Editorial: Male staff essential in our schools

One of the sadder trends of modern times is the dwindling number of male teachers in primary schools. Within the past 10 years the proportion of male staff has dropped below 20 per cent. The reasons are three, according to a study just released by the primary teachers' union, the NZ Educational Institute. They are, low pay, low social status and, most disturbing, "the Peter Ellis syndrome".

Low pay and low status should be easy to fix. The pay is self-evidently not a problem in attracting female staff, since there is no shortage overall. If schools feel their pupils are missing out on male role models the solution is to offer a premium to attract them. Unfortunately, present law prevents that. Even to specify the desired gender in a job advertisement, let alone offer a pay differential, would run foul of anti-discrimination doctrines.

Social status likewise should be no problem. Primary teachers have no reason to harbour an inferiority complex. They teach a broader range of subjects than their secondary and tertiary counterparts and they deal with the same class of children for most of the day. They probably need superior classroom arts to stimulate the same set of pupils throughout. And male teachers easily command a special status in a primary school. They figure disproportionately in senior ranks and as primary school principals they do not lack status in the community.

School children respond well to a father figure in their midst. For too many these days, it may be the closest thing to a father they see from day to day, which is more reason to regret the declining numbers in schools. Sadly, the natural responses of children can be too much for the comfort of male staff these days, which presumably is what the NZEI research means by the "Peter Ellis syndrome".

It is not necessary to believe in Ellis' innocence to share the view that the Christchurch creche worker was convicted of child sexual abuse on tenuous and often bizarre testimony. Experts maintain that such testimony is consistent with the experience of abuse. But if incredible tales are to be treated as evidence, how is an innocent person to defend himself?

Even before the Ellis case came to public attention, men were becoming extremely wary of physical contact with children lest it be misinterpreted. Male primary teachers of a previous era would commonly have children greet them as they came to school, taking the teacher by the hand and playing in the physical way that young children do with men they trust. Not any more.

The NZEI instituted a "no contact" policy after the Ellis case. This year an Auckland University education researcher, Alison Jones, found that policy reinforced anxiety rather than addressing it. She hoped the institute would reconsider it in line with her research. It should. The Ellis case, as she says, "was widely seen as an example of social hysteria rather than sexual abuse". The damage the case has done the recruitment of male teachers could be repaired by the enquiry that Ellis' defenders seek. Men might not run the risk of returning to child services until the mode of investigation of suspected abuse is objectively reviewed.

It is important that the loss of male primary teachers is arrested. Boys in particular benefit from dealing with adult males. Education, from pre-school to secondary level, has become feminised latterly, not just in the staffing but in the collaborative and highly communicative modes of learning now encouraged. It may be no coincidence that over the same period the performance of boys relative to girls has deteriorated.

The solution is not to lower standards of entry for men, though it is typical of the times that that should be suggested. As Education Minister Trevor Mallard says, nobody wants their child taught by a male in preference to a better female. But the system cannot be blind to the loss of a balance that children need. If extra incentives are needed to attract men now, let's provide them. To those who will cry "discrimination', we have to say some things are more important.