numbers of single parent families and educational problems among boys was provided.

It would perhaps be understandable if the inquiry found that the evidence was convincing but argued that family instability was beyond the scope of the report. Instead, however, the report rejects outright the relationship between family structure and stability and boys’ education, claiming that ‘characteristics such as low parental education and low income that are more prevalent in single-parent families but have the same negative effects on children when they are present in two-parent families’ (3.22) are responsible for any differences in educational outcomes, not the fact that one of the child’s parents is absent, usually the father.

The report denies that family structure is important, yet makes the following statement about father absence: ‘The absence of fathers in many families … has raised concerns about the under-fathering of children, which is held by some to be particularly detrimental to boys. This is a generally accepted, but not thoroughly researched, view that is supported by the anecdotal evidence’ (3.32). The report then provides quotes from people working with at-risk boys and a school principal supporting this view. When around 90 per cent of single-parent families are mother-headed, it is hard to see how single parenthood and father absence can be construed as two completely different things.

Furthermore, the report later emphasizes boys’ need for positive male role models and the importance of involving fathers in schools. "Both boys and girls will benefit from the involvement and encouragement of their fathers as well as their mothers"’(6.111) and "… men can bring something different in addition to what is there and … their presence can be beneficial" (6.112).

The identification of a group who are not performing as well as comparable groups is not necessarily a naming and blaming process. In this case, it is not intended as an attack on single parents or their children. As US researcher Carl Bankston has said, "it is a mistake to view the consequences of family structure as a matter of apportioning blame". Rather, it is necessary to identify groups at risk of disadvantage in order to target assistance effectively. It behoves us to acknowledge where a problem exists, controversial or not, so that fewer children suffer disadvantage as a result. The inquiry into the education of boys has failed in this regard.

This brings us back to a point alluded to earlier. It was disappointing that the inquiry couched the significance of boys’ education in terms only of employment prospects and earning potential. These things are, of course, important, but it is a shame to portray education in such a narrow way.

Boys deserve an education that introduces them to knowledge and learning for their own sake, that enables them to participate fully in their community and society, and to appreciate and enjoy the products of their culture and others — arts, science and literature — whatever their occupation. Hopefully, despite its flaws, the inquiry into boys’ education will help to achieve this. Not all boys will be scholars, but a good education will help them to become gentlemen.