Too few male teachers in primary schools?

[edupak]

I'm interested in parents' views concerning what I rightly or wrongly perceive as the ongoing feminisation of staffing in primary schools. Most state primary schools seem unable to attract a balanced mix of male and female staff. Is this necessarily an issue? Several friends have told me that they would prefer their boys to have a mix of male and female role models/teachers. Would be great to hear other views/experiences...

edupak you really are a fan of bald assertions aren't.you? It isn't obvious that schools with mainly female staff will be "feminised", no, because what does that really mean? How would male teachers actually create a different "masculinised" atmosphere?

And in what ways do you think boys are being "feminised" even if there is such an atmosphere?

Perhaps you could.address some of the other questions I and others have asked you?

Edupak, no, you mean that you didn't actually look at the research, nor even my link.

My link, from someone who actually looked at the research says "I found overwhelming evidence that scientists agree that there is not a negative impact to children of same-sex couples"

The range of outcomes refers to the fact that thousands of different studies were examined, and those thousands of studies will have looked at different outcomes, not that those outcomes were limited.

You asserted That is why all research shows that children do better with parents from both genders.

But it doesn't. Certainly not the vast amount of research that this guy looked at.

it's a meta analysis of thousands of studies. When they say a range they mean a range. What evidence do you have that those thousands of studies only looked at a "limited" range of outcomes? Or is this another unsubstantiated assertion that you think should be obvious to everyone despite the lack of evidence?

X posts

The Cambridge research on new family forms gathered over the last 35 years has shown that children in these families do just as well as children raised in traditional families. The evidence also reveals that boys are no less masculine in terms of identity and behaviour, and girls are no less feminine, when they grow up with parents of a single or the same gender.

billmuehlenberg.com/2012/06/12/children-do-better-with-mother-and-father/

noblegiraffe I did read your link now please read the one above. It's not a matter of opinion; it's a statement of the obvious that a good father and a good mother provide children with better outcomes than one good parent. Or are you still trying to maintain that we're all from venus or all from mars and gender is irrelevant in 2015. You'll be seeking experimentation to advance the case for androgyny next no doubt. If so please stay away from me and my family. Thanks.

Can't believe that this is not obvious to some of you.

Who is the ex National sports team teacher at DS's school?

Oh yeah, a woman.

Edupak, you can't cite a blog to counter a meta analysis when that blog starts with a so called self evident truth.

I very much hope you aren't as judgemental about same sex parents IRL as you are coming across here..

The 'gold standard' study referred to in your linked blog does not support your conclusions, edupak.

The poor outcomes it shows for children of lesbian mothers or gay fathers refer not to children who were raised in same sex relationships, but whose parents split up and then one parent went on to have a same sex relationship. Most of the respondents lived under the roof of a same sex relationship for under a year or not at all.

Your assertion was that children do better with parents from both genders. Now you are claiming that you meant parents from both genders compared to a single parent?

You've missed your calling as a secondary maths and statistics teacher. Of course a blog reporting on one study that systematically excluded less stable heterosexual families but not the less stable homosexual ones is better than a comprehensive meta analysis looking at thousands of studies over 35 years. You're right... I blame my puny, feminine, rubbish-at-understanding-numbers-and-stuff brain for not realising sooner. I have seen the light. Thank you!!

What edupak is doing here is called 'cherry picking'.

Edupak, if you're going to quote studies, I suggest you check out their merits first. The Regenerus study quoted in the blog you linked to didn't even measure the outcomes of children from same-sex couples!

This is the reaction from Human Rights Campaign.

The study was sponsored by the Witherspoon Institute, which has ties to the National Organisation for Marriage, and a number of high profile Professors have rubbished the findings; in fact the AMA and the President of the American Sociological Association have put their names to documents and reviews which call Regenerus' methodology "scientifically unsound."

YSD look at the research he cites. Tell me honestly do you really think children's outcomes are as good with one good parent, two good same sex 'parents' or two good biological ones.

The research was in the blog if you read it - Science Daily I believe. Meta analysis ignores qualitative information and takes an average of numerical results which makes it just about the worst kind of tool for determining outcomes for children in different settings. It measures none of the relationship behaviours and complex interactions between parents and children for example.

The research that he cites was hugely flawed. The university he worked for disavowed it as it was methodologically flawed. He was comparing only stable married heterosexual families with children of people who had left heterosexual relationships and had some form of homosexual relationship. He wasn't comparing like with like and had cherry-picked his data. A two-minute google told me this.

Two different hes there... hopefully you know what i mean

Edupak, your posts are full of nonsense and you seem to be homophobic and sexist.

So I'm not engaging further.

www.cambridge.org/gb/academic/subjects/psychology/developmental-psychology/modern-families-parents-and-children-new-family-forms

Some say Regenerus is a genius some say he's the devil. It depends on which side of the fence you sit. Just about every social science study is hailed yet simultaneously condemned for one reason or another. I see there are a few of you who think that a mother and a father combination is not the best starting point for a child. Quite extraordinary and sad. On that note, I must leave the discussion as I have parenting duties to perform and my partner is at work.

Why is it sad edupak? It would be strange if people were saying that a mother and father combination was inferior in any way to another form of parent combination I agree. But nobody on this thread is saying this. They are simply saying that the evidence suggests that other types of parenting are not inferior to the mother/father combination. I don't think that is sad at all. I think we should greet that news with some pleasure because it means that all the children in the country (and elsewhere) who are parented differently from the traditional model are not in some way disadvantaged purely by their parenting model. They may be disadvantaged in another way, of course, which is equally true of children where there are both mother and father present. That is sad, of course.

Some say Regenerus is a genius some say he's the devil. It depends on which side of the fence you sit

No it doesn't. Science doesn't work like that. It is perfectly possible to take personalities out of the equation, look objectively at the evidence presented and ask 'does this evidence support the conclusions which are being drawn?'. In this case, no they don't.

You can't call a child whose parents split up and whose father then went on to have a short-lived gay relationship a child of same sex parents. That's just nonsense whoever writes it and whatever side of the fence you sit on.

Some say Regenerus is a genius .... and others just say his conclusions aren't supported by the evidence presented.

Not if you are Bill Muehlenberg it isn't, noblegiraffe. Looking at the evidence objectively would mean you'd have to open your mind to the fact that your multiple homphobic outpourings are wrong. Much better just to interpret it to say what you want it to say then you don't have to make a massively embarrassing u-turn on your beliefs.

Not if you are Bill Muehlenberg it isn't, noblegiraffe. Looking at the evidence objectively would mean you'd have to open your mind to the fact that your multiple homophobic outpourings are wrong. Much better just to interpret it to say what you want it to say then you don't have to make a massively embarrassing u-turn on your beliefs.

Rafa, I completely agree. In fact I would suggest the OP is doing quite the same!

Quite. There was a nice switch from objecting to too many women teaching boys and some huge gender stereotypes at the start of the thread to being anti same sex relationships at the end.

I'm a male and also a primary school teacher. I'm afraid you're all well off the mark. NONE of us see the kids as little boys and girls. Not anymore. Now they are just numbers for whom academic progress must be shown. I don't see your child as a girl or boy with pastoral needs. I see it as as average, above average or - God forbid - below average. This is what is expected from us by HTs. Everything else is incidental. It didn't used to be like this. Huge depression in primary schools at the moment.

Wow! So sad that you feel like that saltnwenger - are you planning an exit strategy?

From my perspective, yes the accountability aspect from all sides does make the numbers of huge importance. But you don't get an improvement in your numbers without knowing each child really well, recognising learning is impacted by pastoral needs and teaching the individual not just the set curriculum.
It does boil down to individual schools, but to blame HTs is naïve. HTs have pressure from LAs, governors, government and parents about quantifiable attainment and progress. It is the HT's (or maybe someone else on the SLT's) job to manage that data across the whole school and look at trends (and reasons) and help staff decide on teaching priorities - the biggest difference to pupil outcomes is Quality First Teaching - i.e. exceptional class teaching that is tailored to cohorts and individuals. The SLT should be supporting staff to become the best teachers they can be so that can happen. If your school is making you feel that children are just a number may I suggest you start looking at different schools, because despite the emphasis some HTs do see children as real people!