Paul Sargent, an assistant professor of sociology at San Diego State University in San Diego, Calif., talks to ASCD staff writer John Franklin about our perceptions of male teachers. Sargent is also the author of the book Real Men or Real Teachers? He can be reached at the Department of Sociology, San Diego State University, San Diego, CA 92182-4423; phone: 1-619-594-2783; e-mail:sargent@mail.sdsu.edu.
Q: Why is it that most men who teach do not go into elementary education?
A: Let me preface all this by saying that the reason we don't see many men in early childhood education is the same reason we originally didn't see women in firefighting and police work. We don't market certain professions in certain ways, and we don't market teaching to men and boys right now. We don't have very many images of men doing this kind of work. Boys don't see that, and if it's not something that they're exposed to, they won't aspire to it and won't see it as a calling when they grow up.
Q: Why don't we see these kinds of messages?
A: Well, one thing that makes it so difficult is the tremendous amount of suspicion in our society about men who work with children. Whenever the topic of men interacting with children comes up in the media, it's very often negative. Men who work with children find themselves under intense scrutiny because all too often we don't hear the positive things; we only hear the negative things. We hear all the stories about molestations, about abandonment and absentee fathers, about child abuse and violence against children, and so forth. That creates a very negative framework in people's minds. We hear all about the deadbeat dads, but there's no real offsetting image of men who take care of their children. We don't see that in the media or on television. This is not to say that bad things don't occur—we have to acknowledge that terrible things do happen and work to prevent them, but we shouldn't permit them to shape our perspectives entirely.
Q: So society continues to have perceptions about what is appropriate for men as opposed to women and vice versa?
A: Yes. As a society we do not envision early childhood education as "men's work." We've constructed it as "women's work." The reasons behind this are as myriad as the scholars who study it, really. When I look at this as a sociologist, what I'm seeing is that our society is still very divided by gender roles. We have very gendered notions of how labor should be divided up.
Q: What kinds of notions?
A: If we think of a police officer or a firefighter, we often think first of a man; if we think of a nurse, we usually associate that with a woman. That's not to say that there aren't female police officers or male nurses, but how many of us actually stop and catch ourselves when we think of these things? Our first reaction is typically to associate the occupation with one gender or another. Most people don't even catch themselves doing this. It's a stereotype that pervades society and is not caught.
Q: What's the result of that?
A: Well, when we see a man as a nurse or a woman as a police officer, what do we think? People assume that there's something "different" about this person. They see a man as a nurse and become suspicious. We bring all kinds of negative stereotypes about gender and orientation into play, and all too often, that assumption is that something is "abnormal" about such a person. In the case of seeing a man who is a nurse, someone might think, "Oh, he's gay." If there's a woman who's a police officer, she might be seen as unusually masculine, and that may lead people to question her sexual orientation as well.
This leads to the next question of what is wrong with that even if it were the case? If someone is gay, you would not associate that negatively if you had not learned a prejudice there. Now, with men who work with young children, it's a threefold negative issue, and it happens so quickly that most people don't even realize it. People see a man teaching small children and quite often make that same judgment that there's something "different" or "wrong" about him. Then they might think, "Oh, he's probably gay." And if he's gay, they may make the next leap and assume that since he likes working with children that he's probably a pedophile. So, in that person's mind, a man who likes working with children is not only unusual but probably gay, and then being gay is going to be associated with pedophilia, which is ludicrous. To equate a person who is gay with being a pedophile is completely out of the realm of all factual information. Most child molesters are straight men, according to the statistics, but that kind of statistical evidence doesn't come up in people's minds. Taken together, these negative perceptions create a tremendous obstacle for men who would like to think about becoming teachers.
Q: Since we're talking about gender and gender roles, what about the people who say, "Who cares what gender the teacher is? Why should it matter if the teacher is a man or a woman? Why should that be an issue?"
A: Well, those of us who look at occupations in general wonder what the consequences are for our children if they see only one kind of person doing a particular job. That perpetuates the stereotype that certain jobs are only for certain people. And if we need to get more educators—and the evidence certainly suggests that we do—but we've blocked out half our population from the job field, we're going to need to reexamine how we look at things.
Second, there is a tremendous amount of evidence suggesting that children perform better in an educational environment in which they're going to encounter people like themselves. For instance, in this country we're desperately trying to increase the ethnic and cultural diversity of our teachers. Why? Because children need to see people like themselves and feel comfortable about them.
Now, the numbers that are used in this argument—and it depends on which source you consult, obviously—say that somewhere around 40 percent of the students in U.S. schools are nonwhite or non-Caucasian, but only 12–14 percent of their teachers are non-Caucasian. In the case of male teachers, less than 2 percent of the K–3 teachers are men—and yet half our students in those schools are male.
Q: Leaving aside the gender issues for a moment, what about some of the other arguments for why men don't go into teaching? What about the notion that most men don't pursue it because the pay tends to be less than what they might earn in other professions?
A: That's a myth. Pay is important, but it's far from the main reason. Men are doing menial labor—roadwork, tarring roofs, moving furniture, and so on—and they're doing it for a lot less money than teaching.
Q: What about the argument that men prefer secondary teaching as opposed to elementary because secondary education might be a better stepping-stone toward the principalship?
A: There are a lot of myths out there, and this is another one. First of all, the principalship is seen by everyone as a whole different career than teaching, so the notion that someone would go into teaching just to become a principal is false. People—men and women—go into teaching because they want to teach.
Now, let's say that we have a male kindergarten teacher—right off the bat we're probably talking about less than one-half of 1 percent of all kindergarten teachers. There's a good chance that the information that this teacher gets on a regular basis from his peers, from his administrator, from parents, from the school, and from the general public is going to be that he doesn't really belong there. I don't care who you are, if you get constant information that says people don't think you belong where you are, you're going to look for an escape. And one of the escape rungs is to move into a nonteaching position.
Q: So they may move into the principalship as an escape?
A: Yes. Obviously this is not true in every case, because there will always be those who seek something else for different reasons. But again, if the messages are there saying that you don't belong, you're going to look for a way out.
Q: When we say "messages that they don't belong," what are we talking about, exactly?
A: Many of the men I've interviewed have said that they will find an announcement in their mailbox about a coaching position at another school, a principalship position at another school, a computer specialist's job somewhere else, or an opening as an administrator, and they'll be the only ones on the entire staff who get that flyer in their mailbox. No one else on the entire staff gets that announcement. In other cases, they'll go in and teach a class on the first day, and then they'll get six or seven notes the next day saying that kids are being withdrawn from their class—with no reason given. None. Only male teachers go through this in these numbers. These are just two examples of the tremendous amount of information that they regularly receive that says to them that they're a square peg in a round hole.
Q: What happens as a result of this? What do these men do as a result?
A: Well, if you're a male teacher and you're experiencing these things, what can you do? You don't want to bring more attention to yourself by jumping up on the roof and screaming about how unfair this is or how miserable it's making you, but if a man finds himself in that uncomfortable position, he'll look for an escape. It's not so much a pull as a push into something else.
Q: Are we talking about something that is widespread and frequent, or are these kinds of things isolated events?
A: I have to preface this with the realization that not everything is like this, and the experiences are not all negative, but the numbers and instances of negative feedback indicate that there may be a problem. Also, it's important to remember that what I'm talking about are specific things that happen and that most people may not even notice.
Most of the men that I talk to, for instance, do not take their breaks in the faculty room. They take them in their classrooms instead. That's where they spend their down time. Why do they do this? They might walk into the staff room, for example, and the conversation in the room suddenly stops. If that happens, they know that they're interrupting something. If it happens more than once, they'll know that they're not accepted, that they're not supposed to hear this because it's "not for them." It doesn't have to happen too often before you realize that you're seen as an obstacle to the normal functioning of that workplace and begin to feel that you don't belong there.
On the other hand, the conversation might also be something that men are uncomfortable about. If there's one guy in the room or on the staff, he's going to be made accountable or representative of all men if there's a gender issue that comes up in discussion. If there's anyone in the room who's having problems with a significant other, for example, this man is going to be made the soundboard for it. "Why are guys that way?" will be the question that gets asked of him.
Q: These aren't just conversational jokes then?
A: Not at all. In fact, it's the same thing that women face in the workplace when there are sexual jokes made at their expense in a predominantly male environment. In the case of men, there might be a Viagra joke or something else that deals with men's situations.
Now, when it comes to jokes specifically, men are amazed at the kinds of put-downs that take place in mixed company. Many of the jokes are very demeaning, but the men don't feel as though they have a right to complain or that they won't be taken seriously if they do. Many of the men I talk to point out that if the situation were reversed, their behavior would be considered sexist, and they'd likely be in deep trouble. But, again, they don't want to draw attention to themselves, they don't want to be seen as troublemakers, so they begin to self-isolate in order to avoid contact and avoid having to deal with such situations in the first place. Again, that isolation is a reaction to being made to feel as if he doesn't belong or is not accepted.
There are also a lot of men who tell me that female staff members will come in and intervene in their classrooms if they feel that a child needs nurturing. The unspoken feeling is that the guy needs to be "helped" in this area. The men say that they would never do this to a woman peer, but, again, nurturing is something that's just not seen as a guy's role. He's seen as someone who needs assistance. He wants to be seen as a teacher, but now he's feeling substandard because people don't trust him to be able to do his job.
Q: So it's very much like what women go through when entering a particular profession that has previously been male-dominated?
A: There's no question that these are the same issues that come up for any minority entering a workforce for the first time. If you're in the minority, there's going to be this kind of situation in which you're seen as less than standard in certain aspects.
There's literature from many different minority groups that says that when someone is in a minority, he or she is held at a higher standard because of status. You need to prove that you can do the job all the time; you're always being asked to justify your hiring. The typical worker, on the other hand, is assumed to be able to do the job. The minority workers—whether it's gender that we're talking about, or race, or whatever indicator you want to choose—these people are in a different position because they feel that they have to meet that standard but that they can never do enough because they're not going to be assessed in the same way. In the case of male teachers, they are going to be asked to do the heavy lifting, the discipline work, and so forth.
Q: The "discipline work?"
A: Yes. Many men report having a lot of kids who need discipline assigned to their classrooms with the assumption that they'll be tougher because they're men. Most men say that that's not accurate and that it's not why they got into teaching. They didn't get into teaching because they wanted to be a disciplinarian, they did it because they wanted to teach kids and don't consider it fair to make this assignment based on their gender.
Q: Is there a reason that this is not something that's addressed or discussed more frequently in U.S. schools? There are indications that European countries like Britain and some of the Scandinavian countries are trying to attract more men to the teaching profession. Is there a reason that European countries see this as an issue while U.S. schools systems apparently do not?
A: Well people can disagree about this, but I would say it's because these are more socialist-oriented societies. All of their programs and jobs tend to be more gender- equitable—in Europe, you'll see more women physicians, for instance, more male teachers, more stay-at-home dads, and so forth. The gender division of labor in most of these countries tends to be more equitable than in the United States. You can't make a statement like this about every occupation necessarily, but what the British have experienced recently is a drop in the number of men who teach. Depending on the country you're in, you can track the decline. It can be seen, whereas here in the United States—particularly in the primary grades—there's such a small number of men that no one really notices if things change.
Q: Some people—both teachers and principals—have suggested that single parents seek out male teachers for their children in order for the child to have a "good male role model" since there may not be one at home. What has your research shown about this?
A: The male role model responsibility is really just a giant millstone around the necks of most men. It is really a problem for them. They realize that there are several groups out there who want them to be role models, and they feel that they've been hired sometimes not to teach but to be a male role model instead. Again, they just want to teach. That's why they went into teaching.
The problem with the term "male role model" is that it's very difficult to define. Men who get into early childhood education usually do not define themselves as stereotypically masculine. They don't see themselves as aggressive, powerful, and so on. Rather, they see themselves in a different role. They don't see how they can be Arnold Schwarzenegger, for example, or why they are expected to be. Once again, they get into teaching children because they love working with children and love teaching. They're very intuitive, artistic, and so forth. But they're not necessarily this other type of image that we have, and that puts strain on them.
Now, on top of that, there's this other role that they're expected to provide. They're asked for the girls in the class—usually by single moms—to provide an alternative to "macho" behavior. They want to see a different version of what it means to be masculine. Someone who's not abusive, who's sensitive, who likes children, etc. This is difficult for men to do—they can't be both. In a class with half boys and half girls, that's a very fine line to walk.
So the male role model concept is really difficult. Men themselves find it very hard to define it. It's one of those phrases that's "jargonny;" we say it, but what exactly does it mean?
Q: There are various programs designed to attract more male minority teachers to inner city schools—the "Call Me Mister" program, for example—but are there any designed to attract men in general to the teaching profession?
A: There are none that I know of presently in the United States. I think the whole issue can be summed up in the idea that we need an affirmative action plan. Like true affirmative action this has very little to do with quotas or numbers. Rather, it means that we take action in certain areas to remedy underrepresentation. That begins all the way back at outreach. When you see a poster or an advertisement on TV that takes place in a classroom, who's the teacher? If it's small children, it'll almost always be a woman. The likelihood of seeing a man with small children and caring for them is very rare. Now, again, we've seen some changes, but there's a lot more to do.
We've managed to convince most media that if they're going to interview someone—say, someone in the military, for instance—that they need to have a diverse set of faces. Fourteen percent of the military is female, but they'll likely be 30–40 percent of the faces you see in interviews. The proportion is higher than what it is in the ranks. So why can we not convince people that if they're going to take their cameras into the world of teaching that they should be sure to find a man? Interview them and make sure that you have a sprinkling of that in your interviews. Don't make a big thing out of it or insist on a quota or something, just do it.
Q: Would it be safe to say that most of our assumptions about why men don't go into teaching elementary education are not necessarily true?
A: Most people already believe that they know why men are not teachers. Men have just "decided not to be there!" The premise of that assumption is that if men wanted to, they could just do it, because there's nothing in their way. People scoff at the idea. But remember: there are police officer issues, and then there are female police officer issues. There are teacher issues, and then there are male teacher issues as well as female teacher issues. As a society we say that teaching is an honorable profession, and it must be a reasonable and honorable undertaking or else people wouldn't do it. But why don't more men do it? There have to be reasons for it. The quick and simple answer is that men look at it and decide not to go into it for pay purposes. That's too simplistic. What people can choose to do and prefer to do should be free of gender bias. It's something that needs to be examined so we can make sure that gender is not a precursor for choosing a profession.