Message from the Headmaster
‘Wine is a mocker and beer a brawler; whoever is led astray by them is not wise… It is to one’s honour to avoid strife, but every fool is quick to quarrel. ’
Proverbs 20:1, 3
Dear Students, Parents and Carers
Boys and Men in this Society!
Our Executive Leadership Team (ELT) collectively undertake the task of reading what appears to be important literature related to our core business of teaching and developing young men of character. The methodology is that whichever member has a particular book provides a summary for the rest of the ELT, which forms the basis of a discussion. We are heavily invested in the literature and want to challenge ourselves with ideas and indications of best practice.
A book which has appeared recently is by the British-American scholar on boysʼ education, Richard Reeves. His text, as well as stimulating thinking, will certainly create debate. That is clear from the title: Of Boys and Men: Why the Modern Male is Struggling, Why it Matters, and What to do About It? Reeves is writing from his insights formed in the USA.
How far Reevesʼ comments apply to Australia is an interesting question. A broad analysis of Australian society will reveal a level of dysfunction among many boys and men in our nation. One aspect of this is what the writer of Proverbs pointed out centuries ago: “Wine is a mocker and beer a brawler; whoever is led astray by them is not wise… It is to oneʼs honour to avoid strife, but every fool is quick to quarrel.” (Proverbs 20:1, 3).
At the outset my summation is that boys at Shore have far more opportunities to develop well than do those young men Reeves has in mind in the USA. They generally have the advantages of diligent parenting and excellent teaching and pastoral care at Shore. Our boys generally impress with their kind natures and relative maturity. We have the advantage in a boysʼ school of being able to dig deeply into research and best practice on boysʼ education. However, it would be naïve to think they are unaffected by trends in broader society.
The following summary of key points from Reeves’ book has been prepared by our Deputy Head Pastoral Care, Mr Derek Champion.
My intention is not to endorse them – in fact, I disagree with some points – but to stimulate thinking.
Educational Underperformance:
Reeves says that in the US, boys are underperforming in education across the board. The education system has not adjusted to support boys, and the girls are flourishing. For every 100 undergraduate degrees given to women, approximately 74 go to men. The opposite was true in the early 1970s. Boys are four times as likely to be expelled or suspended.
Reeves argues that the education system has been a great success for girls, and increasingly less so for boys. At the same time, womenʼs pay has increased significantly, and menʼs pay has decreased on average since that time and is now 14% lower – though a gender pay gap obviously remains. There are men at the top; they are still flourishing; the men in the middle and the bottom are not.
Much of this can be explained by developmental differences in the brains of boys. They think differently; prefrontal cortex development is much later. The author suggests boys should start school a year later than girls.
Finlandʼs high PISA scores are mostly thanks to the girls. Boysʼ academic results are below girlsʼ across K-12 in OECD countries. The gap is widening.
Economic Shifts:
In the US, young men aged 25 to 34 years old, have seen the biggest decline in male employment. Much can be explained as a result of automation and free trade, and economic trends, which have seen the manufacturing base shrink as technology has made some low skilled roles redundant. Men have made up 70 to 80% of production, transportation and construction occupations. Women now make up 47% of the workforce and are the main breadwinner in 40% of US households.
A new concept of fatherhood is needed:
Reeves argues that the current concept of fatherhood is outdated and at odds with this economic reality. Men arenʼt relied on to be the breadwinners, both parents contribute. Fatherhood needs a rethink.
The working mother is now the norm. The stay-at-home father is still a front-page anomaly. (Hanna Rosin).
We need a prosocial version of masculinity. Reeves says that “one of the great revelations of feminism may turn out to be that men need women more than women need men”. Comparatively, women do better on their own than men. Wifeless men, when compared to married men, have much poorer health, higher unemployment rates, weaker social networks and are more likely to be drug and alcohol dependent.
Reeves argues that although women may need men less, children still need their fathers. These are different roles. It is important to note that men also need to be caregivers, this is not just a womanʼs role.
Political Stalemate:
Reeves argues that there is a political stalemate on the issue of gender. Progressives, he says, refuse to address the needs of boys, indiscriminately slapping the label of toxic masculinity, with a tendency to pathologise some naturally occurring aspects of masculine identity. This is an unhelpful approach, as it doesnʼt ascribe responsibility to the individual for his actions.
Conversely, Reeves argues that many conservatives only want to address the issue if it involves returning to traditional and outdated gender roles. This has also led to grievance politics, often used by Trump – he has the majority of male votes and has said, “Itʼs a very scary time for young men in America.” This resonated with many young men in America.
What can be done to help boys?
JF Roxborough, the first headmaster of Stowe School in England, described his goal as cultivating men who would be “acceptable at a dance and invaluable in a shipwreck”. They become men who have learned how to conduct themselves in company, who treat women respectfully and as equals. They are responsible people who are self-aware adults, who have learned to calibrate their behaviour in a way that is appropriate to the circumstances. Theyʼve learned not to act on impulse, have empathy, restraint, the ability to reflect – it takes boys longer to learn all this, than it does girls.
What solutions does Reeves offer?
We need a more male-friendly education system.
- Give boys an extra year of preschool. Reeves cites Gladwellʼs outliers research on the older students in a year group generally doing better academically and in other areas and this continuing post school. There is some evidence that parents are already doing this, particularly for boys from well-educated homes and/or the sons of teachers – those who can afford it. Starting boys at school later has the most positive impact when they get to high school. Gladwell’s research indicates that reading scores for boys who had started Kindergarten a year later improved along with general life satisfaction, accompanied by a 25% decrease in boys repeating a year of high school. The main objection to a later start in a boyʼs schooling journey is the pressure it places on parents to pay for daycare.
- Have more male teachers, particularly in primary and middle school. Across OECD countries, the trend is for a decreasing number of male teachers. This just reinforces unhelpful, gender stereotypes. There is strong evidence that having a good balance of male and female teachers across education is of benefit for both boys and girls.
Research suggests that it is very important to have male English teachers, as this is the area that boys tend to lag behind the girls. Evidence demonstrates that boys respond well and grades improve, with a 10% increase in US College admissions when their high school experience has included both men and women English teachers. Educational researcher, Thomas Dee, argues that the achievement gap in reading for boys in Year 6 to 8 would decrease by a third if boys were taught by a reasonable number of male teachers. This is partly an attitudinal issue. Dee posits that male teachers are more likely to recognise boysʼ capabilities, and less likely to see behaviour in class as disruptive. (See my note on this recommendation below!)
Reeves argues that many of the differences between boys and girls in todayʼs classrooms are because the girls are just much older, developmentally speaking.
He says that within the US cohort he is addressing, significant investment in vocational initiatives and technical high schools is needed. Students with these credentials earn more on average across the life cycle than those with a bachelorʼs degree.
We have seen an increase in women performing roles in finance, law and other previously male-dominated areas; however, we have not seen an increase in men working in traditionally female dominated areas of health, education, administration, and literacy (HEAL) jobs. The opposite has been true, with growth in the number of women in science, technology, engineering and mathematics (STEM) roles.
Reeves argues that there may need to be targeted policy quotas, to reduce stigma and improve the financial opportunities. Less and less men are working in the field of mental health. This is not satisfactory, as men are less likely to seek help. We need more male psychologists.
Reeves advocates a strong connection to the importance of service learning, vocation and virtues, to raise awareness and bring young men to these roles. Men need to work in HEAL jobs to counter their decline in other more traditional areas, to address male unemployment and to provide better outcomes for everyone.
Many will disagree, even viscerally, with some of Reevesʼ arguments. I also disagree with some. Again, this is not the point; rather, Reeves gives us a platform in order to assist us in determining what we all think about these matters and the cultural challenges facing us in the 21st century. One personal disagreement I will broach; as an English teacher and a Headmaster, I have been very pleased to witness many outstanding female English teachers (and teachers of other subjects) who understand boys very well indeed.
What do you personally take from Reevesʼ analysis?
Dr John Collier
Headmaster
Please note: We encourage expressions of opinion by our Student Editorial Team without necessarily endorsing or embracing them as a School position; furthermore, boys write in a range of styles, including satirical, and not every critique should be taken literally.
