why is male education more important essay

• Membership Benefits
• Union Shopper Discounts for members
• Student Associate Membership Information & Application Form
• Who Can Join?
• IEU(SA) Membership Fees
• IEU(SA) Members – update your details here…
• Rights & Entitlements
• Communications
• Women in Focus
• IEU(SA) Equity – LGBTIQA+
• Events – Equity in Action
• IEUSA Learning for Members – Online & Inhouse
• IEUSA Online Learning Centre – Access
• Professional Learning Training & Education

Latest news

• Social Media Links
• Reps – IEU(SA) Sub-branch Representative
• Publications
• Industrial Support Advocacy
• Professional Support Advice & Assistance
• Partnerships
• Affiliations
• Union Structure
• History of IEU(SA) – Footpath to Independence
• Join the IEUSA
• Whats happening
• IEU News - Class Action

The importance of male teachers in the classroom

According to research in 2018, male educators make up just two percent of the workforce in Australian early education, compared to 18 percent in primary schools and around 40 percent in high schools.

The rate of decline in new male teachers is alarming, with the Macquarie University noting that male teachers may be entirely absent from government schools by 2054 and they will be ‘extinct’ in Australia by 2067.

Social misconception suggests that the early years for young children is ‘women’s work, not suitable for men, because men should be ‘manly’, sporty and assertive, and that they should do manly jobs. Driving this misconception may be the fact that 98 of 100 educators in early learning are women, so children may learn that women are the educators and kind, affectionate and loving.

However, many boys do have a natural caring and affectionate nature, but if they do not see men being kind, loving or concerned about education at this early stage it is hard for them to connect this. This can be amplified if there is no role model in his life outside of school that demonstrates this positive attachment.

One worrying reason why males may not take up teaching as a profession is the fear of being accused of child sexual abuse or some impropriety. This may be a valid concern. One South Australian teacher endured a stressful two-year investigation involving allegations of misconduct before being ordered back to teaching. Even though the allegations were not proven, the effect on the teacher was astronomical—sick leave, stress leave and the possibility of leaving a loved profession after 30 years. Needless to say, the teacher has cautioned young males about joining the profession.

Having more male teachers is unlikely to directly improve boys’ results, McGrath et al say, “as research indicates that teacher gender has no direct effect on students’ academic outcomes.” Instead, “quality teaching and positive relations based on gender sensitivity are more important than a teacher’s own gender.”

Students need a diverse teaching experience. Teachers of both genders come with varying viewpoints and experiences they can share with students. Diverse experiences allow students to see the diversity of relationships within and outside the classroom.

Many students don’t encounter a male teacher until they reach middle or upper primary school. If more students could experience a male teacher in early childhood or lower primary it may provide strong, positive role models and father figures for students who may not have one.

McGrath et al note that “Australian girls in sixth grade expressed a need for more male teachers to understand how to interact with men outside of their families, while boys claimed that male teachers understood them better than did female teachers. Notably, both boys and girls reported that it was easier to relate to a teacher of the same gender.”

Adam Angwin is the centre director at Goodstart Early Learning in Tuggerah, New South Wales and he notes: “it is a positive for children to be exposed to both genders when at the service. It is great for them to see how females and males collaborate and communicate together without any gender stereotype issues”.

Stereotypes and role models aside, male teachers are important for all students, allowing them to observe men who are non-violent and whose interactions with women are positive.

Encountering both male and female teachers in classrooms gives students the opportunity to learn from teachers who they perceive as being similar to themselves. Diversity promotes alternate thinking, which in turn, may drive improved performance and innovative solutions.

Limited visibility of male teachers, however, further perpetuates the view that teaching is a job better suited to women. By working in roles that are typically viewed as appropriate only for women, men can help to break down the polarised differences that foster gender inequalities.

This may lead to students, and in particular, young boys, growing up with non-violent, and gender equitable versions of masculinity, enabling them to develop a new generation of caring humans and potentially increase the participation of male as teachers, for the benefit of all students.

We highly recommend reviewing the sources below for further examples and information.

The IEU strongly supports all teachers in their education facilities. If you need support with your job at any level – join the IEU. Read about the benefits here.  

Do we really need male teachers? Forget those old reasons, here’s new research Kevin F. McGrath, Deevia Bhana, Penny Van Bergen, Shaaista Moosa, 18 November 2019 https://www.aare.edu.au/blog/?p=4726

Why there’s a shortage of male educators FirstFiveYears.org.au, 10 December 2018 https://www.firstfiveyears.org.au/lifestyle/why-theres-a-shortage-of-male-educators

The importance of male teachers in the classroom RIC Publications, 30 August 2016 https://www.ricpublications.com.au/blog/post/importance-male-teachers-classroom/

The shortage of male teachers in primary schools Educations Matters, no date. https://www.educationmattersmag.com.au/the-shortage-of-male-teachers-in-primary-schools/

• Privacy Policy
• Terms and Conditions
• IEUSA Membership form
• Direct Debit request form
• Credit card request form

Member Login

Boys enjoy educational advantages despite being less engaged in school than girls

Subscribe to the brown center on education policy newsletter, jaymes pyne jp jaymes pyne quantitative research associate, john gardner center - stanford university.

July 30, 2020

Girls are more engaged in school than boys, and that is a big reason girls (and women) tend to do better educationally . But rather than thinking of engagement as an educational advantage, we might better consider it as protective to girls, who confront many other disadvantages in school and life.

This is the takeaway of a research brief I recently published in the journal Educational Researcher. Nationally, girls do better than boys on reading tests but trail boys on math tests. I analyzed nationally representative data on boys’ and girls’ fifth-grade reading and math test scores and reports of their classroom behavioral engagement throughout elementary school. I found that if there were no gender differences in behavioral engagement patterns through elementary school, fifth-grade reading test score gaps could reverse and math test score gaps could triple in size .

That means focusing simply on increasing boys’ behavioral engagement in school overlooks unaddressed needs of girls. It may be time to reconsider what we mean when we say that girls have behavioral “advantages” over boys in school.

What is behavioral engagement, and why do girls have more of it than boys?

Behavioral engagement is participation in the work and social life of school in ways educators value and expect. That means following classroom expectations like raising your hand, respecting others’ personal boundaries, turning assignments in on time, and responding appropriately to negativity—among many more positive behaviors expected in class. Underlying behavioral engagement is a wide-ranging set of social and behavioral skills that families instill well before children enter school and skills that children learn along the way while in school.

The literature is divided on why girls seem more engaged in school than boys. One perspective emphasizes gender (and class) bias on the part of mostly middle-class, female teachers who evaluate students’ behaviors. Another perspective emphasizes gender socialization —that girls tend to be raised to behave in ways that align with how educators expect all students to behave. Although both can be true, some work using national data casts doubt on the teacher bias narrative by presenting evidence of a direct link between behavioral engagement and later learning. This suggests girls’ higher behavioral engagement likely stems from gendered ways of socializing young children prior to and during elementary school.

Why would boys score higher if they were as engaged as girls?

Since girls are more engaged than boys, equalizing engagement could lead to large reading and math achievement gaps favoring boys. Part of the explanation is that gender gaps on achievement tests have a lot to do with engagement and motivation to take the test itself . If boys were engaged in school more generally, it’s reasonable to believe that would translate to boys wanting to do better on these tests. However, my and other research suggests it’s not likely to be just a question of boys being more intelligent and underperforming because they lack interest in doing well on the test.

What is it then about schools that helps boys, even when they aren’t very engaged? Existing literature helps us understand.

First, girls aren’t encouraged to be interested in the same intellectual pursuits as boys. For example, although explanations of gender STEM gaps vary, research has shown that gender bias can arise through parents’ and teachers ’ own anxieties about STEM subjects and their beliefs about boys’ and girls’ natural abilities in STEM fields. Those early redirections ripple into adulthood— women still lag men in engineering, physical science, and computer science degree attainment –but are not necessarily due to differences in academic ability. For example, a recent study shows that low-achieving men are much more likely to major in physics, engineering, and computer science relative to low-achieving women after accounting for a range of student-level factors.

Second, other behaviors in school are sanctioned and rewarded differently by gender. Girls may be socialized early in life in ways that help them engage in school, but educators and peers informally reward and reinforce hegemonic masculinity and, with it, boys’ superiority and flouting of school rules. For example—as Michela Musto has recently shown us –boys misbehave more than girls in class, but teachers and peers also encourage and reward boys to engage by challenging girls’ perspectives and dominating discussions. In the end? Peers regard (usually white) intelligent boys as much more “exceptional” than otherwise similarly intelligent girls.

Where to go from here?

At the very least, this research challenges the perspective that girls have taken a resounding advantage in educational pursuits due to legal, political, and advocacy movements over the last 50 years. That perspective does correctly recognize the social and economic consequences of ignoring boys’ comparatively languishing behavioral performances in schools. Yet a simple focus on improving boys’ outcomes will certainly uncover remaining constraints on girls in schools and society at large. That will include some interventions that we are aware of, such as encouraging girls to build confidence and aspire to enter STEM fields . Others may be clear only after looking under the gilded veneer of high engagement that helps girls shine in school.

Related Content

Joseph Cimpian

April 23, 2018

Christina Kwauk, Amanda Braga, Helyn Kim

April 3, 2017

Seth Gershenson

January 13, 2016

K-12 Education

Governance Studies

Brown Center on Education Policy

Anusha Bharadwaj

October 14, 2024

Ayanna Platt, Rachel M. Perera

October 8, 2024

Briana Ballis

October 7, 2024

Taking Male Students Seriously

You have / 5 articles left. Sign up for a free account or log in.

Today’s college men, as a group, are not doing so well — in comparison with today’s college women and with college men of the past. Many men are simply not attending college at all; and of those who matriculate, they are not graduating in large numbers, again, as compared to women and to previous generations of men. Coming out of high school, they are not as well prepared for college. They are reading less than girls and less than boys of older generations. In fact, if college admissions were gender-blind, the vast majority of students at our most selective colleges would be women.

While at college, men are less engaged in their studies and in student life, and they receive lower grades and fewer honors. (Men in STEM courses, i.e., science, technology, engineering, and math, are the exception.) On campus, they exhibit higher rates of alcohol and substance abuse and commit more social conduct violations. College men use fewer student services and are more reluctant to seek help and attend support programs. In short, men are getting less out of their college experience, and they are not taking it upon themselves to do something about it. 

All that may strike us as odd, or it used to. Now it seems to be on everyone’s mind, especially parents of boys. Even a recent issue of Scouting magazine (May/June 2013) ran a cover story on how to  promote literacy among boys. Historically, though, we have tended to think of men in general as powerful and privileged, and it would be reasonable to expect college men to be higher-achieving. In a society that values education and where education is often the pathway to success for the middle class, it would make sense for men to be doing better, especially with the awareness that most of our older and more prestigious colleges — the very models of higher education — were established with men in mind.

What is stranger still is that, unlike the performance of other groups, we often struggle for an explanation of college men’s experience, their lack of success. Back in 2004, I expressed it this way in an article: “When the problem of the success of college women was first articulated, we quickly developed an explanation — sexism. And when the problem of the success of college persons of color was addressed, we readily found a similar explanation — racism. But when it comes getting at the underlying cause of the lack of success of college men, we seem to be at a loss.” When feminist, critical race, and other explanatory systems were developed, they relied, in part, on differences in power to explain the experience of women, persons of color, and other oppressed groups — in other words, the relatively powerless, and not the obviously powerful. That is where men’s studies can help: both in understanding why college men may be struggling and what we can do about it.

Men’s studies is an emerging field of knowledge concerned primarily with men’s experience, identity, and development throughout the life course. In so far as it focuses on what men are (social reality); what we think men are (stereotypes); and what we would like men to be (gender ideal); men’s studies could be described as the study of masculinities. Fundamentally, it studies men as men, and not as generic human beings. In his classic essay, “The Case for Men’s Studies,” Harry Brod said it best: Men’s studies is “the study of masculinity as a specific male experience, rather than a universal paradigm for human experience.”

Following from Brod, I wrote that a “men’s studies of college men would be a study of college as a specific male experience rather than a universal human experience.” In other words, instead of talking about students we should be talking about male students, female students, etc.

At bottom, what men’s studies teaches us, and where it can play a role in improving the lives of college men, is the fundamental insight that the totality of men’s experience cannot be explained by men’s power alone. True, objectively speaking, men as a group may still have power over women as a group; however, subjectively, individual men do not necessarily feel powerful, or behave as if they were in control.  That is because many men engage in harmful, self-destructive behaviors linked to messages about manhood, or feel they do not measure up to the gender ideal, or are burdened by harmful stereotypes of what it means to be a man.

They are also socialized not to express their feelings, report symptoms, reveal their vulnerability, or otherwise deal in healthy ways with their emotions. And when it comes to learning, they learn at an early age that “school is for girls.” Masculinity leaves men feeling shamed and disempowered, suffering the negative consequences of their own notions of manhood and their own aversion to female identified values and attributes.

Worse yet, after steering men in the wrong direction, masculinity — insidiously and tragically — interferes with help-seeking behavior. No wonder so many men struggle in college. On campus, college women more likely to be sober and involved and men are drinking more — and more often — and are more distracted. College women in distress are more likely to seek out counseling centers or are referred by a friend, while college men become silent or act out. Informed by men’s studies, we can better design programs and services for college men, with men in mind. Hobart College, a men’s college where I am a dean and faculty member, offers a program for first-year men, Men’s Lives, which includes four mandated workshops on sexual assault prevention, men’s health and wellness, career and family, and diversity from a men’s perspective. We believe it has made a difference in the retention and success of our college men.

In closing, nothing I have said here invalidates or is inconsistent with feminist or social justice perspectives. On the contrary, most men’s studies work is “pro-feminist,” geared toward men, but compatible with best practices for college women. Men’s studies does not bash college men or re-privilege them, but, in the words of Victor Seidler, simply asks college men to take responsibility for their actions and make the right choices for college success.  To modify a phrase coined by Adrienne Rich, the role of men’s studies is to exhort us to “take men students seriously.”   

Stress Testing the FAFSA

The Education Department wrapped up phase one of the federal aid form’s limited rollout last week, seeking out early

Share This Article

More from views.

A Letter to the Emerging Director of Financial Aid

David R. Smedley offers insights for new financial aid directors—and their senior administrator bosses.

The Absurdity of Asynchrony

Robert Zaretsky worries that the expansion of asynchronous courses is not serving students well.

Broadening the Divestment Debate Beyond ROI

Divestment debates shouldn’t be shut down by appeals to return on investment, Kelly Grotke and Stephen Hastings-King

• Become a Member
• Sign up for Newsletters
• Learning & Assessment
• Diversity & Equity
• Career Development
• Labor & Unionization
• Shared Governance
• Academic Freedom
• Books & Publishing
• Financial Aid
• Residential Life
• Free Speech
• Physical & Mental Health
• Race & Ethnicity
• Sex & Gender
• Socioeconomics
• Traditional-Age
• Adult & Post-Traditional
• Teaching & Learning
• Artificial Intelligence
• Digital Publishing
• Data Analytics
• Administrative Tech
• Alternative Credentials
• Financial Health
• Cost-Cutting
• Revenue Strategies
• Academic Programs
• Physical Campuses
• Mergers & Collaboration
• Fundraising
• Research Universities
• Regional Public Universities
• Community Colleges
• Private Nonprofit Colleges
• Minority-Serving Institutions
• Religious Colleges
• Women's Colleges
• Specialized Colleges
• For-Profit Colleges
• Executive Leadership
• Trustees & Regents
• State Oversight
• Accreditation
• Politics & Elections
• Supreme Court
• Student Aid Policy
• Science & Research Policy
• State Policy
• Colleges & Localities
• Employee Satisfaction
• Remote & Flexible Work
• Staff Issues
• Study Abroad
• International Students in U.S.
• U.S. Colleges in the World
• Intellectual Affairs
• Seeking a Faculty Job
• Advancing in the Faculty
• Seeking an Administrative Job
• Advancing as an Administrator
• Beyond Transfer
• Call to Action
• Confessions of a Community College Dean
• Higher Ed Gamma
• Higher Ed Policy
• Just Explain It to Me!
• Just Visiting
• Law, Policy—and IT?
• Leadership & StratEDgy
• Leadership in Higher Education
• Learning Innovation
• Online: Trending Now
• Resident Scholar
• University of Venus
• Student Voice
• Academic Life
• Health & Wellness
• The College Experience
• Life After College
• Academic Minute
• Weekly Wisdom
• Reports & Data
• Quick Takes
• Advertising & Marketing
• Consulting Services
• Data & Insights
• Hiring & Jobs
• Event Partnerships

4 /5 Articles remaining this month.

Sign up for a free account or log in.

• Sign Up, It’s FREE

• Share full article

Advertisement

Supported by

Boys to Men: Teaching and Learning About Masculinity in an Age of Change

By Caroline Crosson Gilpin and Natalie Proulx

• April 12, 2018

What do boys in America think about being boys today?

What do they imagine is expected of them? Whom do they look up to, and how are they navigating the transition from being boys to becoming men?

In a 2018 Times opinion essay “ The Boys Are Not All Right ,” the comedian and author Michael Ian Black writes:

The past 50 years have redefined what it means to be female in America. Girls today are told that they can do anything, be anyone. They’ve absorbed the message: They’re outperforming boys in school at every level. But it isn’t just about performance. To be a girl today is to be the beneficiary of decades of conversation about the complexities of womanhood, its many forms and expressions. Boys, though, have been left behind. No commensurate movement has emerged to help them navigate toward a full expression of their gender. It’s no longer enough to “be a man” — we no longer even know what that means.

In this unit, we explore some of the questions Mr. Black, and others, raise, and suggest ways to deconstruct definitions of masculinity as they manifest in our society and our lives. We end with suggestions for several projects students might take on to expand and reimagine what “being a man” might mean in their own lives and in our society at large.

Note to teachers: This is a sensitive topic, and some of the readings, discussion questions or activities may not be suitable for your students. We hope you will tailor it to fit your needs, but we also hope you’ll tell us how and why you did that, in the comments.

If you are doing a larger study of gender issues, please see the links at the bottom of this post for related lesson plans, including one on the #MeToo movement, and one, contributed by a teacher, on pronoun use in schools.

Warm Up: ‘Good’ Men vs. ‘Real’ Men

In 2015, Michael Kimmel, a leading scholar on masculinity and the director of the Center for the Study of Men and Masculinities , helped start the nation’s first master’s degree program in Masculinities Studies. The program, at Stony Brook University, explores what it means to be male in today’s world.

We are having trouble retrieving the article content.

Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.

Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and  log into  your Times account, or  subscribe  for all of The Times.

Thank you for your patience while we verify access.

Already a subscriber?  Log in .

Want all of The Times?  Subscribe .

Boys, Masculinity, and Education

An introduction.

• Get Citation Alerts
• Get Permissions
• Download PDF

During the 1990s and 2000s, many countries witnessed new discourses on boys and education both within research and the wider popular discourse. This took place in the context of a feminist critique of patriarchal relations, a global monitoring of education, and an increased interest in the negative consequences of traditional masculinity, not only for women, queer people, or the nature and global ressources, but also for boys and men themselves. Mainly, the discussions centred on three key topics. First, boys’ encountering, incorporating, and/or resisting cultural ideas of masculinity were being looked at with a strong focus on gender hierarchies and gender norms (Connell 2000; Kimmel 2008; Plummer 1999; Salisbury and Jackson 1996). Second, boys’ situations in educational institutions were discussed controversially with regard to disadvantages and/or privileges of boys in education (Epstein et al. 1998; Kenway et al. 1997; Martino et al. 2009). Third, the situations of particular groups of boys were explored, acknowledging the diversity of boys and the intersectionality of masculinity and gender with other social categories and hierarchies (Martino and Pallotta-Chiarolli 2003; Nayak 2003).

Since then, the discourse on boys, masculinity, and education has become more diverse and nuanced, yet central issues remain either under debate or overlooked. While the debate on failing boys seems to have lost attention, research is increasingly being conducted on transformations of boyhood and configurations of masculinities toward possibly new forms such as caring or inclusive masculinities. Queer perspectives, postcolonial critique, and the analysis of global gender orders have also enabled a critical perspective on the hegemonic and heteronormative tendencies that are inscribed in ideas about gender, subject, and identity.

At the same time, the differentiations and shifts in academic discourse raise new questions. These relate, for example, to cultural diagnosis and its connections with pedagogical practices and institutions, for education as an essential mode of cultural reproduction and transformation is deeply interwoven with constructions of masculinity. Therefore, one could ask: How can the current situation of boys in educational practices and institutions be described properly? How do masculinities inform educational discourse and practice? And how does education inform masculinities? Does hegemonic masculinity (still) dominate in education, or is there a shift toward inclusive masculinity (Anderson 2009; Bridges and Pascoe 2014)?

In light of these questions, this issue addresses different educational institutions and educational practices such as elementary education, youth work, vocational education, and education in informal settings like peer-group, media, and leisure activities. The main focus, however, is on the school itself and the practices the boys who attend it. The biographical and social dominance of this institution is thus also evident in boys’ research. Overall, the contributions point to a broad range of transformative practices of masculinity. At the same time, they also show that male dominance still remains. R. W. Connell's concept of hegemonic masculinity continues to be an important theoretical reference point.

• To the Contributions

In their article “Transforming Practices of Masculinity: A Model based on Qualitative Research on Boys’ Education,” Jürgen Budde and Thomas Viola Rieske present theoretical conclusions from a research network that focuses on boys in different educational institutions from early childhood education to young adult vocational education. Of particular relevance is the question of the transmission or transformation of hierarchical concepts of masculinity in and through educational practice. To this end, they elaborate a model that aims to recognize both the (re-)production and the critique and subversion of gender norms and gender inequalities in practices of and with boys. The article furthermore analyzes intersectional entanglements of institution, age, and gender. It proposes a differentiation between boys as a biographical category of identification and masculinity as a gendered social principle.

With the intention to improve healthy relationship programs through an intersectional approach, Caroline Claussen, Jordan Keough, Ceilidh McConnell, Stefan Lewis, and Deinera Exner-Cortens present the findings of a study conducted with non-white ethnoculturally diverse boys on their lived experience at the intersection of masculinity, race and ethnicity, and adolescence. The results show that adolescent boys, and particularly non-white boys, experience specific challenges ensuing from stereotypes and dynamics of othering, negatively affecting their relationships to others as well as to themselves. With regard to healthy relationship programs, the authors conclude from their interviews that a recognition of ethnoculturally diverse boys’ experience of marginalization and of their plural identities at the intersections of multiple differences is vital to the programs’ success.

Diloshini Govender and Deevia Bhana analyze interaction practices among boys. The article “Navigating Masculinity: Peer Relations and Violence among Eight–Nine-Year-Old South African Schoolboys” shows the ambivalent self-positionings and ambiguity of masculinity practices. The authors argue that masculinity and masculine norms are context-dependent and contradictory. Drawing on a qualitative study, they show that boys reinforce and challenge hegemonic masculinity not only by using violence as a means for dominance but also by subverting it. The ability to subvert masculinity, however, was not separate from hegemonic ideals in which the feminine and women are subordinated. The authors also argue for an integration of postcolonial perspectives in theoretical approaches to masculinity research, which have so far been dominated by concepts from the Global North.

The article “What Does Masculinity Mean? Young People's Perspectives on Masculinity in the Mirror of Education in Germany” by Johanna M. Pangritz takes up the discussion about failing boys and the supposed need for male role models in educational institutions. Using documentary analysis of interviews with adolescent pupils, the question of the transformation and transmission of hierarchical masculinity is also addressed. The study shows that the production of masculinity follows a binary understanding and that the demand for more men in pedagogy tends to reinforce this conclusion. It also points out that school can be an unsafe place for female students because of hegemonic masculinity. At the same time, the case studies show that education has the potential to transform masculinity.

The lack of male reference persons in educational institutions is also taken up by Niels Uhlendorf in his article “Discursive Constructions of Boys in the Field of School Social Work in German Elementary Schools.” The article is based on interviews with social workers at German primary schools, which were analyzed within the framework of the sociological approach to discourses. The study shows three subject positionings: boys* were positioned as (1) caught up in aggression; (2) naturally deviating from school rules; or (3) sitting on the sidelines. Overall, it found that school social work primarily focused on norm deviations and transgressions, while a general orientation toward masculinity norms was rarely challenged. The article argues on the basis of the theory of subjectivation that gender categories are not fixed entities but rather generated and continuously transformed in dynamic processes. These gender categories can be exclusionary or disciplinary as well as supportive and caring.

Alex Blower and John Rainford address the situation of working-class boys’ access to higher education. They argue that ideas of masculinity hinder working-class boys from participating in higher education and use the concept of possible selves both as a research tool and as an educational tool. In contrast to an approach aimed at raising aspirations, a possible-selves approach looks at individuals’ palette of like-to-be and like-to-avoid selves and at the cultural and societal structures that enable and constrain individual choices. In workshops with male youth, they used creative methods to explore masculinities in the lives of working-class boys and to try on identities beyond the boundaries of their everyday lives. The authors argue that the methods used provided a safe space for the boys to interrogate their own conceptions of their lives and to discover—and possible reject—alternatives.

Chidi Ezegwu discusses boys’ disengagement from schools in Anambra State, Nigeria. Drawing on two studies with male and female participants who dropped out of school, he reconstructs a local dominant masculinity—man's beauty ( nma woke )—as a central concept that structures the lives of the interviewees. According to this concept, boys are expected to attain an ideal of masculinity that encompasses material wealth achieved through early participation in the labor market. While this concept ensures both boys’ future position as breadwinners and their participation in the economy, it also hinders their participation in education in Anambra. In order to achieve change, the pressures experienced by boys need to be acknowledged, Ezegwu argues, and addressed critically.

While the contributions to this issue present important insights, there are some gaps in the research on boys, masculinity, and education to be worked on in the future. One aspect that could be looked at more thoroughly concerns methodology. How can the relation of boys, masculinity, and education be researched empirically? Which methods and which methodologies are in use, and in what ways do they create and transform knowledge on boyhoods? Which ethical and participatory standards are required? Of course, the articles in this issue do comment on their methodologies—however, a thorough methodological discussion of research on boys, masculinity, and education is still missing.

It would also be interesting to get more research on how the relation between boys, masculinity, and education is shaped by economic, political, cultural, and ecological change. In what ways, for example, do authoritarian regimes (and diversity alliances), the ongoing destructive exploitation of our planet (and the rise of sustainable development), and the ongoing dominance of the Global North (and discourses in the Global South) shape the education of boys and men?

Lastly, the relevance and the breadth of educational institutions and contexts is not considered sufficiently in this issue. Playgrounds and pre-school, digital interaction and social media, youth work and residential care—there are many contexts that need to be looked at with regard to the questions just posed and to many other questions for that matter.

We therefore hope that this issue inspires further research that will bring about new insights into and generate transformative knowledge about boyhoods and boys’ education.

Anderson , Eric . 2009 . Inclusive Masculinity: The Changing Nature of Masculinities . New York : Routledge .

• Search Google Scholar
• Export Citation

Bridges , Tristan , and C. J. Pascoe . 2014 . “ Hybrid Masculinities: New Directions in the Sociology of Men and Masculinities. ” Sociology Compass 8 ( 3 ): 246 – 258 . https://doi.org/10.1111/soc4.12134

Connell , R. W. 2000 . The Men and the Boys . Sydney : Allen and Unwin .

Epstein , Debbie , Jannette Elwood , Valerie Hey , and Janet Maw , eds. 1998 . Failing Boys? Issues in Gender and Achievement . Buckingham, UK : Open University Press .

Kenway , Jane , Sue Willis , Jill Blackmore , and Leonie Rennie . 1997 . Answering Back: Girls, Boys and Feminism in Schools . London : Routledge .

Kimmel , Michael. 2008 . Guyland: The Perilous World Where Boys Become Men . New York : HarperCollins .

Martino , Wayne , Michael Kehler , and Marcus B. Weaver-Hightower , eds. 2009 . The Problem with Boys’ Education: Beyond the Backlash . New York : Routledge .

Martino , Wayne , and Maria Pallotta-Chiarolli . 2003 . So What's a Boy? Addressing Issues of Masculinity and Schooling . Maidenhead , UK: Open University Press .

Nayak , Anoop . 2003 . “ ‘Boyz to Men’: Masculinities, Schooling and Labour Transitions in De-Industrial Times. ” Educational Review 55 ( 2 ): 147 – 159 . https://doi.org/10.1080/0013191032000072191

Plummer , David . 1999 . One of the Boys: Masculinity, Homophobia, and Modern Manhood . New York : Routledge .

Salisbury , Jonathan , and David Jackson . 1996 . Challenging Macho Values: Practical Ways of Working with Adolescent Boys . London : Falmer .

• Share on facebook Share on linkedin Share on twitter

Boyhood Studies

An interdisciplinary journal.

Article Information

Issue table of contents, section headings, google scholar.

• Article by Jürgen Budde
• Article by Thomas Viola Rieske

• Accessibility
• Terms & Conditions
• Privacy Policy

© 2024 Berghahn Books

Powered by:

• [185.194.105.172]
• 185.194.105.172