A perfect match? Pupils’ and teachers’ views of the impact of matching educators and learners by gender

Abstract

British government policy on teacher recruitment gives a high priority to increasing the number of male teachers, particularly in primary schools. This focus stems from concern to challenge ‘boys’ underachievement’: policy‐makers believe that ‘matching’ teachers and pupils by gender will improve boys’ engagement with school. Yet there is little evidence to support such assumptions which, as this article notes, are predicated on out‐dated theories of social learning. This article reports findings from a large‐scale qualitative study that sought to investigate primary pupils’ and teachers’ views concerning ‘gender match’ of teacher and learner. It demonstrates that the substantial majority of pupils and teachers rejected the salience of gender in pupil–teacher relations and learning outcomes, prioritising instead the abilities of the individual teacher. The explanations of those pupils and teachers who did support the notion of ‘gender match’ are also explored, showing how some pupils drew on stereotypical gender discourses to support their constructions, and how some (usually male) teachers were invested in the notion of male role models.

Keywords:

• gender
• teachers
• pupils
• role models

Notes

1. Previously the Teacher Training Agency (TTA).

2. Of course, the extent of ‘boys’ underachievement’ remains controversial and contested. The point that social class and ethnicity continue to have a greater impact than gender as predictors of achievement for the vast majority of pupils in Britain (Gillborn and Mirza 2000; Francis and Skelton 2005; Archer and Francis 2007) has led many researchers to adopt the ‘Which boys? Which girls?’ approach to gender and achievement. For further detailed analysis of issues pertaining to gender and achievement, see Francis and Skelton (2005).

3. It is not our intention to suggest that gender is more important than, or can be simplistically separated from, other issues (such as age, social class, ethnicity and so on). However, our aim is to discover whether or not there are any bases for the popular assumptions that we discuss here.

4. Phrasing questions in ways that children are able to understand was challenging, particularly with respect to some of the complex issues discussed in this article. The interview schedule was designed in consultation with teachers, and piloted with children, in order to ensure maximum clarity (Connolly 1998; Lewis and Lindsay 2000).

5. We adopted the term ‘lady teacher’ in keeping with the terminology used by children during our piloting phase.

6. As in the case of other questions, some pupils did not respond to our question.

7. Between half and two thirds of pupils from each analysable ethnic group rejected the idea of male or female teachers treating pupils differently according to gender, with the exception of Black girls and boys in relation to male teachers – only 27 of 57 Black pupils thought male teachers would not discriminate by gender.