Where are all the men?

An article in this week's TES highlights a problem I have been aware of for a long time. There are not enough men teaching in primary schools. In my class at teacher training college, of 28 trainees only three were male. Of these three men brave enough to enter such an intrinsically female-dominated profession, two were P.E. specialists. This imbalance is one found across the country, with one in ten primary schools having no male teachers at all.

Much of the problem is to do with old-fashioned perspectives of gender roles, something that is even seen by those men that manage slip through the net. The TES refers to Carl Pattison, who is the sole male teacher in his school.

"He has been mothered by female teachers and gets extra helpings from the kitchen staff, but then he is six foot tall. As payback, he is expected to sort out electrical equipment and do any heavy lifting."

There are certain expectations, even in today's society, of what is 'men's' and what is 'women's work.' Teaching of young children is traditionally seen as a female role, and the figures certainly reflect that. Men who do choose to go into the profession often face teasing and prejudice from other men, ranging from being labelled as gay, to being called a paedophile. Whilst the latter is a very extreme reaction, it is true that parents often feel less comfortable with male teachers. This is especially true with teachers of nursery and infant children. Why this is, there is no real logic, beyond maybe the intrinsic stereotypes we all live by.

This is something, however, that needs to be addressed. Primary aged children need role models of both genders, particularly young boys, who frequently struggle at primary school with subjects like Literacy. Carl believes boys find it easier to relate to him as a man, and can share his experiences to help inspire them.

"He talks in class about his dislike of literacy lessons when he was at school, and reckons his choice of reading material – football magazines and autobiographies – can appeal to boys who are turned off by books."

Men in the classroom bring something new to the table; a different perspective, a different style of teaching. This is definitely something that needs to be encouraged.

On the other side of the fence, the BBC today reports a survey showing that, despite a rise, there is still a disproportionate number of female headteachers in primary schools.

"The NCSL's Women in Headship study found that 87% of primary school teachers are women but only 67% of heads are."

This is yet more proof that the gender divide is alive and kicking in our schools. If this does not get resolved soon, then we will end up educating a new generation of children with equally limited views of what that could and should achieve. How to sort out this problem, I do not know; maybe the Training and Development Agency for Schools will shed some light when they publish their research in September. We can but hope.

Admission of failure?

So, last week was so-called "Super Tuesday", or "A-Day", the time when parents of 11-year olds across England found out if their child was accepted into the secondary school of their choice. The government's beloved mantra of 'choice' was well and truly tested, and if last Tuesday was an 11-plus, would have undoubtedly been sent to a Secondary Modern. One in five did not get their first choice of school, but that isn't even the main story. The real sting in the tail was when Ed Balls was forced to admit that some schools were found to be charging parents to secure places.

This shocking revelation was almost a case of life imitating art. The BBC1 schools drama Waterloo Road showed the head of an unpopular inner-city comprehensive school, paying middle-class families to send their gifted children to the school, in an attempt to inspire the more underprivileged students. This seemed an implausible notion, pure fiction, yet at the opposite end of the scale the practice has been proven to occur.

This is an appalling state of affairs, yet some experts believe it is inevitable. Anne West from London School of Economics has investigated admissions procedures.

"Where schools are responsible for their own admissions ... some are likely to use whatever means they can to select their own intake"

There is a certain logic to this, because obviously schools will want to make their lives as easy as possible, and choosing the 'best' pupils will help them achieve their targets and ultimately secure more funding. However, a situation where children are being turned away from the school nearest to them, because they do not come from the 'right family' is something best left in Victorian days. David Laws, schools spokesman for the Liberal Democrats, thinks that the increase in specialism is the problem.

"Ministers should remove the back door power of selection from schools, such as specialist and foundation schools, and concentrate on making every school a good school."

One TV news reporter actually said something akin to children being forced to attend schools which were "simply not good enough." The focus should not be on everyone getting their choice, but to make sure are no 'bad schools' for children to be 'stuck with'. Teachers are trained to the same standards; schools are Ofsted inspected and targeted to the point of death, so why there are still 'good' and 'bad' schools, I am not certain. But I'm sure many teachers teaching in challenging schools will have plenty to say about that and put me right.

However, I am not against specialism or selection per se. I went to one of the few remaining state grammar schools, and think they do the world of good for children with an aptitude for the more academic subjects. Taking the test was entirely voluntary, so there's no pressure on those whose skills lie in other areas. There are sports colleges, language colleges, technology colleges, ICT colleges, music colleges and vocational academies. Why should there not be the choice of a school that excels in academic subjects? Gifted children frequently struggle in comprehensive schools because doing well is seen as 'showing off'. In my opinion, making all schools equal is not the right way to go, as all children aren't equal; they have different needs, which different schools could meet. Choice is a good thing in theory, it's just the practicalities that need ironing out.

Mickey Mouse Studies

In 2003, then Higher Education Minister Margaret Hodge branded certain degree courses, such as Media Studies, "Mickey Mouse" degrees. Five years later, research has been published suggesting she may have been justified. The QCA report aimed to compare standards between subjects at A-Level, to decide once and for all whether some were 'easy options'.

Although the report itself found "little evidence that the A-level subjects sometimes described as 'soft' were any less demanding than their more established counterparts", the headline most of the papers chose to go for, was some form of "Media Studies is easy." Indeed, there was a 'slightly' lower standard of work expected of students in Media Studies at grades A and E compared to those achieving the same grades in English and History. However, the study did not take into account coursework, some 40% of the marks! The only place in the mainstream press I found that picked up on the unreliability was the Guardian's 'mortarboard' blog.

"According to Cambridge Assessment's research director, the QCA book on comparability was "high quality", but the report was a "highly defective" mixture of unreliable results and contradictory assertions.

This is the real story - that the research is so poor. But will anyone heed this complaint? Sadly, what is most likely to stick in peoples' minds, confirming unfair assumptions as it seems to, is that media studies is somehow less worthy. Is it?"

That is an interesting question. Public perception tends to be that yes, Media Studies is an easy ride and doesn't actually mean anything. The more classical subjects such as the aforementioned English and History are seen to have more depth and substance to them, and a qualification in them to be somehow more impressive. However, in today's world, the media has an infinite amount more power and influence in society than any Emily Bronte novel or William Blake poem. The key themes of life and love, triumph and tragedy, sex, drugs and religion can be as easily analysed through a catalogue of screen offerings, as through the works of literature. As History defines the past, Media defines the present. How this can be seen as unworthy, I do not know.

Saying that, there was a specific reason I chose not to take Media Studies myself; it is seen as a joke by the very industry its students hope to by employed in. The full title of my degree is "New Media Journalism with PR", yet when I'm asked I drop the "New Media" prefix. It somehow has more gravitas, although changes nothing of the nature of the course. This writer in the Independent sums up the attitudes of many media professionals I have spoken to in the past.

"Journalism is just a trade where the gifted, the average and the incompetent sit side by side in the same office producing work of varying quality. Least of all is it an academic discipline, though undertaking a demanding course in something else at university is the best preparation for it. Were I still an editor, I wouldn't offer a job to a graduate in media studies; I would always prefer that the applicant had been tested in one of the older disciplines"

As a fast-moving young industry, these old-school attitudes about the subject may die out in a matter of years. Until then, Media Studies is certainly not the easy option; for those who want a career in the media, it may be the hardest option of all.

(For those interested in the full QCA report you can find it here.)