Scholarships For Women Only But Not Men

[Forsher]

On the subject of NZ's (declining) proportions of male teachers (16.5% in primary -- ages 5-13 -- and 41.2% in secondary), Stuff.co.nz's journalists did their due diligence and found someone with relevant experience to discuss the obvious solution: provide scholarships for blokes to be teachers.

Rotorua principal and former Secondary Principals' Association president Patrick Walsh recalled the drive for scholarships but said a decision by the Human Rights Commission halted the initiative.

He said despite male teachers being in a minority, scholarships were only available for women, disabled people and those from varying ethnic backgrounds.

The commission had said it would be unlawful to offer male-only scholarships.

Hmm, that doesn't sound right, does it? Bad Human Rights Commission. Give them a smack, wait, no that's illegal. Consider yourselves admonished by a random, anonymous denizen of the internet you naughty Human Rights Commission you.

Except, I'm pretty sure that's not the case. The spoiler contains why because my point is not about what's happening now (see summary question at the post's end).

It's actually not particularly easy to figure out what's happening here (so the journalists haven't quite gone as far as they should have). I've tried to find out about the Human Rights Commission's decision around a decade ago but I didn't really find anything. I did learn that it's possible that the objection is on the grounds that only charities can offer such scholarships as the ones that Walsh mentioned by following the comments section on a blog. I don't think the "in due course" bit happened but I wasn't being the world's most thorough researcher. It is very clear though. I believe the academic mentioned to be Paul Callister and you can get more on his views here (NZFWG = NZ federation of graduate women).

Back in 2010, Sarah Farquhar also wrote some stuff on the even worse proportions of male early childhood teachers:

In an article in the Sunday Star Times, 20 July 2008, a reporter said that: “Under national and international human rights laws, temporary measures such as the scholarships are allowed to address inequality between the sexes and are deemed not discriminatory; but must be stopped when equality is achieved”.

Dr Paul Callister from VictoriaUniversity asked the Human Rights Commission to clarify its position on women-only scholarships, saying that women now significantly outperform men in education and therefore there is no longer a justification for such scholarships to remain. The clarification received from the HRC was that scholarships for women, men and other groups offered by charitable trusts are exempt from the provisions of the Human Rights Act 1993.

What would happen if a charitable trust offered a scholarship for male early childhood teachers? We don’t know because the waters are uncharted.

Given that there are some interesting disparities in secondary, I would imagine that Callister is correct even when talking about tertiary. However, the NZFWG link includes at least one contributor who contests his figures. The point is that the journalist's summary is the closest I've got to assessing the true state of Walsh's comments... it implies that the Commission was probably slightly wrong, even though Walsh's comparisons were likely covered under article/section/whatever it's called 150 of the Human Rights Act 1993 that I previously linked or that Walsh's summary of what they said was (to some unknown extent) wrong.

For all that, though, we're left with two talking points. Firstly, is it appropriate for anyone to offer scholarships for one specific gender? Secondly, do we actually need to care about whether or not we've got some frankly appalling splits in terms of teachers?

Firstly, yes I think it is appropriate. Whether that gender is male, female or something else. I agree completely with Callister's views on the justifications of/purposes to scholarships (i.e. a) merit b) need c) social change)... although some sort of oversight is needed obviously. I think scholarships are a powerful tool to achieve a lot of good... although there is lag between what we see in educational contexts and what we might consider the world in practice. Which is to say, while girls/women have been doing better in schools for years, we're not seeing this so much when we look at more popular statistics of gender inequality.

I reject the notion that the Australian Human Rights and Equal Opportunities Commission apparently holds in that offering scholarships for men discriminates against women. However, it is possible that this wasn't just about scholarships and if Pru Goward's view that this idea involved quotas and deliberately paying men more is true so, in that case, I agree with the Commission. (Even though the first link predates the second I still get the feeling it's the same issue.) I don't see scholarships as being discriminatory in a problematic fashion (they're inherently discriminatory) if they work to address some sort of imbalance or, like many existing scholarships for women, recognise the legacy of some significant individual.

Secondly, I think we should very much care about the proportions. You've got the argument I outlined here. You've got the role model one. You've even got the (to my mind weaker) argument used by Walsh: "Boys learn differently, particularly in areas like maths and science, and a good male teacher can really help with that." However, the angle that I think here is that not caring about it is necessarily discriminatory. Take a look at this statement of Pru Goward from the previously linked interview.

PRU GOWARD: The Parliamentary report made it very clear that the reason men don't take up teaching is not the absence of a scholarship when they’re 18, it’s the absence of decent pay when they’re older, and decent promotional opportunities, the fact that the profession’s seen as very girly, that young men don’t want to be seen as wusses, some men fear that they might be called homosexual, and of course there’s all those allegations of men interfering with small children.

All of those reasons in bold, to me, suggest one big thing. By not caring we endorse the status quo. We normalise the absence of men from the lives of (in particular) young children and through that we endorse those views in bold. Which is good for no-one at all. Except, maybe, little twats on the internet looking for something to make ideological points with. I don't think that we can fix this without something more radical than marketing because that's what we in NZ have apparently been doing and not seeing any success with. And by radical I mean scholarships... definitely not quotas and different pay scales for men and women.

So, yeah, NSG... what do you think about the topics of a) specific gender scholarships and b) male teachers? Also, the 30% figure is from (16.5 + 41.2)/200 = 28.85%.

[Degenerate Heart of HetRio]

You've even got (to my mind weaker) argument used by Walsh: "Boys learn differently, particularly in areas like maths and science, and a good male teacher can really help with that."

That's patently bullshit. Not only is believing in inherently biological gender cognitive differences pretty fucking bio-essentialist, sexist/binarist, cissexist/dyadist and such, my best math and science teachers were always the women, and I'm legally male.

(Professor homem de exatas sempre reprova por décimos. It won't be forgiven and won't be forgotten. *glares* *nods*)

[Neutraligon]

I see no problem with gender based scholarships, for men or women. The male teachers I had were a mixed bag, some where good some where bad, most were younger. I have no problem with male teachers, or for that matter men in positions of childcare.

[Kiribati-Tarawa]

I think we shouldn't concern ourselves with the sexes of our teachers, but with their quality. I've had excellent male and female teachers, just as I've had terrible male and female teachers. I don't think one's sex has much to do with one's ability to be a good teacher.

[Degenerate Heart of HetRio]

All of those reasons in bold, to me, suggest one big thing. By not caring we endorse the status quo. We normalise the absence of men from the lives of (in particular) young children and through that we endorse those views in bold. Which is good for no-one at all. Except, maybe, little twats on the internet looking for something to make ideological points with. I don't think that we can fix this without something more radical than marketing because that's what we in NZ have apparently been doing and not seeing any success with. And by radical I mean scholarships... definitely not quotas and different pay scales for men and women.

Definitely agree with you on this one.

[Cerillium]

There are numerous reasons for the decline in male teachers. It's not just about scholarships. This article gives a small bit of insight: http://professionallyspeaking.oct.ca/june_2007/male_teachers.asp

[Forsher]

I think we shouldn't concern ourselves with the sexes of our teachers, but with their quality. I've had excellent male and female teachers, just as I've had terrible male and female teachers. I don't think one's sex has much to do with one's ability to be a good teacher.

It doesn't. However, this argument, particularly when I've explained the problem with the status quo, endorses the status quo which is seriously problematic in terms of solidifying the social conventions that mean men are less likely to far less likely to enter the teaching profession. We have to, in this sense, be concerned about the sexes of teachers as not doing so effectively says to boys and girls, "Being a teacher and being a man is strange." And, personally, children notice that there aren't many male teachers.

[Nuwe Suid Afrika]

a) Gender specific scholarships should be abolished. This is only allowing one gender to succeed past another.
b) Nothing wrong with 30% of teachers being male. It's simply the fact that only that few of men decide to go into the education department.

You've even got (to my mind weaker) argument used by Walsh: "Boys learn differently, particularly in areas like maths and science, and a good male teacher can really help with that."

That's patently bullshit. Not only is believing in inherently biological gender cognitive differences pretty fucking bio-essentialist, sexist/binarist, cissexist/dyadist and such, my best math and science teachers were always the women, and I'm legally male.

(Professor homem de exatas sempre reprova por décimos. It won't be forgiven and won't be forgotten. *glares* *nods*)

What? I underlined the parts that don't make sense.

[The Risen Jaguar Warriors]

I don't /quite/ know how it is in NZ, but in Australia...

Women can be principal of a boys' school.

BUT...

Men can't be principal of a girls' school.

Why? Because apparently only women understand the "girly" stuff, like "menstruation" and stuff... But that's the job of the secretaries! Why would a principal need to understand that? WHY?!

Until September last year, I went to a girls' school:
- The principal and BOTH deputy principals were women
- ALL the head teachers were women
- ALL of the PD/H/PE (Personal Development/Health/Physical Education) teachers were women
- ALL of the Tech teachers were women
- ALL but one of the English teacher were women
- ALL but one of the Maths teachers were women
- ALL but one of the Creative Arts teachers were women
- ALL but two of the Science teachers were women
- The school counsellor was a woman

And at that school, there was a LOT of promotion of a somewhat radical branch of feminism:
- The only international school ties we had were with girls' schools
- We only talked about female idols
- We talked about men being the perpetrators of domestic violence (we kept silent on the reverse)
- We were taught that women were smarter and achieved better than men
- In the 40-hour famine promotionals, we were only shown videos of impoverished little girls, no impoverished little boys, so we could support them
- In the 3-4 years I was there, almost ALL the guests were women
- In PD/H/PE classes, boys and men shown as basically the sole perpetrators of sexual and violent crimes against women (as well as abandoning teenage mothers)
- In English classes, we focused a LOT on female authors
- In weekly assemblies, there was ALWAYS a LOT of focus on "sisterhood*"

*Ha. Ha. Ha. I was bullied out of schooling altogether because of them! I'm now stuck at home! Did the staff do anything? NO! The staff did BUGGER ALL! Apparently it was "all my opinion"... -.- The teachers ALWAYS sided with the bullies (except for my Y10 Art and Maths teachers who BOTH recovered my examination results from destruction) and I was ALWAYS dragged out of class...

But... Back on topic...

There is a SERIOUS shortage of male teachers (even in boys' schools). Male teachers are needed as an authority figure, because younger boys tend to need discipline, which female teachers often cannot provide as effectively. And since WHEN was teaching a "sissy" or "girly" job? Hm? Socrates... Aristotle... Basically EVERY great teacher in history was a man! Why is teaching now "sissy" or "girly" or grounds of accusations of homosexuality? Hm? And mind you, female teachers can and DO seduce students, but it's often a lot more unnoticed... -.-

[Larrylykinsland]

Affirmative action irony at it's best.
Discrimination to cause equality.

[The Lotophagi]

I think working to actually pay teachers decent wages and overhauling educational funding would do much more to re-balance teacher gender ratios than trying to dangle a carrot in front of university students. Make teaching a viable career again and the students will follow.

[Degenerate Heart of HetRio]

That's patently bullshit. Not only is believing in inherently biological gender cognitive differences pretty fucking bio-essentialist, sexist/binarist, cissexist/dyadist and such, my best math and science teachers were always the women, and I'm legally male.

(Professor homem de exatas sempre reprova por décimos. It won't be forgiven and won't be forgotten. *glares* *nods*)

What? I underlined the parts that don't make sense.

He's talking from his ass that there's a universal male experience, a concept that is fucked up and essentialist in itself, and neglects important ~biological~ subgroups within us.

I challenged his assertion through using my own anecdotal evidence. (Well, I'm imprigender neutroisflux < neutrois < non-binary < dmab trans < non-male, but no government or education system will ever recognize this anyway.)

The second part is why what I'm saying is just as legitimate: there are important average sociocultural characteristics of men, more relevant than appealing to this ridiculous, relative notion of bio-neurological ones, that renders interaction with them problematic.

Such as for example, that I have an experience with math and science male teachers being the ones who won't accept 59% as practically 60% and call it a day, they are going to count you as student failure regardless. That is not to say they are all harsh or unpleasant, or that these characteristics are inherent to men, but just that appealing to an universal male mutual understanding is fucked up because it's dumb and nonsensical to think that just because I share someone's gender (in theory), we're going to necessarily get along better.

Not to say of how girls should also be given equal attention, so this debate is moot.

[Tahar Joblis]

What? I underlined the parts that don't make sense.

He's talking from his ass that there's a universal male experience, a concept that is fucked up and essentialist in itself, and neglects important ~biological~ subgroups within us.

I challenged his assertion through using my own anecdotal evidence. (Well, I'm imprigender neutroisflux < neutrois < non-binary < dmab trans < non-male, but no government or education system will ever recognize this anyway.)

The second part is why what I'm saying is just as legitimate: there are important average sociocultural characteristics of men, more relevant than appealing to this ridiculous, relative notion of bio-neurological ones, that renders interaction with them problematic.

Such as for example, that I have an experience with math and science male teachers being the ones who won't accept 59% as practically 60% and call it a day, they are going to count you as student failure regardless. That is not to say they are all harsh or unpleasant, or that these characteristics are inherent to men, but just that appealing to an universal male mutual understanding is fucked up because it's dumb and nonsensical to think that just because I share someone's gender (in theory), we're going to necessarily get along better.

Not to say of how girls should also be given equal attention, so this debate is moot.

It is true that there is not a universal male experience.

It is also true that on the whole, boys and girls tend to interact somewhat differently with different pedagogical styles, and this can create differential performance. It is also true that male and female teachers tend to have different pedagogical styles, and that as a consequence, you want to have a diverse array of teachers in order to make sure that students don't fall through the cracks.

It is also true that female teachers have been shown to discriminate against boys; and in particular, to grade boys on behavior rather than academic performance. This was discussed extensively in this thread. It is also discussed in this TIMES article.

It's perfectly reasonable to expect that boys, on the whole, will show less of a performance gap in an environment where teachers are divided evenly by gender.

There is also another effect of affirmative action: Teaching is a large career; and educated men going into teaching opens up opportunities for women in male-dominated white-collar careers by displacement. The fact that we did very little to remedy the gender gaps in nursing and teaching (the former remains very large; the latter has increased sharply) is one of the reasons why we still have as many male-dominated fields as we do.

It's very clear that if what you actually want is the social, political, and economic equality of men and women, you should support working to bring more men into teaching, especially primary school teaching.

[Cerillium]

What? I underlined the parts that don't make sense.

He's talking from his ass that there's a universal male experience, a concept that is fucked up and essentialist in itself, and neglects important ~biological~ subgroups within us.

I challenged his assertion through using my own anecdotal evidence. (Well, I'm imprigender neutroisflux < neutrois < non-binary < dmab trans < non-male, but no government or education system will ever recognize this anyway.)

The second part is why what I'm saying is just as legitimate: there are important average sociocultural characteristics of men, more relevant than appealing to this ridiculous, relative notion of bio-neurological ones, that renders interaction with them problematic.

Such as for example, that I have an experience with math and science male teachers being the ones who won't accept 59% as practically 60% and call it a day, they are going to count you as student failure regardless. That is not to say they are all harsh or unpleasant, or that these characteristics are inherent to men, but just that appealing to an universal male mutual understanding is fucked up because it's dumb and nonsensical to think that just because I share someone's gender (in theory), we're going to necessarily get along better.

Not to say of how girls should also be given equal attention, so this debate is moot.

The point wasn't "males bond better with males". It's a reflection of teaching style and approach. Many males have a style that differs from females (although it isn't exclusive nor set in stone as "the male way"). Some people learn better when a topic is presented by a male. Some learn better with a female. It depends on culture and the teacher's own upbringing, in part, as well as the teacher's skills.

[Tahar Joblis]

It is also true that female teachers have been shown to discriminate against boys; and in particular, to grade boys on behavior rather than academic performance.

Let me expand on this point.

I'm going to give you a reason why this is bad. Academic performance and "classroom" behavior are imperfectly correlated. They are positively correlated - in many cases, "problem" students have parents who are poor, uneducated, or spend little time with their kids. I'm going to go through the experience of boys, group by group, sorted by types:

1. Well-behaved and strong academic ability: This group of boys will get good grades in early educational experiences as they have mostly-female teachers, and continue to get good grades at higher levels of schooling, where grading is more often completely objective. They have both ability and opportunity.
2. Well-behaved but weak academic ability: This group of boys will get good grades in their early educational experiences; and then suddenly founder as they reach higher levels. You can get into college on the strength of being a well-behaved boy; but it's not going to get you through Calc or Biochem. This group of boys gets the opportunity to get through the higher-level material, but not the ability.
3. Poorly-behaved but strong academic ability: Getting bad grades early on means you get "tracked" into less advanced courses. This group of boys may have the ability to get through advanced material, but they are far less likely to have the opportunity.
4. Poorly-behaved and weak academic ability: Neither ability nor opportunity.

The educational system is in some sense a multi-stage sorting process. Each stage (primary, secondary, and post-secondary education; or elementary school, middle school, high school, and college, if you will) is intended to help sort students out into the "right" version of the next stage. In the case of elementary school, it's slower and faster tracks at the middle school. (In Germany, this is much more formalized, but different educational tracks effectively come into existence even within very egalitarian US public schools). In middle school, you're sorted again for tracks in high school. In high school, you're sorted into dropouts, graduates that aren't going on to college, and college-bound graduates. (And to various specific tiers of school within that.)

Because female teachers, especially at lower levels, are often grading on something other than academic performance, with a more limited bearing on their ability to handle future levels of education, the school system simply isn't working as well for sorting out boys. Types B-C are often "misplaced" into tracks that are, respectively, either above their actual capabilities, or below the level that they could handle. Even if the system was not stacked against boys overall, this would create a gender performance gap, just through mismatching.

[L Ron Cupboard]

People left money in their wills in the past, or set up trusts, to fund scholarships for specific groups. I am not sure of the legality of retrospectively changing the conditions set down to make those scholarships are open to everybody.

[Degenerate Heart of HetRio]

Well, the school that forced me haircuts had/has this "conduct" thing counting as much to your grade development and history as an actual subject in primary school.

I only got an 80% in the place of an erased 40% because, as far as I can gather, the teacher perceived that I was not intentionally a bad presence on her class, and that my problematic behavior wasn't that "background of the class" behavior that characterizes fuck da police lack of discipline. (That one is, I will confess, very gendered in my experience.)

I remember it being VERY arbitrary back then. Then again, I always hate physical education and arts being counted as actual grades, and am happy that religion is illegal as a forced subject in public schools. (It counts as nothing other than to test how willing you are to learn and be sociable.)

I'm in group A for most subjects and group B for math and science, I suppose? I am notoriously rude/unrestrained only with authority figures I grow to dislike, and try to stay within the less problematic half of the class in all situations. But Brazil's system includes a test when you finish high school (since the early 2010s, during it if you will) that will lead you directly to University.

You can't pick the subjects that will be tested (meaning I'm forced to dispute math and science with super nerds, which is why I dropped out of public school - it's shitty and I will learn less than 15% of what is necessary for me to shine bright like a diamond in the admission exam), but people don't pick what you will further study.

It is true that there is not a universal male experience.

It is also true that on the whole, boys and girls tend to interact somewhat differently with different pedagogical styles, and this can create differential performance. It is also true that male and female teachers tend to have different pedagogical styles, and that as a consequence, you want to have a diverse array of teachers in order to make sure that students don't fall through the cracks.

It is also true that female teachers have been shown to discriminate against boys; and in particular, to grade boys on behavior rather than academic performance. This was discussed extensively in this thread. It is also discussed in this TIMES article.

It's perfectly reasonable to expect that boys, on the whole, will show less of a performance gap in an environment where teachers are divided evenly by gender.

Then the guy quoted by OP should have been more clear about that point, because it came off as sex/gender essentialism.

I agree to many points about the necessity of diversity of teaching body, specially so when gender-based and over forms of discrimination are evidenced, but what he implied seemed like a huge appeal to deterministic notions about people's cognitive potential, and I naturally took insult.

[Portomellow]

I've no problem with a significantly more female workforce in teaching. Perhaps it will provide a counterweight to lad culture and promote more of a respect for women later in life when experiencing them in authority positions early.

[Degenerate Heart of HetRio]

I've no problem with a significantly more female workforce in teaching. Perhaps it will provide a counterweight to lad culture and promote more of a respect for women later in life when experiencing them in authority positions early.

No such thing, specially in cultures where teaching isn't valued as a profession.

It can be easily interpreted as a profession for people with a natural nurturer instinct and all that horse shit.

[Portomellow]

I've no problem with a significantly more female workforce in teaching. Perhaps it will provide a counterweight to lad culture and promote more of a respect for women later in life when experiencing them in authority positions early.

No such thing, specially in cultures where teaching isn't valued as a profession.

It can be easily interpreted as a profession for people with a natural nurturer instinct and all that horse shit.

No such thing as what exactly?

[Forsher]

I've no problem with a significantly more female workforce in teaching. Perhaps it will provide a counterweight to lad culture and promote more of a respect for women later in life when experiencing them in authority positions early.

Given that this has been the case for quite some time, I think reality disagrees with you.

[Portomellow]

I've no problem with a significantly more female workforce in teaching. Perhaps it will provide a counterweight to lad culture and promote more of a respect for women later in life when experiencing them in authority positions early.

Given that this has been the case for quite some time, I think reality disagrees with you.

You're not demonstrating that. If you can show a good comparison with a male dominated education system then perhaps but that isn't the case. My hypothesis stands. I really would expect more from someone who seems quite keen on education and knowledge.

[Degenerate Heart of HetRio]

No such thing, specially in cultures where teaching isn't valued as a profession.

It can be easily interpreted as a profession for people with a natural nurturer instinct and all that horse shit.

No such thing as what exactly?

Female prominence in teaching has the power to sand gender roles away and/or promotes a socially positive, affirmed view of women.

[Portomellow]

No such thing as what exactly?

Female prominence in teaching has the power to sand gender roles away and/or promotes a socially positive, affirmed view of women.

I'm really quite confused by your posts.

There is no such thing as a female prominence in teaching having the power to sand gender roles away and/or promote a socially positive, affirmed view of women. This is what you mean?

I suspect otherwise.

[Degenerate Heart of HetRio]

There is no such thing as a female prominence in teaching having the power to sand gender roles away and/or promote a socially positive, affirmed view of women. This is what you mean?

I suspect otherwise.

Yes.

Suspect as you wish.