|
|
|
Primary Research - Gender, the labour market, the workplace and policy in children's services: Parent, staff and student attitudes (free full-text available) |
|
|
|
Michael Lyons
University of Western Sydney
Andrea Quinn
University of Queensland
Jennifer Sumsion
Macquarie University
This paper reports the attitudes of parents, staff and teacher education students towards the employment of men in the children's services ‘industry'. The attitudinal survey questions were grouped around four distinct issues: gender roles, labour market behaviour, workplace behaviour and policy. Surprisingly, all three stakeholder groups surveyed expressed similar views on the four issues. While the results suggest that attitudes are not an impediment to increasing the number of male workers, they also suggest recruitment strategies need to be cognisant of both the potential advantages and disadvantages of a more gender-balanced workforce. The findings question policies based on the need to have male ‘role models' in children's services.
Recently, considerable public attention has been devoted to the topic of the gender composition of the teacher education workforce in Australia. This attention is focused on the reasons for, and consequences of, the relatively few males in the teacher workforce. Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS, 2002) data shows that males account for only about one-third of the education ‘industry' workforce. However, the proportion of male teachers varies considerably within each ‘sector' of the industry: about 45 per cent in secondary education and about 21 per cent in primary education (House of Representatives, 2002). Reasons put forward for the seeming reluctance of males to become teachers include ‘the status of teachers in the community, salary, career opportunities and child protection issues' (House of Representatives, 2002, p. 155). In announcing proposed changes to the federal Sex Discrimination Act 1984 to permit biased schemes to attract males into the education profession, the federal minister for education and the attorney-general noted that the lack of male teachers ‘is even more pronounced in early childhood education' (Nelson & Ruddock, 2004).
In the two sectors of the children's services ‘industry' catering for under-school-aged children—preschool education and childcare services—the relatively few males in the workforce is stark. Of the approximately 14,000 preschool education teachers in Australia, males account for only two per cent of the workforce, and of the approximately 68,000 ‘child care workers' in Australia, males account for only four per cent of the workforce (ABS, 2002). Despite their ‘minority status' in the respective workforces, males constitute a much higher proportion of managerial positions relative to their overall share of teaching and children's services staff. Males account for about 56 per cent of school principals and eight per cent of child care coordinators (ABS, 2002).
This paper discusses the results from a study examining the gender imbalance of the children's services workforce in New South Wales (NSW). The paper focuses on the findings of three surveys conducted for the study and how they advance our understanding of the factors behind the gender make-up of the education and children's services professions. Surveys were conducted of university students, staff employed in preschools services and long day care centres, and of parents whose children attend children's services. The purposes of the surveys were to identify attitudinal opposition to the employment of males in the children's services ‘industry' overall, and attitudinal differences among the three survey sample populations. It was anticipated that, because of the diversity of demographic and motivational influences shaping the respondents' attitudes, differences would be found. However, this was not the case. Surprisingly, all three groups of respondents reported almost identical attitudes.
Males and children's services
Interviews with staff employed in long day care centres, conducted by Lyons (1998), revealed four issues as potential barriers to the employment of males in children's services: anti-male attitudes, the assumption that a male would be homosexual (and that this is somehow undesirable), child protection considerations, and the relative low pay. According to British research, the small proportion of male workers may be because of the relatively low pay and status, and the connotations of the work with ‘mothering' (Carrington, 2002). Another British study (Penn & McQuail, 1997) found two main reasons for the industry's workforce gender composition: the perception that the work is ‘natural' for females and the ‘perversity' of males who desire to perform these ‘unnatural' duties.
One notable feature of formal child care is the relative low pay available to both male and female practitioners. It is therefore no coincidence that the ‘child care industry' has been subjected to pay equity inquiries in both NSW and Queensland (CREW, 2000). Arguably, if more males are attracted to children's services, the accompanying increase in status of the labour, the training and qualifications would result in increased pay. This inference appears to be supported by ABS data: the award pay rates for non-teaching children's services workers is less than average female earnings, and vocationally qualified staff earn less than the average of their occupational group (advanced clerical and service workers) (ABS, 2000). Alternatively, higher pay could increase the attraction to males (Cameron et al., 2001), and act to retain staff once employed (Cortis, 2000).
For many men the magnitude of the risks in becoming an early years teacher—the fear of being labelled ‘perverts' or ‘child abusers', for example (Budge, 1998)—overshadows the potential rewards (Sumsion, 2000a). At the very least, their motivations can come under suspicion because they are considered to be merely ‘transient' workers who will change employment when presented with more attractive opportunities (Cameron, 2001). Murray (2001) argues that many of the concerns about males working in children's services are an attitudinal response to men working in a traditionally female-dominated workforce, and not supported by evidence.
Potential problems of increased male workforce participation
Career advancement can be a gendered experience. The Australian College of Educators (ACE) national survey of the teacher workforce found two-thirds of all school teachers were female; yet males dominated managerial positions, and male teachers expressed a greater willingness to apply for promotion than did females (and, it should be added, seek a job outside of teaching) (ACE, 2001). If these patterns were replicated in children's services, the outcome could be a reinforcement of beliefs that a male's job is more important than a female's job (Cameron, 2001). While domestic commitments and the division of labour in the family might explain many female teachers' relative lack of desire for promotion, it has also been argued that management is a ‘masculine' concept and practice that favours males (DeCorse & Vogtle, 1997). Allahyari (1997) questioned why it is that even within the most ‘female' of occupations, men earn more and attain more successful careers than do women. Williams (1995, in Allahyari, 1997) conceptualised this outcome as the ‘glass escalator' effect.
Many of the asserted potential benefits of more male contact staff have been strongly contested by some commentators, who argue that they are based on naive assumptions about gender and how it is constructed and enacted, and fail to take account of broader sociocultural, political and economic structures that entrench traditional gender roles (see MacNaughton & Newman, 2001, for a detailed discussion). Indeed, these commentators contend that the effects of increasing male participation in the children's services workforce could be problematic, especially if the presence of men perpetuated traditional gender roles and stereotypes. They argue that additional males may do more harm than good, for example by denying female workers opportunities to advance into management and other senior positions. Moreover, some contend that, as males are more likely than females to be sexual predators of young children, male practitioners could be restricted in the performance of their duties because of the greater regulation of their conduct (Cameron et al., 2001). In brief, there is little consensus amongst proponents of a greater male presence in children's services about why more men should be involved (Owen, 1998) and ongoing debate about whether more men should be involved (MacNaughton & Newman, 2001).
The relatively few empirical studies focusing on male early childhood educators (e.g. Cameron, Moss & Owen, 1999; Farquhar, 1997; Murray, 1996; Sumsion, 2000b) highlight a diversity of views held by male staff about gender and gender roles and how these play out in their work with other staff, parents and children. Although it would be unwise to generalise too liberally, there is some evidence to suggest that, while male early childhood educators flout social expectations about gender in their choice of occupation, they may nevertheless inadvertently act in gender-stereotyped ways. As the participants in these studies described their interactions with children and adults, the ways in which they drew on their professional knowledge base to care for children and to facilitate their learning, and the rationale for their professional decision-making, there seemed little to suggest that they were actively challenging the gender status quo. Indeed, their responses reflected fairly traditional gender views. In summary, there is little empirical support in the literature for the argument that greater male involvement in the children's services workforce will help to address gender stereotyping. On the contrary, there is some evidence to suggest that greater male participation may simply serve to reinforce traditional gender views. Given the other disadvantages referred to previously as potentially associated with an increase in the male presence in the children's services workforce (see MacNaughton & Williams, 2001 for further clarification), it is not surprising that there is some ambivalence about the prospect.
Ambivalence towards this topic may partially account for contradictions seemingly associated with the employment of males as teachers of young children. Seifert (1974), for example, pointed out that in ‘theory' many people favour increasing the number of males, but in practice may not really welcome men when they actually express interest in working with young children. Consequently, if it is deemed desirable to actively seek ways to recruit men into the workforce, this needs to be complemented with less critical attitudes towards their motivation and accommodating workplace behaviour (Santiago, 1999).
The NSW surveys
To investigate attitudes towards male children's services staff, we conducted a survey of NSW university students enrolled in early childhood and primary teaching degrees. Four NSW universities (two from metropolitan Sydney and two from regional NSW) agreed to cooperate. The survey was restricted to first year students in order to overcome the possible influence of occupational/professional socialisation. The timing of the survey distribution varied from university to university: some were conducted in the October-November period of 2002, while some were conducted in the January-February period of 2003. In all cases, only ‘first year' education students were sampled, identified by the ‘introductory' subjects of their enrolment. Reviewing data on the gender composition of students and the workforce revealed that the absolute small number of males either employed in the workforce or undertaking relevant study was a major limitation on the design and conduct of survey research into gender-related issues relevant to children's services. In order to capture attitudes and perceptions of males, the distribution of the student survey was skewed towards male participants. Surveys were distributed to 100 per cent of male early childhood education students, and a random sample of 50 per cent of male primary education students, 20 per cent of female early childhood education students, and 10 per cent of female primary education students. A total of 360 questionnaires were distributed and 114 usable surveys were returned, a response rate of 32 per cent, with 28 (25%) replies from males. The average age of respondents was 26 years.
The second survey involved staff employed in 47 centre-based children's services in NSW. The centres included both long day care and preschool services, located in metropolitan Sydney, other metropolitan centres, and regional NSW. The centres employed an average of about eight staff each, and were a mixture of not-for-profit and for-profit services. Depending on the management structure of the centre, either the employing entity or the centre director (coordinator) was contacted, and consent to survey the staff was obtained. A total of 377 survey packages were distributed, resulting in 107 usable questionnaires being returned, a response rate of 28 per cent. Consistent with the gender make-up of the industry workforce, only four replies were from males. The average age of the respondents was 38 years.
Unsympathetic attitudes of parents towards males would impact not only on recruitment but also on retention. To examine this factor, we conducted a survey of parents. The parent survey sample came from those parents whose children attended a subset of 16 of the 47 children's services used for the staff survey. A total of 543 surveys were distributed, resulting in 137 usable questionnaires being returned, a response rate of 25 per cent. Only 11 (8%) replies came from male parents. In light of the very small number of males currently employed in the children's services workforce, it was surprising to find 54 parents (39%) had at some time sent their children to a centre which employed a male, and a further 26 (19%) reported some knowledge of males working in the industry, though their own children had no personal experience of male staff. The high profile of males in children's services—as reported by the parents—is, despite their very small number, an indication of the ‘novelty value' of male workers.
All three survey questionnaires contained two parts: one seeking information on the demographic attributes of the respondents, and one eliciting attitudes towards a range of topics associated with the employment of men in preschool education and child care services, measured on a five-point Likert-type scale. The attitudinal questions for the student and staff surveys were identical, though phrased differently to reflect the dissimilar employment situations of each sample. Analysis and discussion of the comparisons between the student and staff responses is reported elsewhere, so will not be commented on here (see Quinn, Lyons & Sumsion, 2003). Nevertheless, 21 of the 29 attitudinal questions contained in the parent survey were also contained in the two other surveys, and the comparison of the responses to these questions is discussed below. We grouped the questions into three separate factors which are put forward as disincentives to male employment in children's services: gender role attitudes, labour market issues, and workplace issues. A fourth factor has been labelled ‘policy issues' because it deals with possible institutional and government initiatives to entice men into the children's services workforce.
The need for male ‘role models'
Before discussing the four factors, the contested issue of males as ‘role models' deserves consideration. Indeed, one of the motivations of the federal government to permit more favourable treatment for males was the lack of ‘male role models for boys' (Nelson & Ruddock, 2004). In the second reading speech of the Sex Discrimination Amendment (Teaching Profession) Bill 2004 the federal attorney-general claimed ‘The figures speak for themselves … A mere 3.6 percent of the 7,115 students training to become early childhood teachers in Australia are men' (Ruddock, 2004, p. 26,369). The concept of the male ‘role model' was justified as the basis for the amendment:
The government believes that addressing the imbalance in the number of male and female teachers in the profession is important in providing students with both male and female role models … The imbalance in the number of male and female teachers, in particular in pre-school and primary schools, means that boys and girls are without male role models … This has a detrimental impact on education for boys … Students throughout Australia will benefit from having both male and female role models in the teaching profession (Ruddock, 2004, p. 26,370).
Statements such as these show little awareness of contemporary understandings about how children construct gender and negotiate their gender identities. Rather, they are grounded in now largely discredited socialisation theories of gender which posit that children develop their ideas about gender and appropriate gender behaviours through exposure to a range of influences, particularly parents, the media, peers and teachers. These theories downplay the child's active role in gender construction.
Critics argue that learning gender is highly complex, involving far more than a process of osmosis (Davies, 1989; MacNaughton & Newman, 2001). Socialisation theories, they assert, do not adequately explain the interplay between individual experience and social norms in the construction of gender. Nor do they address questions about children's agency in resisting or rejecting dominant understandings of gender, and how they go about exercising this agency. In addition, they provide little insight into what children do when confronted with conflicting understandings, or how they go about choosing between competing understandings (MacNaughton & Newman, 2001). In other words, these critics assert, ‘we need to do more than model different forms of masculinity for children to create any change in how they form and reform themselves as gender beings' (MacNaughton & Newman, p. 151, citing Davies, 1989).
Despite the limitations of socialisation theories of gender construction, given the currency of the concept of the ‘role model' in shaping policy, the student and staff survey questionnaires contained a number of items to gauge the respondents' perceptions of the influence of ‘role models' on their behaviour. We focused specifically on the possible influence of teachers as role models for career choice, a narrow but arguably tangible possible outcome of the effects of ‘role modelling'.
Accordingly, we asked the student respondents if their career choice (i.e. early childhood education or primary education teacher) was influenced by either a female or male primary school teacher: My decision to become a teacher of young children was influenced by having a female primary school teacher who I perceived as a role model and My decision to become a teacher of young children was influenced by having a male primary school teacher who I perceived as a role model. Only 27 per cent and 11 per cent, respectively, indicated this was so. Reponses to the question My decision to become a teacher of young children was influenced by a friend or relative in the teaching profession found that one-third had their career choice influenced by a friend or relative in the teaching profession. The influence of teachers on the staff respondents was even less noticeable than with the students. Responses to the question My decision to become a teacher of young children was influenced by experience working with young children in another setting revealed that positive experiences of working with young children were more important career influences on both the students and staff (75% and 62% respectively) than a ‘role model' was. Thus in one, albeit narrow, respect the survey results counter the suggestion that males (or perhaps females) in teaching roles will be influential role models for children. However, over 90 per cent of the students and staff indicated that they, themselves, will be or are positive role models for children; these role model aspirations, though, are no doubt wider than just job-related behaviour. These results suggest that career choice may not be influenced by direct teacher role models and that the more important ‘role model' influences are found outside the formal education and care environment, casting some doubt on the motivations of federal government policy.
Gender roles
The assumption that women are somehow more suited to work with young children, and conversely that men are not, is put forward both anecdotally and in the academic literature as a reason for the gender make-up of the children's services workforce. This assumption reflects traditional views of gender that conflate being female with being maternal. Indeed, employers of long day care staff have argued as recently as the mid-1990s that the only attribute employees need is an affinity and empathy with children (Lyons, 1998). Overall, gender-based assumptions were not evident in the attitudes of the survey respondents. Less than 10 per cent considered that women have an instinct for working with young children. Over 90 per cent considered that both females and males require relevant training, as this ability is a learned skill. Finally, over 90 per cent indicated that they would welcome more male staff in the early childhood care and education workforce (see Table 1). The consistency of the gender role attitudes among the students, staff and parents is both welcome and unexpected.
| Table 1: Gender role issues, comparisons of means |
| Question | Students | Staff | Parents |
| I would welcome more males in the profession | 4.4(0.80) | 4.3(0.88) | 4.3(0.77) |
| Males can provide the same quality of care as female staff | 4.4(0.77) | 4.3(0.78) | 4.2(0.81) |
| Male staff are just as good as females at relating to children | 4.3(0.81) | 4.2(0.78) | 4.1(0.87) |
| Being able to relate to young children requires skill | 4.3(0.70) | 4.2(0.90) | 4.5(0.72) |
| Working with young children is ‘natural' for women | 2.5(1.00) | 2.0(0.93) | 2.3(1.30) |
| Females need training to teach young children | 4.2(0.88) | 4.3(0.71) | 4.4(0.73) |
| Males need training to teach young children | 4.2(0.91) | 4.3(0.70) | 4.4(0.74) |
| Notes: mean of 1 = strongly disagree, mean of 5 = strongly agree; standard deviation in parentheses. |
Labour market issues
Labour market issues, particularly pay, are put forward as strong reasons why men do not desire or seek employment in children's services. The majority of students and parents also indicated that wages are a disincentive to males, and that the more attractive pay available in other occupations or professions is an incentive for men employed in children's services to leave. Perhaps not surprisingly, the impact of low pay on labour market behaviour was more intensely felt by the staff respondents (see Table 2). While it might have been expected that both the students and staff would indicate that working with young children is not an ‘easy' occupation, given that they were undergoing or had competed study in the field, it was unforeseen that the parents would have similar attitudes to the work in light of the repeated assertion of some children's services employers that the nature of the work is relatively undemanding (Industrial Relations Commission of NSW, 2002).
| Table 2: Labour market issues, comparisons of means |
| Question | Students | Staff | Parents |
| Profession often a second choice for males | 3.8(0.86) | 3.5(0.95) | 3.1(1.08) |
| Working with young children is easier than other jobs | 1.9(0.94) | 1.7(0.78) | 1.6(0.80) |
| Wages are adequate to recruit males into the profession | 2.5(1.03) | 1.7(0.98) | 2.3(0.94) |
| Future salary expectations influence tenure of males | 3.5(0.84) | 3.8(1.02) | 3.5(0.82) |
| Males move to careers outside education for higher pay | 3.7(0.86) | 4.0(0.87) | 3.5(0.81) |
| Notes: mean of 1 = strongly disagree, mean of 5 = strongly agree; standard deviation in parentheses. |
Workplace issues
Conduct in the children's services workplace by men is another factor cited as a possible obstacle to male employment in the industry. One aspect of this concern is child protection, implying male staff cannot—or should not—behave in the same manner towards young children as do female staff. Overall, only about 40 per cent of the respondents agreed with this proposition, and this was expressed more intensely by the students. The student responses are most likely a reflection of the higher proportion of males in this sample, and the more cautious attitude of the male students to the issue of child protection (see Table 3). Carrington (2002) also found that male teacher education students were more aware of the issue of child protection than were their female student colleagues. Perhaps the most noteworthy finding in this regard is the parent responses, as they appeared to be less concerned about child protection than were the students or staff (although it is still a concern).
| Table 3: Workplace issues, comparisons of means |
| Question | | | |
| Males don't take early childhood jobs that should go to women | 3.0(1.07) | 3.1(1.02) | 3.5(1.25) |
| Male staff treat children the same way as do female staff | 3.4(1.11) | 3.4(1.08) | 3.1(1.00) |
| Males cannot behave normally in the profession | 2.5(1.01) | 2.4(0.91) | 2.3(1.02) |
| Males cannot act in the same way as female co-workers in situations such as being alone with children, or displaying affection towards them | 2.7(1.34) | 2.8(1.21) | 2.9(1.27) |
| Notes: mean of 1 = strongly disagree, mean of 5 = strongly agree; standard deviation in parentheses. |
As observed previously, the desire to increase the number of men working in preschool education and childcare services is not universal. One of the apprehensions about attracting more men to the profession is that they will—over time—bypass direct contact roles with young children and seek managerial or leadership positions. This is not a groundless concern, as men disproportionately occupy school principal jobs and director of nursing positions relative to the male composition of the respective professional workforces. To be sure, about double the proportion of men are ‘child care coordinators' as is found in the general ‘child care' workforce. While a sizable proportion of the staff and student respondents indicated that this outcome is a possibility in early childhood services (about one-third), more staff disagreed with the proposition (see Table 3). Given the divided views on this issue, this aspect of inducing more men into the workforce is one that would require ongoing scrutiny.
Policy implications
While the attitudes of the students, staff and parents towards male employment in early childhood care and education services are interesting in the abstract, they have more value if used to inform institutional (universities and vocational training providers), employer and government policies (staffing regulations and the Quality Improvement and Accreditation System, for example). As the populations represented by the survey respondents would be directly affected by any policy initiatives, we also sought their views on a number of possible strategies to increase the number of men working in children's services. About two-thirds of the students and staff (and about three-quarters of parents) agreed that the ‘opportunities' for males could improve. The vast majority of both students and staff (and parents)—more than three-quarters—agreed that education providers could make their courses more attractive to men (see Table 4). However, their attitudes to a financial inducement, ‘sign-on' payments, were modest: about half the responses were neutral and only about one-third agreed with the idea. The parent respondents, somewhat surprisingly, reported similar attitudes to the proposal as those held by the students and staff. No clear picture was detected from the responses as to what direction future recruitment publicity should take: for example, whether it should focus on more traditional ‘masculine' behaviour of men, or towards the less traditional ‘nurturing instincts' of men. Both suggestions received almost identical responses from all three groups of survey respondents, with a slight bias towards the ‘masculine' focus from the students and staff (the parents had the same views for both suggestions). Overall, the male students favoured advertising campaigns more than the female students did, though this difference was not statistically significant (see Table 4). The somewhat ambiguous replies to the policy-related questions reinforce the necessity to appreciate the complexity of factors involved when developing proposals to increase the number of men in gender-atypical occupations and professions generally, and preschool education and child care services in particular.
| Table 4: Policy issues, comparisons of means |
| Question | Students | Staff | Parents |
| More opportunities for males in the profession needed | 3.6(0.86) | 3.7(0.77) | 3.8(0.69) |
| ‘Sign-on bonuses' would help to recruit more males | 3.3(0.94) | 3.2(0.99) | 3.1(0.87) |
| Study courses for teachers of young children should promote programs that recruit males into early childhood teaching careers | 3.9(0.84) | 3.8(0.98) | 3.9(0.85) |
| Advertising which appeals to more ‘masculine' aspects of teaching young children would help to recruit more males into careers as teachers in this field | 3.5(1.00) | 3.4(1.00) | 3.3(0.95) |
| Advertising which appeals to male ‘nurturing instincts' would help recruit more males into careers as teachers of young children | 3.3(0.98) | 3.4(0.95) | 3.3(0.85) |
| Notes: mean of 1 = strongly disagree, mean of 5 = strongly agree; standard deviation in parentheses. |
Conclusion
This paper has discussed the responses of parents, staff and students to 21 attitudinal survey questions related to the employment of males in children's services. The survey questions were grouped around four separate issues: gender roles, labour market behaviour, workplace behaviour, and policy initiatives. One possible limitation of the research could be that the views of the three groups discussed—students, children's services workers, and parents who use children's services—may not be representative of overall community attitudes, as their values may be ‘contaminated' by their proximity to children's services and/or by occupational allegiances. Overall, we detected little opposition to increasing the number of male staff in the industry. While this finding is welcomed, the more interesting feature of the survey respondents' attitudes was their uniformity of views. This result was surprising, given the different motivations and interests of the parents, staff and students. The results indicate that policy initiatives designed to encourage more men into the workforce need to consider the full gamut of influences affecting gender-related attitudes and gender-related behaviour.
Endnotes
1. An earlier version of this paper was presented at the European Early Childhood Education Research Association conference, Malta, September 2004. The authors acknowledge the financial support provided by the NSW Department of Community Services, which allowed the research to proceed. The views expressed in the article are those of the authors, and are not necessarily the views of the department.
2. For the purposes of this paper we have excluded both forms of post-school education, higher education (universities) and vocational education and training (VET), from our discussion of ‘education'. Nevertheless, males constitute about 61 per cent of university lecturers and 49 per cent VET teachers in Australia (ABS, 2002).
3. Males constitute only about eight per cent of registered nurses in Australia, yet occupy about 11 per cent of director of nursing positions (ABS, 2002).
References
ABS (Australian Bureau of Statistics) (2000). Employee earnings and hours, Australia, catalogue number 6306.0.
ABS (Australian Bureau of Statistics) (2002). Census of population and housing, catalogue number 2022.0 (unpublished data).
ACE (Australian College of Educators) (2001). Executive Summary. Teachers in Australian schools. A report from the 1999 national survey. Canberra: Australian College of Educators. Retrieved 25 March 2002, .
Allahyari, A. R. (1997). Still a man's world: Men who do woman's work. Journal of Contemporary Ethnography, 26(2), 236-238.
Budge, D. (1998, 28 August). Pervert label puts men off teaching. The Times Educational Supplement, p. 1.
Cameron, C. (2001). Promise or problem? A review of the literature on men working in early childhood services. Gender, Work and Organization, 8(4), 430-453.
Cameron, C., Moss, P., & Owen, P. (Eds.) (1999). Men in the nursery: Gender and caring work. London: Paul Chapman.
Cameron, C., Owen, C., & Moss, P. (2001). Entry, retention and loss: A study of childcare students and workers. Research Report No. 275. Norwich, UK: Department for Education and Science.
Carrington, B. (2002). A quintessentially feminine domain? Student teachers' construction of primary education as a career. Educational Studies, 28(3), 287-303.
Cortis, N. (2000). Gender, pay equity and human service work: A New South Wales case study. Australian Journal of Political Science, 35(1), 49-62.
CREW (Centre for Research on Employment and Work) (2000). Pay equity in Queensland: A report to the Department of Employment, Training and Industrial Relations, (Attachment 2, Queensland Government Submission, Queensland Industrial Relations Commission Pay Equity Inquiry, Matter No. B1568 of 2000, December 2000).
Davies, B. (1989). Frogs and snails and feminist tales: Preschool children and gender. Sydney: Allen & Unwin.
DeCorse, C. J. B., & Vogtle, S. P. (1997). In a complex voice: The contradictions of male elementary teachers' career choice and professional identity. Journal of Teacher Education, 48(1), 37-46.
Farquhar, S. (1997). Are male teachers really necessary? Paper presented at the NZARE Conference, Auckland, New Zealand (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 417 821).
Industrial Relations Commission of New South Wales (2002). Teachers (non-government preschools) (State) Award [2001] NSWIRComm 335 revised. Matter numbers IRC 2261 and 2262 of 2000, Judgment of Justice Schmidt.
House of Representatives Standing Committee on Education and Training (2002). Boys: Getting it right. Report on the inquiry into the education of boys. Canberra: House of Representatives.
Lyons, M. (1998). The study of gender in the employment relationship: Some evidence from the Australian childcare industry.
International Journal of Employment Studies, 6(2), 175-199.
MacNaughton, G., & Newman, B. (2001). Masculinities and men in early childhood: Reconceptualising our theory and our practice. In E. Dau (Ed.), The anti-bias approach in early childhood (pp. 145-157). Sydney: Longman.
Murray, S. B. (1996). ‘We all love Charles': Men in child care and the social construction of gender. Gender & Society, 10(4), 368-385.
Murray, S. B. (2001). When a scratch becomes ‘a scary story': The social construction of micro panics in center-based child care. Sociological Review, 49(4), 512-529.
Nelson, B., & Ruddock, P. (2004). Clearing the way for more male primary teachers. Media release, 9 March.
Owen, C. (1998). Men as workers in services for young children: Prolegomena. In C. Owen, C. Cameron & P. Moss (Eds.), Men as workers in services for young children: Issues of a mixed gender workforce (pp. 3-10). London: Institute of Education, University of London.
Penn, H., & McQuail, S. (1997). Child care as a gendered occupation. Research Report No. 23. Norwich, UK: Department for Education and Employment.
Quinn, A., Lyons, M., & Sumsion, J. (2003). Males and early childhood care and education: Student, staff and parent survey evidence. In G. While, S. Corby & C. Stanworth (Eds.), Regulation, de-regulation and re-regulation: The scope of employment relations in the 21st century (pp. 575-596). Proceedings of the 11th annual conference of the International Employment Relations Association, University of Greenwich, July. Sydney: International Employment Relations Association.
Ruddock, P. (2004). Sex Discrimination Amendment (Teaching Profession) Bill 2004, second reading speech. Hansard, House of Representatives. Number 4 of 2004, 10 March 2004. Retrieved 25 May 2004, .
Santiago, A. (1999). Male early childhood Montessori teachers: Why they chose to teach. (ERIC Reproduction Service No. ED 027 614).
Seifert, K. (1974). Perceptions of men in early childhood education. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. 125 756.)
Sumsion, J. (2000a). Rewards, risks and tensions: Perceptions of males enrolled in an early childhood teacher education programme. Asia-Pacific Journal of Teacher Education, 28(1), 87-100.
Sumsion, J. (2000b). Negotiating otherness: A male early childhood educator's gender positioning. International Journal of Early Years Education, 8(2), 129-140.
AJEC Volume 30 No 1 March 2005 You can purchase this issue of the Australian Journal of Early Childhood now.
If you liked this article, you can 'social bookmark' it with others who might be searching for good content on early childhood. This means you can share your favourite webpages with others, or just keep an online list of your bookmarks so you can access them on any computer.
Read more about social bookmarks
|
|
|
Last Updated ( Monday, 26 March 2007 )
|
 |
|
|
